What is college really for? More thoughts on society and the liberal arts
In his recent book ,” Matthew B. Crawford calls into question the prevailing sentiment that “knowledge work” is somehow more intrinsically valuable than skilled trade labor. Crawford earned a Ph.D in political philosophy from the University of Chicago, and is now a fellow and the institute for advanced studies at the University of Virginia. Just as central to his argument as his academic credentials however is his work as an electrician and motorcycle mechanic. Crawford cites his work as a mechanic as far more intellectually demanding than any “white collar” job he was able to secure with his fancy degrees. A broad (and funny) sketch of his argument can be found in this interview in the Colbert Report.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/matthew-crawford
While not framed as an educational treatise, this little book has a lot to say to those of us thinking about the place of education (especially a liberal arts education) in society. In a recent post I argued that a liberal arts education is one way of educating for critical ethical reflection rather than a universal requirement for the development of those faculties. Crawford’s book was a timely reflection for me on this subject. Rather than engaging in theoretical discussions about the ethical values that different types of education may or may not encourage, Crawford takes the type of work generally available after that education is completed as his point of ethical analysis. Using his experience as a writer of abstracts for scientific journals, as well as his position as a “think tank analyst” in Washington, Crawford compares the moral and ethical dimensions of this “white collar work” with his experience as an electrician and mechanic.
The most salient analysis for me on this topic was his comparison of the industrialization of labor at the turn of the century with what is now being called the post-industrial “knowledge economy.” The industrial age brought with it the theoretical separation of work that requires one’s hands, and work that requires one’s mind. The assembly line is managed by those capable of higher levels of abstract thought than those engaging in the actual physical labor. This theoretical separation between thinking and doing was made possible by the same separation in schools at the turn of the century. Student’s relative capacities for abstract thought were now being measured by standardized tests. These tests split the students into either “thinkers” or “doers”, making for the now familiar social classes of “white collar” and “blue collar.” As ethically degrading as the mindlessly repetitive assembly line work of the turn of the century was, Crawford argues that the technology of the post-industrial age is bringing similar phenomenon to white-collar work. Actual “knowledge work” is becoming concentrated into an ever-shrinking elite, while the rest of us effectively become clerks, subject to monotonous, and ultimately ethically degrading work.
So what does this mean for those of us thinking about the place of a liberal arts education in society? Let’s turn to Crawford’s hypothetical advice to a young person debating the decision to go to college:
“…If you have a natural bent for scholarship; if you are attracted to the most difficult books out of an urgent need, and can spare four years to devote yourself to them, go to college. In fact, approach college in the spirit of craftsmanship, going deep into the liberal arts and sciences. But if this is not the case; if the thought of four more years sitting in a classroom makes your skin crawl, the good news is that you don’t have to go through the motions and jump through the hoops for the sake of making a decent living. Even if you do go to college, learn a trade in the summers. You’re likely to be less damaged, and quite possibly better paid, as an independent tradesman than as a cubicle-dwelling tender of information systems or low-level “creative.” To heed such advice would require a certain contrarian streak, as it entails rejecting a life course mapped out by others as obligatory and inevitable.”
The most important part of this passage to remember is that it’s coming from a Philosophy Ph.D. This is a man who clearly cares deeply about the value of abstract thought while simultaneously understanding that it alone does NOT carry the privileged title of “the good.” If only politicians and educational policy makers could take such a nuanced position.
This book brings to mind two others, one recent and one a classic from the tail end of 60′s counter-culture movements. The first is “The Craftsman” by Richard Sennett (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/books/review/Hyde-t.html) and the second, which is very close to the topic of Crawford’s book, is “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Robert Pirsig.
Like Crawford, they both argue that doing, making, crafting, and attending to works and objects offer a primary mode of understanding the world that a more “abstract, theoretical” approach often overlooks. These types of reminders are often very helpful and go back to a worry of Adam Smith, who thought that the division of labour would result in the “dulling of the mind” of those producing things in factories. Sennett, Crawford, and Pirsig all remind us that the corrective to Smith’s worry is to infuse acts of making with the spirit of craft, which shuttles in educational values (as Jay points out)
However, what worries me most about Crawford’s argument is the mindless nature of the white-collar jobs that he dismisses. If something like politics or academic writing has become such a rote and mechanical affair that spirit of learning has no place there, then this is a serious problem for those occupations. This leads me to wonder whether Crawford is helpful in thinking about the value of a liberal education or whether he is actually talking about Smith’s worry writ large. I hope that people consider this second option, because these types of nuanced reflections on the interface between educational values and the nature of the workplace are needed in both educational and economic circles.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment Mike.
I think that you’re correct to point out that Crawford is helpful in thinking about Smith’s “dulling of the mind” effect that comes along with the division of labor. My paragraph on that section of the book may have been a bit too strong. He is far from dismissing all white-collar professions (such as academic writing or politics) as having degenerated to mindlessness. He is merely pointing to the possibility that jobs that are considered white collar have an equal potential to be void of what you call the “spirit of learning” as blue-collar jobs. It is also important to point out that the two white-collar jobs that Crawford describes from personal experience in the book were certainly devoid of any intellectual rigor (think Dilbert or Office Space). In that sense, his impetus for taking up this question is a call for a new societal perspective on the way that we think about different kinds of jobs, and by extension, different ways of being.
I do however think that Crawford’s point (though limited) is helpful in thinking about the value of a liberal arts education. By “value” I mean the personal value that a liberal arts education may or may not have to a particular person, which is inextricably tied to the societal value of that education. This is the interface between educational values and the nature of the workplace that I think you were referring to. Crawford’s advice to a young person that I quoted carries with it a charge for a serious reflection on the personal value going to college will have. The hope is that as an extension of coming to the liberal arts with the primary intention of growth (i.e. not credentials), one’s ethical concerns in the workplace (whether in politics or carpentry) will be centered on a need for critical thought and rigor. This is however, not the only path to developing those kinds of ethical concerns. The crux of his point can be summed up by the following:
“If you want to think at work but the thought of a classroom makes your skin crawl, there are other options.”
Wait, politics isn’t a rote and mechanical affair? And the academy too? Have you looked around lately? I agree that its kind of depressing to think like that but its just not realistic to expect institutions to provide space for thoughtful inquiry and genuine engagement. We need make our own spaces for that. Sometimes within, occasionally across and mostly outside institutions like schools and office places.
Another thought: Crawford presents us with an individual strategy for resisting the problems with society he sees (knowledge workers as ghost workers) as opposed to a collective strategy for action. Along with that, his strategy for resistance, repairing motorcycles, seems a problematic and somewhat masculine strategy. Motorcycles are luxury items, machines and produced in factories and while there is craft, it is not the type of craft one would need to build a boat, house, grandfather clock. The New Yorker has an excellent and critical review: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/06/22/090622crat_atlarge_sanneh?currentPage=1
Carmen, that is an EXCELLENT point about individual versus collective strategies. Its something I struggle with as well. It feels like the only option is a retreat to private life, to consumption choices rather than doing something productive. Maybe that’s what makes education writ large so interesting right now, that maybe there are a space for that kind of collective connection and struggle.