[Marxism] good essay on education
mtomas3 at hotmail.com
Sat Jul 9 14:43:22 MDT 2011
Michael Babbles that he and Foster: "have been teachers for a very long time. Foster's wife is a public school teacher,deeply involved in resisting what is going on in her school. If people think that Braverman's analysis cannot be applied to education, then their thinkingis not very well developed. And the essay is an essay for the summer issue of Monthly Review, not a magnum opus on education. It is stupid to criticize an essay for not saying what it could not, given the context, say. But then perhaps I am just another 'clueless intellectual.'"
My aren't we touchy? I guess it touched a nerve. . . Although I do not withhold my view about Foster's article, which I primarily object not to its "analysis" but to its "ad nauseum" repetition of the same discourse in which too many post-modernists like to engage. In any case, my post was equally directed at the discourse on this issue following Michael's post citing the quality of progressive (read bourgeois liberal) educators as somehow leading the way because they have the "new" insight that schooling is for maintaining capitalism. I wouldn't have read the article if it had not had the stamp of approval by being posted on this list and, as I said, I was a bit hesitant to do so precisely for the defensive nonsense I was afraid I would get. His"wife is a public school teacher, deeply involved in resisting. . ."? That's a credential in addition because his office is close to yours? Seriously? I think that "Braverman's analysis cannot be applied to education"? Does that mean that I and Leonardo are saying the same thing (the only way I could interpret "if people")? One can apply any form of analysis he wants, but my point was not that an analysis is bad, but that it is seriously lacking in substance and, even if it is "just" for a summer article in a journal ought at least to go beyond a traditional discourse repeated almost with parroted precision (yes, I use that term quite a bit here, because post-modernists like it so much; it's my way of "diplmaticising", to borrow Giroux's penchant for pulling words out of . . .well). But then, Michael is correct, why should I want to put words in Foster's mouth (except for the fact that I wasn't). Maybe you should just chalk it up to me "just sayin'". No . . .wasn't criticizing "an essay for not saying what it could not", I was criticizing it (and the laudatory discoure ;) following it) for being wholly trite and the fact that it ends up here as an example as a "good essay on education" when it takes us nowhere beyond 1984 and the "Nation at Risk", especially as it tries to pass as insightful with new benchmarks like the economic crisis and NCLB.
Indeed, I was actually trying to be generous in describing the laudatory comments as coming from "clueless intellectuals"; there should be at least some decorum in a discourse (;)). You know, instead of just petulantly retorting with how long one has been teaching and that "I know a guy whose wife is a teacher", so, you (that apparently being me) are just "stupid". What next? "nanner, nanner, nanner!"?
More information about the Marxism