I want to pick up on what Jime Devine says below and expand a
little...
On Tue, 25 Oct 1994, Jim Devine wrote:
> IQ also misses the fact that all the goods and the bads of the world
> are results of collective efforts (though the collectivity is not
> always obvious). The folks with a lot of abstract intelligence
> are highly dependent on those with common sense -- and vice-versa.
> I don't see why those with abstract intelligence "deserve" more
> income than those with common sense.
>
> in pen-l solidarity,
>
> Jim Devine
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
> 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
>
Here on Pen-L, we have talked before about an underclass
maintained or coincidently available for taking the manual,
non-prestigious, lowly, and low wage jobs in support of the those who are
financially better off. And yet it is a collective, social construct
that allows anything of merit to be achieved. Why do so many have
problems realizing this? Or if I get a gist of the book we are
discussing, why is it that sharp debating authors do not acknowledge
this? To have pulled off that sucessful, late meeting last night, I had
to ask my child care specialist to watch my children a little longer.
She did so but reaped no greater reward, unlike myself and my company.
But she will have to sacrifice time with her own pursuits and goals,
sacrifice sleep, sacrifice a good breakfast the next morning because she
over slept. The McDonald's of the world will work hard to make sure she
gets to her second job in the dry cleaners with something in her
stomach. And then she will again be integral in spotting the loss of a
hem in the gray suit of my boss, repair it and deliver it to my boss in time
to wrap up on the success of last night's meeting. The dry
cleaners too recieves no benefit from being integral to our success. Nor
do the workers at the McDonald's.
What I feel what has been suggested on Pen-L in the past is that
minimum wages be raised and higher wages be more highly taxed. In the
resistance of most people to neglect the social/collective contribution to
individual achievement, is there a fear at work of, "If they have more
then I (we) will have less." And if people distract or ameliorate those
fears then possibly some progress can be had in raising socio-economic
levels of people so they can support their own children along with
supporting those who are financially better off. To put it in what might be
called "cutesy" terms, financial stability may be just like love and
power. If you allow others to have some, you may get more back in return.
That is quite idealistic, but I don't know that Western society has ever
ventured to go that far with its economic stability.
In light of other comments that have been made in this
conversation about schools, I heartily agree, throwing more money at the
problem will not be affective. Educational systems have to manage their
money more constructively, and make efforts to give "equal protection
under the law." I still hold to the belief that the missions of schools
need to be reprioritized. Looking at evidence of time spent on lessons
and outcomes, American schools have a top priority of order and
socialization. Following behind, in this order, are skill acquisition,
interrelating a store of information, and self-awareness/self-concept.
To serve the students to their best interest, I feel this latter priority
of self-awareness and consciousness should come first, and order will
result from the growing consciousness of the students. But how is
teacher who is providing day care for your child and possibly 24 others
to really have success with achieving this mission; there's just too many
even for the highly skilled, knowledgable and dedicated teachers.
_
"piti" is Sanskrit for "interest and joy in the service of others"
Kenneth Libby
PhD student, UT College of Education
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
