Thoughts on Teaching toward Ideals in a Less-Than Ideal World
Part I: The Understood Tensions inTeaching Ideals
[Click on highlighted words in this post for support links.]
The instructional philosophy and program of any school
is based on a set of assumptions. Some call these assumptions a worldview for
they do, indeed, determine how we interpret the world around us. An important
characteristic of one’s worldview is determining whether it is shaped by fixed ideals
or changing norms. Teaching from a foundation of ideals is to some too idealistic—too
out-dated, to out of touch with reality, too authoritative, too non-inclusive—to
be included in the 21st Century classroom. But if guiding principles
and ideals cannot be taught in a school setting, what hope is there beyond its
walls? Ideals are standards of expectation toward which individuals or societies
can strive; they are not meant to govern, per se, but to guide.
Ideals do not replace reality; they inspire us to improve
upon it. Self-governance, for example, is an ideal which requires the
reality of law enforcement, but
this fact does not make reality
more important than the ideals that
help shape it; it merely reflects the interdependence of the two terms. Ideals
that have no effect upon reality are no more attractive than reality which does
not reflect ideals.
Just as there is interdependence between ideals and reality, ideals
themselves cannot properly function in isolation. The quality of mercy,
for instance, means little without the reality of justice. It is the
natural tension between the two ideals that makes each effective. There is
similar tension between our founder’s ideals of equality and freedom.
Most free people consider it self-evident that “all men are created
equal,” and such equality is best seen in the equal disbursement of freedom.
Within the context of liberty, however, comes the freedom to excel, to “build a
better mousetrap,” so to speak. Excelling is a competitive process that implies
doing something BETTER than—not equal
to—the other guy.
Thomas Jefferson’s understanding of equally-created people in their pursuit of happiness means little without the freedom to excel—which is to rise
above "sameness" with those in the same pursuit. Freedom also allows people
to rest in that pursuit—and to be content with the way things are or to reach
different conclusions regarding similar things:
In other words, one can build a better
mousetrap if he chooses; or rally for the rights of mice as PETA
chooses; or build a kingdom and a fortune with a mouse as Disney did. Three
very different paths, freely chosen, with very unequal outcomes, and there is room for all three perspectives in the principled pluralism of a constitutional republic.
[Note: This does not mean that PETA's cry for animal rights is morally equal to causes like Right to Life. It simply means that, constitutionally speaking, PETA activists are free to equate themselves with rats so long as they treat people who disagree with them humanely.]
The understood tension between freedom and equality
is better understood when equality is seen as the ideal of providing a level
playing field rather than manipulating an equal score. To whatever
extent equality guarantees
outcomes each individual’s freedom to excel is proportionately diminished. Schools are wise to teach the importance of equal
opportunity in conjunction with each person’s freedom to excel. There is a similar relationship between individual and corporate effort. Even though doing one’s
best is an individual responsibility, achieving excellence is rarely done
in isolation; it is more attainable with the help of parents,
teachers, and peers; and it is more sustainable in the context
of community and complementary skill sets.
It is the tension between valued ideals that makes them
difficult to teach and emulate, but the task is also hard because ideals are
not comfortable. Ideals do not exist to conform to man’s nature but to transform
it. Formative ideals must naturally be harder than the nature they hope to
transform. There’s the rub.
Striving toward individual or collective ideals
implies friction, effort and yielding, falling down and getting up and starting
all over again. There is after all, that continuous clash between ideals
and the realities of resistance. But just because just causes sometimes
fail does not mean justice will not more often prevail; just because exceptions
to a rule may sometimes be in order does not mean order itself should
not be preserved; and just because students may see brokenness in and around
themselves each day should not dim their hopes of a better tomorrow and purpose for embracing it.
The process of teaching ideals begins with an understanding of human
nature. Left to his own devises is man basically good at heart ?... or is man's nature prone toward depravity changed only by divine intervention? The answer determines one's worldview.
As is so vividly depicted in William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, the
question of man's nature is answered by the this unfolding reality: human behavior is only as "good" as his sense that
authority exists to which he will someday give an account. The story proves that the ability to exercise "good judgment" individually requires an authoritative sense of right and wrong and the belief that collective accountability to that authority will someday be restored.
Golding's tale [see film here] reveals that, when shared ideals and expectations erode, behavior devolves to each man doing what is right in his own eyes. "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die" becomes the existential law of the island [which is a symbol of earth] as fewer and fewer boys believe that someone will save them. Lost is a hope of rescue (salvation), and equally lost is the notion that the boys will ever give an account of their actions on the island.
As hope fades, the unifying call of the conch shell soon gives way to fear followed by bravado and tribal chants to do away with Ralph and "Piggy" who dare hold to forgotten moral codes as they speak out against wrong behavior. A society that stops calling things "wrong" may suppress feelings of guilt in the short term, but in the long term, guilt-free depravity removes the foundation upon which individual freedom and corporate governance function. The last scene of Lord of the Flies is an excellent illustration of this truth.
Teaching toward ideals is
not about survivalism or a vain attempt to build a Utopian society. Nor should it breed judgmental eyes or nose-lifting elitism. Just as one can embrace ideals without becoming a blind ideologue, one can strive to develop principled good judgment without becoming the earthly judge of those choose not to agree with it. This approach echos the old maxim of etiquette: The truest test of manners is how one treats
those who lack them.
A balanced approach to teaching of and toward ideals does not mean
teachers must be neutral, always
claiming the middle ground or forever straddling every fence as if they hold no personal beliefs; balance does not mean
they must teach that all belief systems are equal, for indeed, history proves they
are not. Ideas have consequences for better or worse, and it is the long-term effect of an idea on the future of an organization or civilization that should determine its merit in the present. It is a selfless and noble worldview that can project unintended consequences of "change" beyond a lifetime to the next generation.
Part II: Are we talking about Ideas or Ideals? What is the difference?
Here it may be
helpful to point out the difference between ideas and ideals.
Both words are
derived from the Greek root, Ãdein ‘to see’. Its first use is seen in Plato's writing where the root word ideo is used to mean the “archetypal form of something,” the
standard to strive for, which implies objective meaning beyond one’s own
thoughts. Applying the root meaning “to see,” it is as if an idea is
a spark in the mind (or the light bulb a cartoonist might draw over an
inventor’s head) whereas an ideal is a beacon, a lighthouse in the
distance that guides.
In
modern usage, the word idea more
often refers to a subjective notion or creative thought originating in one’s
mind. Ideas are far more
subjective, spontaneous, and innumerable than ideals. Ideas may be good or bad, and therefore,
shared ideas require collective scrutiny. The more people an idea affects, the
more inclusive the dialogue should be. Ideas are wonderful part of being created in the image of God. Ideas fuel inventiveness, ingenuity, creativity, problems solving, etc.
The story of mankind cannot be told without understanding the many ideas that have come and gone through the centuries. During such discussions participants should
not confuse a genuine respect for one's right to share and idea (or hold an opinion) with a pretense of equal respect for all ideas or opinions.
Credibility must be earned. Sound ideas gain acceptance through merit, and in that sense they become more like ideals if they stand the test of time. For this reason, students
must understand that the ideal of “free speech” does not guarantee
the non-existent right of "equal acceptance of all ideas." This is not to say that acceptance or public opinion alone determines the merit of an idea. What may be
popular is not always right, and what is right may not always be popular. A balanced approach to teaching ideals equips students to take a stand and to practice principled pluralism with others. Understanding these terms is essential to teaching toward ideals in a
less than ideal world.
Part III: The Importance of Teaching toward Ideals Rather Than Norms
As previously mentioned, formative ideals must be
harder than the nature they hope to transform.
Ideals inspire standards which hold true over long periods of time. It is the static nature of ideals
that causes them to fall in and out of favor—particularly within cultures that
thrive on constant change whose very economies depend upon planned obsolesence in everything from fashion to durable goods.
Norms are collective patterns of behavior and
societal tolerances. They are shaped by trends and the shifting winds of
politics, pop-culture and public opinion. Norms are not inherently good or bad,
right or wrong, but they tend to absorb absolutes and dissolve differences—to
blend the black and white to gray. Norms seek an ever broader way and embrace
the exchange of “new for old” on the assumption that change itself is naturally
toward what is good. Little thought is given to the burden of proof
incumbent upon change or the unintended consequences that come by failing to
meet that burden.
Norms are therefore in
constant flux as opposed to the steadfast nature of ideals. Perhaps this
tension between norms and ideals is to be expected in a democracy
in which public opinion and the power of majorities carry so many issues
of the day. Ironically, however, the more tolerant a society becomes to
constant change the less tolerant that society is toward those who hold to
changeless ideals. Some call this phenomenon “reverse intolerance" or "unprincipled pluralism.” It is more
often exhibited in cynicism based on the false premise that an “open mind” is
superior to a firm belief. As a natural result, fewer and fewer firm
beliefs are tolerated and therefore, over time, they are silenced or less frequently expressed.
The ever-broader nature of cultural norms eventually prompts observers to ask, “If
anything goes, what stays?” Over time—sometimes decades, sometimes
centuries—it is the fluid, ever-dissolving, ever-absorbing nature of norms that
brings them to a saturation point. It is then that a lost society stares deep in the
cloudy saturated solution of norms and sees that on forgotten fibers deep
inside crystals have formed, hard as rock. These crystals take on new value
though they are as old as time; they are the ideals that were dissolved and forgotten in the swirl and heat and
fluidity of time and change. The stability of a community rests in its ability to separate enduring ideals from swirling, temporal norms and ask: “How then should we live?”
The Latin term for "the way things are" is status quo. In Western culture those two words are almost always used in the pegorative sense. Progressive attitudes assume that change for change sake is for the better.
In change-driven cultures, norms gradually assume the formative role of ideals. The rightness of a norm is
proven by its acceptance into normality. In this sense, "rightness" does not mean righteous but alright.
Something frowned upon a generation ago suddenly becomes alright,
which is counterfeit to the word’s root meaning. Profanity,
vulgarity, immodesty, lascivious grinding on a dance floor, and countless other
behaviors once considered “taboo” steadily slither into common practice under
the mantra of “Everybody’s doing it so it must be alright,” and with no
more rationale than that, norms change, and behavior that was considered
disgraceful or illegal for centuries is suddenly on parade.
In
this sense norms are like thermometers,
accepting and reflecting external changes as the new reality. Ideals are quite the opposite; they
function as a thermostat, pressing toward a mark in hopes of influencing
reality to a better end.
Cultures shaped by norms rather than ideals
tend to accommodate regrettable behavior rather than abstaining from it.…
The line schools draw between instructing toward
ideals while writing policy and creating a school culture that recognizes
the realities of human nature is an important matter for each district to
decide. It is highly recommended, however, that ideals and not norms
be used to set the guiding standards. Norms do not point where we should be
going as a society, they merely confirm the direction we are headed, which
history confirms is a never-ending cycle of “waxing worse” with time.
How
should we then live and instruct so that enduring ideals can both appeal
to conscience and help shape consensus? By teaching and modeling a human
condition that surpasses our longing to belong and our need to feel normal.
Such needs stem from an even deeper yearning: the hope of being unconditionally
loved. These needs are compelling and should affect human interaction at all
levels. But there is an unintended consequence of normalization,
even in matters pertaining to unconditional love —the most important of
all ideals. In a society that settles for coexistence, the higher ideal of unconditional
love is substituted with mere tolerance. Worse yet, if the process
of changing norms (aka, “the new normal”) becomes political or
coercive, what begins as a plea for acceptance—whatever the issue may
be—often becomes a demand for equal status of unequal things. The shift from acceptance to legislated or imposed approval
unwittingly negates the beauty of unconditional love by imposing conditions.
In other words, even when the concept of tolerance becomes a norm (noble as it may sound), it falls
sadly short of a much more valuable commodity: the ideal of unconditional
love.
Unconditional love is not
undiscerning nor is it blind to things that are wrong; it is the ability to see
what is unacceptable while at the same time seeing through it with the
hope that grace may abound.
Ideals, in the truest sense, transcend
norms. They are not just lofty words or feel-good maxims. They are not stepping
stones conveniently placed along some garden walk. Stepping stones have a purpose, but they are typically put in place by man for the paths of his own choosing.
.
Ideals are immovable
boulders deep in the ground, exposed over time in the grip of roots…and forever
bound through the ages.
They line the rugged, narrow path from where we
are to where we know we ought to be as taught in Ancient Words
proven true through centuries. They guide mankind away from the short-cuts of
mere coexistence toward the time-tested principles, purposes, and behaviors
that perpetuate life itself and nurture the best of relationship and
stewardship intended for earth as it can only be imagined in an “ideal” world.
That is the heart of the kind of “community” that transcends geography and is
built instead on the common ground of shared ideals.
The rise and fall of all civilizations is the
story of man’s struggle to strive toward ideals
that are seemingly beyond his grasp and his regrettable acceptance of
human nature’s norms that are so readily within his reach. It is through
striving—with
all the help made known to man—striving toward our highest ideals (even if not attaining them) that individuals, homes,
communities, and civilizations have the faintest hope of reflecting their
intended purposes on earth.
Ideally,
parents understand their lead role in the training and education of their
children, and ideally they can find a school partner that
understands and supports that role in a context where formative, enduring ideals
have more influence
than ever-changing norms. The
most important choices of life depend on knowing that difference, but
even when the parents and school agree on the importance of including ideals in
the educational process some important questions remain:
Who decides which ideals are expected of mankind?
Is it pop culture, political activists, the legislature and/or the courts that
decide which ideals are relevant and which are passé? Or is there a higher authorship/authority/authoritative source for such things? Is the world in which we live the
product of random chance—just part of a galactic box of BBs spilled? Is man the
master of his own fate or is there One whose Word has set the ideals and
provided the plan for all who fall short of them? Is it not this
same authority to whom each individual will someday give an account?
Some educators and school
systems claim that such questions may have a place in religion but not in
education. This assumption, however, requires a separation of learning
from life itself—separating
science from conscience, facts from faith, theory from wonder and wonder
from belief. Educating in a vacuum that leaves God and faith out of the
equation not only compartmentalizes personal existence but also elevates the
study of created things above the mere mention of a Creator. Ultimately such a “faith-free” education promises students that
they can gain a full understanding of “the whole world” while giving no thought
to things that transcend this world.
Based on most
state-required “hours of instruction,” the average student spends over 15,000
hours under the influence and supervision of school teachers during his/her
K-12 education. The quantity of time at home may be greater than the time spent
at school, and ideally the influence of the home is even more compelling, but
imagine the educational advantage of having the school and home on the same
page. Imagine students not needing to compartmentalize the lessons of life.
Imagine a school setting that purposefully integrates learning with life,
science with conscience, facts with faith, theory with wonder, and wonder with
belief.
At the time of this writing, the Pledge of Allegiance is still said in
public schools, but there is a difference between being “one nation under God”
and being a nation that strives toward His ideals. It is true that this nation
and the whole world is “under God” for He cannot be expelled from any place,
but His role as our Maker, Defender, Redeemer, and Friend has been banned by law from the curriculum, lesson plans, celebrations, and student-teacher
relationships of state-run schools. Imagine a place where the opposite is true.
Parents do have a choice in education.
Imagine an education in
which the pressures of conformity to ever-changing norms is evaluated in
the context that we are in but not of this world. Imagine a place where the norm, if you will, is caring for this world but knowing our purpose in it is to love God and others while holding
fast to the unchanging, transformative Biblical ideals shared by the school,
home, and church.
The school that is rooted
in such shared ideals becomes more than a school; it becomes a community that
partners with the home in teaching young people not only how to make a
living but also how to live.
Originally printed for CCS in booklet form in 2013
© Tom Kapanka, 2010, 2013
Abraham Kuyper was a renowned 19th century theologian who later served as Prime Minister of the Netherlands (1901 to 1905). He was a relentless advocate of K-12 Christian education who made an enduring case for publicly funded faith-based schools. One hundred years later, his efforts still serve as a model for school of choice and the value of parochial schools.
