The Classicists Versus The Relativists

The Classicists Versus The Relativists: Robert M. Hutchins Versus Antonio Darder

John Dewey

Since the ancient Greeks, men and women of the West have looked at the world through critical eyes. No longer content to rely on Aristotle and the Church for knowledge, since the Renaissance empiricism has held sway. For example, American scientists of the 21st century are not satisfied with a Newtonian view of the physical world. Instead, science has evolved and theories have changed over time. According to Kuhn (1973), science progresses because scientists scrutinize and change their belief systems. A new paradigm replaces an existing paradigm. Einstein has replaced Newton’s paradigm in physics. Likewise, those involved in Western social sciences, working in disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, history, economics, literature, political science, and art, demand fearless scrutiny of reality, both inner and outer. It has been so for thousands of years in the West. To illustrate, let us pick a few great thinkers from the Western tradition. The historian Plutarch, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, and religious philosopher Maimonides dispassionately investigated their personal feelings, their culture, other cultures, and the concept of truth. Plutarch gave us an unbiased, detailed, anatomized, and synthesized history of Rome. He wrote history so his people, in search of truth, would not repeat mistakes. Epictetus showed how one could choose to react to life’s traumas. One was not a slave to her emotions. Maimonides aligned faith with reason. All these thinkers asked and answered the great questions of life. William Bennett (1992) writes:

The classics of Western philosophy and literature amount to a great debate on the perennial questions. In the end, the study of the seminal works of Western civilization is … a case for philosophy and for thoughtfulness….The West is the most self-critical of cultures. Reason is exalted and reason leads to a look, a second look, and, where necessary, readjustment, redefinition, and change. It is one of the distinguishing features of Western civilization, in fact, that it has engaged in this dialogue, self-examination, and correction over the centuries (pp.173-174).

Robert Hutchins (1953) defends these “seminal works of Western civilization” not simply because these works promote reason and powers of judgement over irrationality and one-sidedness but because studying them makes people morally better. Hutchins states that the “aim of an educational system…is to improve man as man” (P. 11) through the teaching of moral virtues. He does not reveal a Western canon but would probably include The Bible, writings of Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and the later Skeptics, Cynics, Epicureans, and Stoics. The great Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophers would also be on the list. He would also include Western economists, psychologists, sociologists, historians, political scientists, writers and artists, too many to catalog here. All of these great thinkers thought logically and critically, basing their ideas on values, on absolute values.

Cultural relativists challenge Hutchins’ aim of an educational system. If values are relative or not important, a good person yesterday may not be a good person today. The relativist does not think that goodness is an absolute but is dependent on culture and the historical situation. Even more extreme, some cultural relativists would ask, “Who cares if someone is good. All that matters is that she is useful to the State.” John Dewey (1938) is more interested in effective classroom technique than debating whether values are absolute. Therefore he would not necessarily be opposed to Hutchins’ views, especially if students were interested in learning about good values. The “static aims and materials” (P.5) that Dewey rails about could apply to the pedantic memorization of Latin grammar or some other ineffective and boring pedagogy. Dewey is not necessarily against the learning of useful classic works simply because the authors died a long time ago. He is against outmoded, traditional pedagogy. Learning must be presented in a palatable fashion, connected to the lives of the students. A student can benefit from improved pedagogy while studying Greek philosophy. Dewey and Hutchins are not opposed to each other’s views.

Antonio Darder (1991), not John Dewey, is a real cultural relativist and true critic of Hutchins and teaching the Western canon. Drawing from the writings of Pablo Freire, Darder states that

since knowledge is socially constructed, culturally mediated, and historically situated, dominant discourses function to determine what is relegated to the arenas of truth and relevancy at any given moment in time. Thus…[critical educators] hold a view of truth as relational, in that statements considered true are seen as arising within a particular context, based on the relations of power operative in a society, discipline, or institution (P.92).

Simply stated, Darder states that there is no absolute truth, and the ruling class defines knowledge in such a way to continue its oppression of the poor, women and minorities. Darder’s arguments in favor of relative truth appear correct at first glance. However, neither the premises of his argument nor the conclusion of his thesis make sense.

Knowledge is not dependent on place, culture, or historical situation. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, whether one is testing the water of the San Francisco Bay or the Red Sea. The laws of chemistry or physics are not dependent on culture. Additionally, knowledge, even of the social sciences, is not “historically situated.” Does anyone believe that the Ten Commandments are no longer valid since they were written 3,000 years ago? Does the Iliad still speak to us, even though we live in a postmodern, urban culture? These books tell us that murder is evil and friendship is virtuous. Heroism is a virtue. The ideas in these books resonate in us because the moral teachings are valuable in our day as well. The ancient Greek virtues are absolute and not dependent on time or place. Darder’s Marxist conclusion, that education merely another type of oppression is also invalid. The educated know how to control their emotions. Only the educated know how to be a good, virtuous, moral person. The educated know the value of freedom. Those who have had a Western education have control over their inner and outer lives.

Why teach all viewpoints?

We teachers want to teach the "truth" or reality. What is reality? First, there is a religious reality, which cannot be proven or disproven. I think it exists but I have no means other than argument to convince. The other reality is a logical, scientific reality based on proving a hypothesis. Hypotheses are checked using replicated experimental studies. These can be proven at a certain confidence level, typically 95 percent, meaning that we have a 95 percent certainty that the change in the dependent variable is due to the intervention and not to chance. This is how we know, through experiments, that medical or other interventions do certain things.

We also have correlational studies, but these are less convincing because variables are not controlled, so a third variable could be the cause. Anecdotal evidence is similar. It has emotional weight, and we really believe it when we see it in front of our eyes, but it is not logically convincing because another variable could be the cause. For example, a kid gets sick after a vaccine. It could be the vaccine, but it could also be thousands of other things. Only the scientific method, experiments, will find the truth. So, not all evidence has equal weight or validity. Otherwise, reality would be a matter of opinion and personal choice (as it is in the religious realm).

In psychology, biology, physics, and chemistry classes we test reality through experimentation as described above. As a history teacher, how do I teach reality? We do not perform or cite experimental studies in history. All of the evidence is correlational at best and usually anecdotal. So how do we know if the Democratic party ensures greater prosperity or the Republicans defend the country better? How do we know if Keynesian policies work? We cannot be as sure that past successes or failures were due to this or that policy, though if the same results keep happening I would form biases. Since we don't really know the truth, the only fair way to teach non-scientific controversial issues is to give our students information about all the major viewpoints.