[NIFL-4EFF:2984] RE: Conflicting paradigms and confusing terms: exciting

From: George demetrion (gdemetrion@msn.com)
Date: Sat Apr 16 2005 - 20:58:08 EDT


Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j3H0w8G24441; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:58:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:58:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <BAY103-F372D29FF9EC4027039C27BC5280@phx.gbl>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "George demetrion" <gdemetrion@msn.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2984] RE: Conflicting paradigms and confusing terms: exciting
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Status: O
Content-Length: 5577
Lines: 94


"Now, George, my brain is mush after two weeks on the road, so I may be
confused here.  But as Amy so skillfully reiterates in her message regarding 
the
history of the EFF project, public philosophy oozes through every pore of 
the
process of development and the products that resulted from that process."

Thank you, Meta, there's no question in my mind that it does, which is what 
absorbed me with EFF in the first place. Moreover, Sondra's reconstruction 
of Educational Goal # 6 to give citizenship and capacity to function in the 
global economy equal billing was nothing short of a brilliant imaginative 
leap, given the prevalence of the latter, considering the collective impact 
of Workforce 2000, Jump Start and SCANS on the collective imagination of the 
adult education policy sector. In addition, much of the activities of the 
EFF construction process (building the system) very much reflected a 
civic-based ethos of public responsibility as did the underlying assumptions 
particularly the role maps.  This is so even with the worker role map, which 
emphasized the central role of the worker in shaping his/her destiny while 
contributing to the public space of the workplace, within a broader 
framework of "corporate responsibility," a prime responsibility of the firm, 
as reflected in the values underlying SCANS.

That said, much of this within EFF remains implicit and perhaps even 
self-evident, and there may have been good reason in keeping it so given the 
tradition of experience over theory as enacted in the American political 
imagination, at least as argued by historian Daniel Boorstein.  However, 
conscious political articulation has also been a key factor throughout the 
crucial periods in the nation's history starting no less than with the 
Declaration of Independence, which pointed to an ideal well above the 
reality of the then current era.  Nonetheless, that articulated ideal 
carried a powerful resonance that has reverberated throughout the nation's 
history, re-envisionized particularly in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and 
Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech in which political idealism, 
which changed attitudes and behavior, mattered profoundly.

It is in this respect that I am making the argument that EFF did not 
formally build upon a coherent body of political literature quite readily 
available, based very much on the ethos of the US political vision to anchor 
its educational and policy vision in a concept that puts the public good and 
constitutional fidelity in the broad sense at the core of the nation's 
political values.  I'm speaking specifically of such texts as Robert 
Bellah's et al's Habits of the Heart and The Good Society, Benjamin Barber's 
A Passion for Democracy: American Essays, Gary Hart's Restoration of the 
Republic: The Jeffersonian Ideal in the 21st Century America, Jessie Jackson 
Jr's, A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights, the several small 
books by John Dewey on the topic, and from a slightly different perspective, 
John Rawls' Political Liberalism. There is also a text I did not include in 
the book titled The Power of Public Ideas, edited by Robert Reich, which 
also contributes much to a coherent articulation of a US based grounded 
public philosophy which resonates with much of the spirit of EFF.

This articulation was crucial, I hypothesize (to assert it would require an 
actual testing of it out) in order to counteract the only prevailing public 
philosophy in operation, namely, a cost benefit utilitarian one that viewed 
policy through a strict accounting metaphor--hence, the central role of 
quantifiable-based standards in much of the discussion on education through 
the 1990s.  Without a countervailing rhetoric, the EFF leadership had little 
choice but to seek to rationalize its perspective from this accounting 
metaphor, as capsulated in the extensive EFF/NRS connection in order to try 
to figure a way of transcending what many viewed as the incompatible 
differences between the two frameworks.  It's quite likely that even within 
a coherent and articulated public philosophy in place based on its own 
founding principles, EFF wouldn't have been able to have escaped the NRS 
connection in any event, although that is speculative also.  What it would 
have had was a highly articulated body of political thought grounded very 
much in the "American Grain" to have more fully made its public and policy 
argument, and a means to provide a distinctive alternative to the dominant, 
and in fact, only vision of public accountability.

Let's look at this in another way.  Consider how politically effective the 
conservatives have been in the past 5 years in part because they have a very 
articulated public philosophy; one that many have many problems with, but 
which nonetheless, serves to galvanize its own ranks which provides them 
with a means of engaging in public discourse on their own terms.  This 
should also be the case, I argue, with the progressive sector which has not 
yet found its concerted political voice, which has to be about more than a 
specific set of issues.

In terms of this discussion in Conflicting Paradigms, I recommend pp. 19-25, 
pp. 201-204, and all of Chapter 11.

I will send a couple of separate postings in short articles where I have 
summarized the core arguments of Bellah and Rawls.

"By *out of power* do you mean *out of gas*? OR Out from under the umbrella 
of
power in Washington, DC--NIFL?"

Clearly the latter, and as Martha puts it, that's a good thing.

George Demetrion



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:21 EST