Globalization and Identity
One thing that distinguishes American Education from the European system is that it is less focused on a particular field until a very advanced level, when specialization finally happens. The fact is, that I've been noticing lately, all around me, that we require that people be "well rounded" in everything that we do. Americans need to know about all kinds of literature, history, philosophy, music, television programs, movies, art... And then, once they find areas of specialization, need to know every author/ historian/ philosopher/ actor/ composer/ producer/ artist who ever dealt with the subject. If I tell someone that I play the drums, they begin to list all of their favorite drummers of all time by name, and ask me what i think of them. This person, mind you, doesn't even play the drums-- he is in family law. But it doesn't matter. People take up subjects of interest with such glee and enthusiasm. And the same people can talk about the philosophy of Kant and Descartes, and about Robert Frost's poems, and Robin Williams' movies.
What has this mentality done for us? It has created a world that is very colorful-- and each of us wants to fulfill our potential in so many areas, so we run from dance class to poetry club to meditation group to the movies and at the end of the day, we say wow! What an exciting life I lead! I am so multi-talented, and so worldly. I am the renaissance woman, par excellence.
This piece leads to some basic questions:
Do we specialize as well in our fields? Does the philosopher with economics on his mind and tongue philosophize better? Worse? What effect does the globalization of interest have on our points of emphasis? Do we end up doing justice to any of the areas that we dabble in? In the way R. Soloveitchik describes the difference between the way a chemist and a mathematician view the world-- how do our mind end up shaped? is there more lost or gained? Are the Rabbis of the Talmud correct when they said, tafasta meruba lo tafasta, tafasta muat tafasta (Yoma 80)-- which mean if you bite off more than you can chew, you're worse off than focusing on one thing and catching it completely--? How are our identities affected by the flooding of ideas from every perspective and angle? If a person only has friends from his community (a difficult feat, in the modern world, but sometimes achieved), that is seen as myopic and overly insular. A person like that has nothing to say about people. The studies of anthropology and comparative religions thrive on the ability, or assumed ability to gain from a broader understanding of many cultures. What does this study do for my identity as a Jewish person? Am I a richer Jew because I know about the Eucharist and Whirling dervishes? I would tend to think so, since i am so involved in the culture, and in the process of collecting more knowledge. But I wonder if these things are retracting from what was once the simple tamim-pure Jew? Is my love for G-d greater because I can meditate with the Buddhists?
I don't know the answers to these questions, i don't even know if there are answers. I'm just wondering about it. This culture is all around us, and while we become the Renaissance people that we are becoming, let us allow ourselves to step back and take inventory of what we're doing and how it is affecting us.
posted by Ellie @ 4:01 PM
3 Comments:
It's a really good point. I've thought about the same thing alot.
My father likes to tell me the story told by R'Nachman of Breslav of the Simpleton and the Wise Man...maybe that would be helpful?
I think that the broad approach taken by the American educational system is one of the best things America has going for it. Sure, it is easy to interpret this as an invitation never to specialize in anything, and there are a lot of armchair philosophers/historians/anthropologists out there whose knowledge is based on having taken one course in college, but the general idea is a good one. In Israel, I see high school students being pressured(usually by their parents, but not always) to pick a "major" at the age of 16 (invariably in biotechnology, or whatever field seems like the "next big thing" at the moment). The U.S. has its share of "science academy" type high schools, as well. I think there's much to be said for having the opportunity to take in a broad range of subjects, and then be able to make a more informed decision when it comes time to specialize (which most of us still must do, in the end).
this could be the idea behind the "sinai" vs. "oker harim" debate in the gemara- is it better to know a lot about something, or a little about everything? there is definitely something to be said about exposure- once we know what's out there, we know what piques our interest and what we'd like to pursue. i can think of too many examples of products of the more focused system who, at the age we are graduating and starting careers, still have no idea where they would like to focus their interest, which leads them to delay or abort/restart their education and not climb that mountain at all. lastly, having attended college with many graduates of "tech" high schools, i've learned that it's much more liberating (and much more fun) to have interests. if i didn't give myself away with that last sentence, i'll just say that that's why they invented wikipedia :)
Post a Comment
<< Home