My posts, “.com v .org” and the follow up “Is the business of American Business?” have stimulated an interesting and important conversation. The complexities have been revealed, providing a basis for serious discussion which should inform decision making and political action.
Elle recognizes that applying the bottom line to the point that basic humanities majors are eliminated is a problem. She realizes that there is a cultural value, the value of the university, that has an independent significance beyond the logic of the market, and, I would add, beyond the significance the university has for the state. The modern university, with a definitive liberal arts tradition, shouldn’t be subjected directly to the logic of the bottom line.
Elle and I are in agreement with the great 20th century conservative philosopher, Michael Oakeshott, who, in his The Voice of Liberal Learning points out, “Education in its most general significance may be recognized as a specific transaction which may go on between generations of human beings in which newcomers to the scene are initiated into the world they are to inhabit.” He goes on to explain that a liberal education involves “the invitation to disentangle oneself, for a time, from the urgencies of the here and now and to listen to the conversation in which human beings forever seek to understand themselves.”
But Elle and I disagree about the application of this conservative reasoning to the appointment of Cathy Black as Chancellor of the New York City public schools. While I have serious doubts, Elle thinks that Black’s excellence in the arts of administration should be decisive. As a student of Oakeshott in this regard, I am not persuaded. Scott’s particular concerns about Black, revealing an acquiescence to questionable business practices, are disturbing and have implications. The competing ethos and imperatives of business and politics, on the one hand, and education, on the other, undermine the case for the Black appointment. I think this is an instance where the saying “there is a time and a place for everything” suggests that certain people should find their appropriate place.
In fact, I am not persuaded by the thrust of educational reform of Joel Klein. A key to education is what goes on between teachers and students as a transaction between generations, something not easily measured by the quantitative means being used by educational reformers, such as Klein (and also, I regret to say, by President Obama to a significant degree). I am convinced that the values Oakeshott celebrates should be a key to reform of primary and secondary education, as they should remain institutionalized in universities. The Chancellor of a public school system should have a record of commitment to these values, something that neither Klein (before or during his tenure) nor Black have. I realize that administrative competence matters, but I also look for a record of engagement with the serious distinctive field of education. Why not expertise in both?
On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable for Lauren from a classic liberal point of view, nowadays called conservative, to ask whether the government is too intrusive, too involved in daily life. It is a reasonable question as a summary judgment. But to see a new escalation of intrusiveness seems to me to be mistaken. It is a question of balance, bearing in mind the sorts of issues that Milberg raised in his post yesterday, pointing out that the balance is cyclically regulated, the Polanyi pendulum, movements of greater state activism and market purity. It doesn’t seem to me to be about general propositions, too much or too little government, too much or too little market. I think we have to look at the specifics and critically appraise them. This is how I read Michael’s responses. And from a macroeconomic point of view, it is not even clear what the balance should be for the best economic performance. Only ideologues know for sure in advance. Others debate the matter, as we are doing here.
On the specifics of corporate sponsorship and naming of public works: we must weigh costs and the benefits, and decide politically, after an informed debate, the course of action. What is gained financially? What is lost in the symbolic representation of public life? The problem is not particularly new, as Lauren points out. Corporate underwriting of public expenditures for naming rights may be more transparent than the more traditional way that “city fathers” made their mark on the city landscape, but the continuity is even more striking than the differences. And though I am not thrilled by corporate naming of the transportation map, it is certainly preferable to the loss of public transportation.
I agree with Lauren, the discussion about appropriate naming will be interesting. And actually I would go further. I think that such discussion can diminish the possible negative effects of corporate sponsorship. Consequential public discussion is the most powerful antidote to the insensitivity of the bottom line and the arrogance of the bureaucrat. To play with Marx and Engels a little , and Marshal Berman, with such discussion, “all that is solid will not melt into air.”
Indeed, such discussion can have positive effects on each of the cases we have been deliberately considering here. It can and should guide policy and action.
Leave a Reply