Lord of the Flies is an allegorical novel. … Using as an example a group of British schoolboys stuck on a deserted island, … the book portrays their descent into savagery. … Left to themselves in a paradisiacal country, far from modern civilization, the well-educated children regress to a primitive state. …
Somebody decided that schools should create a general lack of freedom for students. Is it not likely, given that this "somebody" was doubtlessly a member of the ruling class, that this attribute of school was intentional?
Anecdotally, everybody knows that every single company, in every country, is rigidly hierarchical, just like the military. Managers (Officers) do all the the work that you just described, internalizing goals and creating organizational capital, of course making sure to stay within the parameters given to them by those who outrank them. A production manager would never disobey the company VP at any company, just as a Lieutenant would never disobey a Colonel, even if the VP (Colonel) gives instructions (orders) that are sure to lead to failure.
Meanwhile, the workers (enlisted soldiers) do nothing but follow directions (take orders) from their managers (Commanding Officers). They are told exactly what to do, when to do it, where to do it, and how to do it.
The ranks in a typical business can hardly get more explicit than they already are.
I thought the point of lord of the flies was to dispel the myth that children are little angels.
Violent dominance displays are far more common among captive wolves than they are among wolves in the wild. The same thing happens in schools, however I disagree that kids learn to be obedient. Rather they become more fervent and antagonistic status seekers.
Yep. See John Taylor Gatto's book Weapons of Mass Instruction
I agree anon, it's a case of answering one anecdote or tale with another one. I mean, how many businesses have to nice against their will because it's the law to do so? After all, hierarchies are natural. Some hierarchies just happen to be more rigid than others. Then again I argue that all hierachies allow people to be reasonably free provided they act appropriately according to their current rank. Or, to put it another way, it you try to try to as though you're a a higher-ranking officer or act as though you're the same rank with a higher-ranking officer in an alleged "we're all cool" loose hierarchy and you'll still get hell.
I'll check the book out tomorrow.
If you want that evidence, why don't you go look up the citations from the source where I got the quote? Why do you think it should be me that looks them up for you?
"At school, our kids are rated and ranked far more often than most adults will tolerate, even though this actually slows their learning!"
I call, again, for the detailed evidence behind the second half of this claim.
How is putting a child in a room with unsocialized child going to socialize them? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave them with their grandparents?
It seems that modern schools function in part to help humans overcome their (genetically and culturally) inherited aversions to hierarchy and dominance.
If so I wonder if and how much it work.
While our kids are segregated into schools where light monitoring lets them terrorize each other and form dominance hierarchies,
The above has always perplexed me. Why did those who ran the schools that I went to allow and in some cases even encourage such behavior. People who do not like home schooling defend the status quo on socialization grounds but adult society seems far more polite to me than school.
[Reposted from Facebook:] Heinlein's /Tunnel in the Sky/ was probably a response to /Lord of the Flies/. I prefer the former. The lesson is, possibly, you get the kind of society you're prepared for.
As a child at the age where reading the latter book was part of the compulsory curriculum, I noticed that the author couldn't even be troubled to research the accuracy of the "fact", key to the plot, that a nearsighted person's eyeglasses can be used as burning lenses.
At that point I reached the same sort of conclusion that Chip's son did, with about the same sort of response from the teacher.
The issue of fictional evidence aside, it cannot say anything about human nature because it doesn't cover humanity. It only covers the male gender.
Where I went to school it was generally (though not always explicitly) understood that literature teachers rewarded those who raised their status. Of course the whole idea of using fictional entertainment to understand the world is inane, but you wouldn't say that to their faces.
It seems that modern schools function in part to help humans overcome their (genetically and culturally) inherited aversions to hierarchy and dominance.Is 'function' the right word here? It seems like you're saying schools are purposefully run the way they are in order to prepare students for hierarchies later in life.
It seems more likely that schools are the way they are because children are mostly powerless to change them. Strict hierarchies may be a natural result of a general lack of freedom of association (e.g. people in captivity; schools, prisons, etc.).
John Taylor Gatto & other "unschooling" advocates have been making that sort of point about school for a long time. Randall Collins & others have also noted that the school environment (like prison) causes violence.