Brian, I hope you will forgive me, I think we are engaged in the same inquiry-- and so it is my responsibility both to keep up on your postings and to find points of dissent. You wouldn't know this but I too attended an alternative education college for two years, where student reflection was put on par with scholarship and decisions were made by consensus. Each semester we defined our own learning goals and designed our own program of study.
Through one lens it was an important experience that allowed me to pursue my own areas of interest. Through another, it was deeply troubling: a bit like boarding an ocean liner and having the steward asking how YOU think an engine should work. ("What do you mean, me... Aren't YOU supposed to know?") Yes, I wanted some say over my own education-- but I also wanted to inherit the wisdom of generations and benefit from the insight that only masters have. My own experience with direct democracy-- empowering the young and ignorant to make strategic decisions for the collective-- left me much more cynical about consensus and much more concerned about the vulnerability of human beings to emotional argument and ideology.
As to meaning: one of the greatest experiences in my life thus far has been to lead a team of people who trust you to make decisions, where you can reward that trust by leading them to victory. A close runner up would be being part of a team and carrying out orders from a leader you trust. Collective decisionmaking sounds great, but it sours when it fails to produce quick, sound decisions or when it holds the collective hostage to the whims of the individual. Put another way: what most people actually want is sound leadership and unity, not egalitarianism. A well-functioning hierarchy rewards performance and gives aspiring leaders opportunities to learn, take chances, and even make mistakes. And it gives talented *followers* security, in being able to focus on their own contributions rather than responsibility for the whole.
We often forget that it was precisely democracy that gave Hitler a path to power, overcoming the opposition of the old guard-- von Hindenburg. We think of Hitler as an authoritarian, but Hitler is who the German people chose when given the opportunity to deliberate, persuade, join protests, and participate in community organizing. People don't realize the Nazi movement was deeply optimistic and inspirational at first, full of adoration for community and the masses. And people loved the Nazis precisely because they felt connected and part of a community; the marginalization of minorities was fine, *because* they were minorities.
So I agree with you that we have a corrupted democracy-- but I'm not convinced that a direct democracy leads to good outcomes. Why should we believe that uneducated people will make better decisions about governance than they would about aircraft design or thoracic surgery? Ideally, we would have a representational democracy where people are elected based on competence-- but it takes about three seconds to realize that when the masses are voting, the true path to power lies in appealing to emotion, fear, and ideology. I still believe in democracy, but I can't say anything about the last ten years has been inspiring or meaningful to me. Mostly it strikes me as obscene and absurd--like firing your doctor mid-operation so a group of bubbas can take over your surgery.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments, Winston! Here are my responses, with apologies for the time it has taken me to gather my thoughts.
Educational democracy: I agree that a rational educational program should seek to balance student agency with guidance from educators with greater expertise in subject matter and in life. I want to emphasize that at Goddard, students met with their academic advisors every week for an hour or more. In most college undergrad programs, students see their advisor for a short meeting at the start of the semester to sign of on a prescribed course of study, with some highly limited choice of electives. In addition, as I was in a teacher education program at Goddard, I had to meet state requirements for teacher licensure. In other words, my experience at Goddard involved far more personalized guidance from experts (PhD professors) than most students get in standard undergrad programs.
Students who have been trained in autocratic institutions since birth, or at least age five, generally find it challenging to exercise agency over their education and to participate in democratic decision making. This was the argument of my previous post, "Our Republic of Dictatorships." The floundering of students in more democratic programs should *not* be used as an argument to continue autocratic education, but rather to recognize the sad reality that autocracy has hobbled so many learners--has stolen their innate love of learning, and that some sort of detox transitional program should be implemented to assist students who are lucky enough to be given agency over their education.
Meaning in Autocracy: Every human system makes and maintains meaning. My argument is that democracy, as a practice, makes *better* quality meaning than autocratic systems. "Better," in my view, means, in part, that the meaning created by democratic practices is more effective, in the long run, and for the most people, at meeting human psychological needs. Does this mean autocratic systems can't provide powerfully compelling meaning? Of course not. As Chris Hedges covered in his book, "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," many soldiers (and war correspondents like Hedges) find highly autocratic military life and war deeply meaningful, so much so, that a significant number have trouble readjusting to civilian life. While I recognize the occasional necessity of war making, I hope you would agree with me that, as a meaning system, war is highly problematic.
But lets consider more quotidian forms of autocratic meaning-- being a leader in an autocratic business or sports environment. I, too, have had meaningful experiences of being a leader in such situations. Finding autocratic environments in which to operate and find meaning is easy in our republics of dictatorship. Finding meaningful experiences within authentically democratic environments is exceedingly difficult. I contend that most of us have no idea what that might look like or feel like based on our miniscule to non-existent experiences with democracy. Said more directly, perhaps most of us, including myself, have no idea what it feels like to have our core psychological needs deeply fulfilled. Goddard was my very limited taste and, even so, it was miraculous and deeply transformative for me. Is it possible that our best experiences of meaning and psychological fulfilment within autocracy would pale in comparison to what we might experience in authentic democracy. I hold out hope that this is so.
Democracy as a "Path" to Autocracy: I believe the primary lesson of Weimar Germany and Trumpist America is that autocrats feast on weak/corrupt democracies, and you cannot have a healthy democracy if your citizens are never given opportunities to practice it in their daily lives. Citizens of Germany under the leadership of people like von Hindenburg certainly had no meaningful experiences of democracy, and so of course they could be easily manipulated. Again, you seem to be arguing that the outcomes of autocracy justify its perpetuation, and if you're arguing that "old guard" autocracy is preferable to fascism, you're setting a very low bar indeed.
Brian, I hope you will forgive me, I think we are engaged in the same inquiry-- and so it is my responsibility both to keep up on your postings and to find points of dissent. You wouldn't know this but I too attended an alternative education college for two years, where student reflection was put on par with scholarship and decisions were made by consensus. Each semester we defined our own learning goals and designed our own program of study.
Through one lens it was an important experience that allowed me to pursue my own areas of interest. Through another, it was deeply troubling: a bit like boarding an ocean liner and having the steward asking how YOU think an engine should work. ("What do you mean, me... Aren't YOU supposed to know?") Yes, I wanted some say over my own education-- but I also wanted to inherit the wisdom of generations and benefit from the insight that only masters have. My own experience with direct democracy-- empowering the young and ignorant to make strategic decisions for the collective-- left me much more cynical about consensus and much more concerned about the vulnerability of human beings to emotional argument and ideology.
As to meaning: one of the greatest experiences in my life thus far has been to lead a team of people who trust you to make decisions, where you can reward that trust by leading them to victory. A close runner up would be being part of a team and carrying out orders from a leader you trust. Collective decisionmaking sounds great, but it sours when it fails to produce quick, sound decisions or when it holds the collective hostage to the whims of the individual. Put another way: what most people actually want is sound leadership and unity, not egalitarianism. A well-functioning hierarchy rewards performance and gives aspiring leaders opportunities to learn, take chances, and even make mistakes. And it gives talented *followers* security, in being able to focus on their own contributions rather than responsibility for the whole.
We often forget that it was precisely democracy that gave Hitler a path to power, overcoming the opposition of the old guard-- von Hindenburg. We think of Hitler as an authoritarian, but Hitler is who the German people chose when given the opportunity to deliberate, persuade, join protests, and participate in community organizing. People don't realize the Nazi movement was deeply optimistic and inspirational at first, full of adoration for community and the masses. And people loved the Nazis precisely because they felt connected and part of a community; the marginalization of minorities was fine, *because* they were minorities.
So I agree with you that we have a corrupted democracy-- but I'm not convinced that a direct democracy leads to good outcomes. Why should we believe that uneducated people will make better decisions about governance than they would about aircraft design or thoracic surgery? Ideally, we would have a representational democracy where people are elected based on competence-- but it takes about three seconds to realize that when the masses are voting, the true path to power lies in appealing to emotion, fear, and ideology. I still believe in democracy, but I can't say anything about the last ten years has been inspiring or meaningful to me. Mostly it strikes me as obscene and absurd--like firing your doctor mid-operation so a group of bubbas can take over your surgery.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments, Winston! Here are my responses, with apologies for the time it has taken me to gather my thoughts.
Educational democracy: I agree that a rational educational program should seek to balance student agency with guidance from educators with greater expertise in subject matter and in life. I want to emphasize that at Goddard, students met with their academic advisors every week for an hour or more. In most college undergrad programs, students see their advisor for a short meeting at the start of the semester to sign of on a prescribed course of study, with some highly limited choice of electives. In addition, as I was in a teacher education program at Goddard, I had to meet state requirements for teacher licensure. In other words, my experience at Goddard involved far more personalized guidance from experts (PhD professors) than most students get in standard undergrad programs.
Students who have been trained in autocratic institutions since birth, or at least age five, generally find it challenging to exercise agency over their education and to participate in democratic decision making. This was the argument of my previous post, "Our Republic of Dictatorships." The floundering of students in more democratic programs should *not* be used as an argument to continue autocratic education, but rather to recognize the sad reality that autocracy has hobbled so many learners--has stolen their innate love of learning, and that some sort of detox transitional program should be implemented to assist students who are lucky enough to be given agency over their education.
Meaning in Autocracy: Every human system makes and maintains meaning. My argument is that democracy, as a practice, makes *better* quality meaning than autocratic systems. "Better," in my view, means, in part, that the meaning created by democratic practices is more effective, in the long run, and for the most people, at meeting human psychological needs. Does this mean autocratic systems can't provide powerfully compelling meaning? Of course not. As Chris Hedges covered in his book, "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," many soldiers (and war correspondents like Hedges) find highly autocratic military life and war deeply meaningful, so much so, that a significant number have trouble readjusting to civilian life. While I recognize the occasional necessity of war making, I hope you would agree with me that, as a meaning system, war is highly problematic.
But lets consider more quotidian forms of autocratic meaning-- being a leader in an autocratic business or sports environment. I, too, have had meaningful experiences of being a leader in such situations. Finding autocratic environments in which to operate and find meaning is easy in our republics of dictatorship. Finding meaningful experiences within authentically democratic environments is exceedingly difficult. I contend that most of us have no idea what that might look like or feel like based on our miniscule to non-existent experiences with democracy. Said more directly, perhaps most of us, including myself, have no idea what it feels like to have our core psychological needs deeply fulfilled. Goddard was my very limited taste and, even so, it was miraculous and deeply transformative for me. Is it possible that our best experiences of meaning and psychological fulfilment within autocracy would pale in comparison to what we might experience in authentic democracy. I hold out hope that this is so.
Democracy as a "Path" to Autocracy: I believe the primary lesson of Weimar Germany and Trumpist America is that autocrats feast on weak/corrupt democracies, and you cannot have a healthy democracy if your citizens are never given opportunities to practice it in their daily lives. Citizens of Germany under the leadership of people like von Hindenburg certainly had no meaningful experiences of democracy, and so of course they could be easily manipulated. Again, you seem to be arguing that the outcomes of autocracy justify its perpetuation, and if you're arguing that "old guard" autocracy is preferable to fascism, you're setting a very low bar indeed.