While I get a bit sick of the lurid, unimaginative emphasis on big carnivores on television channels like Animal Planet (whatever happened to David Attenborough and the subtler approach to nature documentaries?) I haven't seem anyone in western zoos feeding live goats to big cats, as in this story from the Daily Mail (hat tip: Audacious Epigone).
The difference in attitudes to animal rights between China and the West appears to be a lot bigger than most westerners realise. It's no wonder the New Zealand Green Party isn't too keen on a free trade deal with the People's Republic.
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Dumbing Down Culture
In recent decades there has been a steady decline in the intellectual content of many aspects of Western culture from secondary education and television, to museum displays and political commentary. Although this intellectual decline is portrayed as the inevitable effect of economic deregulation it has also been fuelled by a suspect ‘blank slate’ theory of human nature.
American evolutionary psychologist Stephen Pinker describes the contemporary definition of human nature as a ‘blank slate’ theory since it is based on the assumption that human nature is infinitely mouldable. However, it is arguable that most of the population believes that genetics are at least as influential in shaping human capabilities and behaviour. Now evolutionary psychology is starting to confirm the common sense assumption that human nature is primarily influenced by genetics.
In contemporary thinking it is assumed that if ‘boring’ high culture, and intellectually challenging subjects, can be made more appealing to less educated, lower IQ people then such people will become more cultured and intelligent. However, if human intelligence is primarily determined by genetics then this is an unrealistic goal that will result in a big waste of resources.
In contemporary secondary schools many students are leaving school at 18 with little more knowledge than many children who left school at 15 in the 1950s. In my view, a large part of the reason for this is because a lot of teaching time is devoted to abstract discussions that only benefit a relatively small proportion of students- those that have a natural interest in abstract thinking. Children who lack the aptitute abstract thinking would be better off being taught more facts and practical skills. Although secondary education shouldn’t be as dry and rote learning orientated as it was in the 1950s, the pendulum has clearly shifted too far in the liberal direction.
Similarly, at the tertiary level many practical training courses are padded out with pop psychology, politically correct theory, and unnecessary management concepts that would be better taught at a later stage of left out completely.
Given all the abstract theory that is taught to today’s students one would expect that their general knowledge would be high and that they would have a big interest in topics like science, politics, and history. Sadly, for the blank slate theorists, there has been no popular increase in 'hi-brow' media such as classic literature and broadsheet newspapers.
Surprisingly, although there have been a lot of initiatives to cut costs in education the number of para-professionals in the public education sector as a whole also increased substantially. In fact as education has become more commercialised it’s actually got more expensive and inefficient.
If education were primarily driven by commercial considerations then it would make sense to make education more conservative and less progressive. In the private sector it is prudent to trim any activities and staff that are of unproven value. Yet in most Western countries education providers continues to add new courses, pad out existing courses, and keep kids at school longer without any evidence that pupils are actually benefiting academically or professionally.
In cultural institutions like museums there has also been a lot of rhetoric about market driven reform and the need to appeal to a wider audience with a ‘dumbing down’ of exhibitions in many cases. However, again staff numbers and wages have increased without any clear evidence that this has stimulated tourism or increased public knowledge of art, local history, natural science, e.t.c.
In public television there has bee a decline in intelligent drama and comedy, in depth news and documentaries. Again, although this may make some economic sense it is noticeable that the number of staff in television has not declined. Hence, as a cost cutting exercise television reform hasn’t really succeeded. If cost cutting were the main goal then public broadcasters could simply reduce the number of channels and programmes without having to compromise quality. This could also minimise advertising as fewer channels would allow broadcasters to sell advertising space at a higher premium.
Public spending on culture in recent decades has been premised on an optimistic, ‘more is good’ philosophy based on a particular view of human nature. If people are moulded by their environment then this is perfectly logical. However, if human nature is largely a given, then an uncritical, expansionist policy is likely to prove counter-productive, regardless of whether it is driven by the state or the private sector.
American evolutionary psychologist Stephen Pinker describes the contemporary definition of human nature as a ‘blank slate’ theory since it is based on the assumption that human nature is infinitely mouldable. However, it is arguable that most of the population believes that genetics are at least as influential in shaping human capabilities and behaviour. Now evolutionary psychology is starting to confirm the common sense assumption that human nature is primarily influenced by genetics.
In contemporary thinking it is assumed that if ‘boring’ high culture, and intellectually challenging subjects, can be made more appealing to less educated, lower IQ people then such people will become more cultured and intelligent. However, if human intelligence is primarily determined by genetics then this is an unrealistic goal that will result in a big waste of resources.
In contemporary secondary schools many students are leaving school at 18 with little more knowledge than many children who left school at 15 in the 1950s. In my view, a large part of the reason for this is because a lot of teaching time is devoted to abstract discussions that only benefit a relatively small proportion of students- those that have a natural interest in abstract thinking. Children who lack the aptitute abstract thinking would be better off being taught more facts and practical skills. Although secondary education shouldn’t be as dry and rote learning orientated as it was in the 1950s, the pendulum has clearly shifted too far in the liberal direction.
Similarly, at the tertiary level many practical training courses are padded out with pop psychology, politically correct theory, and unnecessary management concepts that would be better taught at a later stage of left out completely.
Given all the abstract theory that is taught to today’s students one would expect that their general knowledge would be high and that they would have a big interest in topics like science, politics, and history. Sadly, for the blank slate theorists, there has been no popular increase in 'hi-brow' media such as classic literature and broadsheet newspapers.
Surprisingly, although there have been a lot of initiatives to cut costs in education the number of para-professionals in the public education sector as a whole also increased substantially. In fact as education has become more commercialised it’s actually got more expensive and inefficient.
If education were primarily driven by commercial considerations then it would make sense to make education more conservative and less progressive. In the private sector it is prudent to trim any activities and staff that are of unproven value. Yet in most Western countries education providers continues to add new courses, pad out existing courses, and keep kids at school longer without any evidence that pupils are actually benefiting academically or professionally.
In cultural institutions like museums there has also been a lot of rhetoric about market driven reform and the need to appeal to a wider audience with a ‘dumbing down’ of exhibitions in many cases. However, again staff numbers and wages have increased without any clear evidence that this has stimulated tourism or increased public knowledge of art, local history, natural science, e.t.c.
In public television there has bee a decline in intelligent drama and comedy, in depth news and documentaries. Again, although this may make some economic sense it is noticeable that the number of staff in television has not declined. Hence, as a cost cutting exercise television reform hasn’t really succeeded. If cost cutting were the main goal then public broadcasters could simply reduce the number of channels and programmes without having to compromise quality. This could also minimise advertising as fewer channels would allow broadcasters to sell advertising space at a higher premium.
Public spending on culture in recent decades has been premised on an optimistic, ‘more is good’ philosophy based on a particular view of human nature. If people are moulded by their environment then this is perfectly logical. However, if human nature is largely a given, then an uncritical, expansionist policy is likely to prove counter-productive, regardless of whether it is driven by the state or the private sector.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
