Great post! It makes me want to watch this movie again (I haven’t seen it for 20+ years).
Here’s a couple of nit-picky things that I thought I would mention which have nothing to do with the main points you make about teaching film (or about "Bonnie and Clyde").
Regarding: “It was confusing to me, as a kid, to discover this, as I was taught in certainties (Christianity, democracy, progress, hierarchies, liberal values) and was later stunned to learn that there were other options that were equally valid, and that none of it was actually decided. I would have never guessed that some people didn’t care about the planet, or that women’s rights could be revoked, or that equality wasn’t a totally common goal. I certainly wouldn’t have predicted the assaults on democracy that now seem nearly constant. I think letting kids know as soon as possible that everything is multifaceted is more fair.”
I didn’t understand the “other options … were equally valid” part of this or what you mean by “none of it was actually decided.” I assume that you mean that there are other “live options” out there that remain politically and socially effective (and in many cases dangerous) despite their intellectual shallowness or incoherence. Socially and politically many things – e.g., democracy, gender equality – are not “actually decided” as a purely practical matter. But it seems that you also think that many views (e.g., anti-democratic, patriarchal, anti-environmental ones) are not really “equally valid” in terms of their merit (truth, morality, justice, etc.).
To pick one example, I certainly agree that the value of democracy is currently being challenged. It can’t be denied – just read the newspaper. But I also think that as a matter of correctness the opposing views are manifestly wrong (just as I think “divine right” theories of absolute monarchy are clearly wrong). The value of democracy, at least relative to authoritarianism or any current contending alternatives, is settled “philosophically,” so to speak, but not practically. Perhaps in the future a better political system will be devised – that very may well be the case. And certainly there are debates – ongoing now, at least in academia – over which version of democracy is the best, most feasible, most stable, etc. But among the existing set of institutional alternatives realized in the world, the family of systems categorized as “liberal democracy” win out over the others (morally, if not politically). Those other candidates – whatever their political and ideological (as opposed to rational) potency – just are not “equally valid.” (Likewise for current political struggles regarding climate change, gender and racial equality, etc.)
“I am not advocating total relativism, by the way. Here’s an example of what I mean: we were taught as kids that smoking was dumb and bad for you. So it was a shock to learn that there are some pretty good reasons to smoke: it helped with insecurity, it gave you something to do while waiting for the bus, it helped you meet people. This was valuable information, and since I didn’t have it, I had no counter to it and no way to weigh the options. Then I smoked for 20 years. I wouldn't advise anyone to smoke cigarettes - it’s dumb and bad for you. But they should know why people do smoke, because smokers are not dumb, and not bad. It enables better decision-making.”
Sorry to nit-pick even more, but I think that what you describe in this paragraph has nothing to do with “relativism.” You simply are pointing out that when presented with an “anti-smoking” message as a child you were not presented with information about why (for some people) there are reasons to smoke (maybe not great ones, but ones that show that smoking isn’t wholly irrational). That’s incomplete information not “relativism.” A “relativist” view would be something like: “whether smoking is good or bad is relative to the person/society/culture/etc.” Roughly speaking, relativism is the view that whether x is true/false (or good/bad) is determined by different standards (those of different individuals or cultures or whatever). Simple relativism is an incoherent view – although it’s widely held by first-year undergraduate “liberals,” anyone who reflects on the nature of truth or morality rejects it for being incoherent and self-refuting. (There are more sophisticated versions of relativism or quasi-relativism. I think they’re wrong, but those versions are not what most people mean when they refer to “relativism.”)
Sorry for the ramble, but the main point is that you can be 100% opposed to any form of relativism and still think people have different perspectives, amounts and kinds of information, and so forth. And that it’s worth delving into the complexity of issues, important to be sensitive to your fallibility (some of your current beliefs are certainly wrong), and so forth. All that is compatible with believing that many claims are either true or false (or that certain moral principles are correct and others incorrect, etc.). Not everything is a matter of “taste.” (E.g., whether coffee is “good” or “bad” depends on the individual, whether genocide is “good” or “bad” does not.)
To tie this all back to pedagogy, I sometimes worry in my own teaching that pointing out the complexity of certain questions – and the intractability of many social and political conflicts – encourages a kind of resignation or defeatism among some (many?) students. They think: “If it’s all so complex and everything is ‘relative’ then there’s no point in trying to figure out what’s true or correct or just!” That kind of response drives me nuts and so I try to be wary of how I teach complex issues. I try to cut off the simple “relativism” or “subjectivism” options as much as possible, both for pedagogic reasons and because I think those views also are both wrong and socially corrosive (as they can engender cynicism and disengagement). At the same time, I don’t want to come across as dogmatic. It’s a tough needle to thread.
Amazing feedback, and appreciated. If I do compile these into anything I will write that section more carefully. For now, I'll leave the section as is and agree with your criticisms completely; the errors are in the writing (I always was hasty, always loved getting it done and being done). When I wrote "equally valid" I was thinking of Christianity (having been taught it was the only right way) and the idea that progress was linear (and pointing to ourselves as the peak result of everything else); "not decided" was referring to equal rights and, especially, democracy. I lumped too many ideas together there, and referred to them carelessly afterward.
I read, somewhere, in the last few years that it had been a terrible mistake to simply teach that democracy was victorious because it was right, and fascism had been defeated because it was wrong; that it would have been better to teach the generations after WW2 why fascism had been attractive, what it promised people, so that we wouldn't just coast on the feeling of destiny that has hobbled some lately. Then I changed it to smoking - because that was the first instance in my life where I really thought about my having been mis-taught in that way. I really should sit on things before publishing.
As for relativism, I think I just used the wrong word. I hated that aspect of university discourse too - I recall some discussion that female genital mutilation might just be seen as some other culture's "way," not to be judged, and being disgusted by it (I'm also opposed to male genital mutilation and non-consensual surgeries altogether).
As for the bit about your teaching, very interesting. I talk to my students a lot about concrete, decided-upon values and how they can clarify one's thinking, and how they need to be considered and decided upon over time in an era where they're not provided clearly by the culture. I do try and hold open space for student ideas that I don't like, so they don't feel unheard or dominated, but I also explain my own values and the reasoning behind them. I also try to push them to explore in an ongoing way, rather than deciding impulsively, and model what I believe for them, so the Ayn Rand kid or the 8chan kid gets to see what kindness and generosity feels like in practice.
I love your thorough questions and explanations - really appreciate it, man. Thanks.
Great post! It makes me want to watch this movie again (I haven’t seen it for 20+ years).
Here’s a couple of nit-picky things that I thought I would mention which have nothing to do with the main points you make about teaching film (or about "Bonnie and Clyde").
Regarding: “It was confusing to me, as a kid, to discover this, as I was taught in certainties (Christianity, democracy, progress, hierarchies, liberal values) and was later stunned to learn that there were other options that were equally valid, and that none of it was actually decided. I would have never guessed that some people didn’t care about the planet, or that women’s rights could be revoked, or that equality wasn’t a totally common goal. I certainly wouldn’t have predicted the assaults on democracy that now seem nearly constant. I think letting kids know as soon as possible that everything is multifaceted is more fair.”
I didn’t understand the “other options … were equally valid” part of this or what you mean by “none of it was actually decided.” I assume that you mean that there are other “live options” out there that remain politically and socially effective (and in many cases dangerous) despite their intellectual shallowness or incoherence. Socially and politically many things – e.g., democracy, gender equality – are not “actually decided” as a purely practical matter. But it seems that you also think that many views (e.g., anti-democratic, patriarchal, anti-environmental ones) are not really “equally valid” in terms of their merit (truth, morality, justice, etc.).
To pick one example, I certainly agree that the value of democracy is currently being challenged. It can’t be denied – just read the newspaper. But I also think that as a matter of correctness the opposing views are manifestly wrong (just as I think “divine right” theories of absolute monarchy are clearly wrong). The value of democracy, at least relative to authoritarianism or any current contending alternatives, is settled “philosophically,” so to speak, but not practically. Perhaps in the future a better political system will be devised – that very may well be the case. And certainly there are debates – ongoing now, at least in academia – over which version of democracy is the best, most feasible, most stable, etc. But among the existing set of institutional alternatives realized in the world, the family of systems categorized as “liberal democracy” win out over the others (morally, if not politically). Those other candidates – whatever their political and ideological (as opposed to rational) potency – just are not “equally valid.” (Likewise for current political struggles regarding climate change, gender and racial equality, etc.)
“I am not advocating total relativism, by the way. Here’s an example of what I mean: we were taught as kids that smoking was dumb and bad for you. So it was a shock to learn that there are some pretty good reasons to smoke: it helped with insecurity, it gave you something to do while waiting for the bus, it helped you meet people. This was valuable information, and since I didn’t have it, I had no counter to it and no way to weigh the options. Then I smoked for 20 years. I wouldn't advise anyone to smoke cigarettes - it’s dumb and bad for you. But they should know why people do smoke, because smokers are not dumb, and not bad. It enables better decision-making.”
Sorry to nit-pick even more, but I think that what you describe in this paragraph has nothing to do with “relativism.” You simply are pointing out that when presented with an “anti-smoking” message as a child you were not presented with information about why (for some people) there are reasons to smoke (maybe not great ones, but ones that show that smoking isn’t wholly irrational). That’s incomplete information not “relativism.” A “relativist” view would be something like: “whether smoking is good or bad is relative to the person/society/culture/etc.” Roughly speaking, relativism is the view that whether x is true/false (or good/bad) is determined by different standards (those of different individuals or cultures or whatever). Simple relativism is an incoherent view – although it’s widely held by first-year undergraduate “liberals,” anyone who reflects on the nature of truth or morality rejects it for being incoherent and self-refuting. (There are more sophisticated versions of relativism or quasi-relativism. I think they’re wrong, but those versions are not what most people mean when they refer to “relativism.”)
Sorry for the ramble, but the main point is that you can be 100% opposed to any form of relativism and still think people have different perspectives, amounts and kinds of information, and so forth. And that it’s worth delving into the complexity of issues, important to be sensitive to your fallibility (some of your current beliefs are certainly wrong), and so forth. All that is compatible with believing that many claims are either true or false (or that certain moral principles are correct and others incorrect, etc.). Not everything is a matter of “taste.” (E.g., whether coffee is “good” or “bad” depends on the individual, whether genocide is “good” or “bad” does not.)
To tie this all back to pedagogy, I sometimes worry in my own teaching that pointing out the complexity of certain questions – and the intractability of many social and political conflicts – encourages a kind of resignation or defeatism among some (many?) students. They think: “If it’s all so complex and everything is ‘relative’ then there’s no point in trying to figure out what’s true or correct or just!” That kind of response drives me nuts and so I try to be wary of how I teach complex issues. I try to cut off the simple “relativism” or “subjectivism” options as much as possible, both for pedagogic reasons and because I think those views also are both wrong and socially corrosive (as they can engender cynicism and disengagement). At the same time, I don’t want to come across as dogmatic. It’s a tough needle to thread.
Amazing feedback, and appreciated. If I do compile these into anything I will write that section more carefully. For now, I'll leave the section as is and agree with your criticisms completely; the errors are in the writing (I always was hasty, always loved getting it done and being done). When I wrote "equally valid" I was thinking of Christianity (having been taught it was the only right way) and the idea that progress was linear (and pointing to ourselves as the peak result of everything else); "not decided" was referring to equal rights and, especially, democracy. I lumped too many ideas together there, and referred to them carelessly afterward.
I read, somewhere, in the last few years that it had been a terrible mistake to simply teach that democracy was victorious because it was right, and fascism had been defeated because it was wrong; that it would have been better to teach the generations after WW2 why fascism had been attractive, what it promised people, so that we wouldn't just coast on the feeling of destiny that has hobbled some lately. Then I changed it to smoking - because that was the first instance in my life where I really thought about my having been mis-taught in that way. I really should sit on things before publishing.
As for relativism, I think I just used the wrong word. I hated that aspect of university discourse too - I recall some discussion that female genital mutilation might just be seen as some other culture's "way," not to be judged, and being disgusted by it (I'm also opposed to male genital mutilation and non-consensual surgeries altogether).
As for the bit about your teaching, very interesting. I talk to my students a lot about concrete, decided-upon values and how they can clarify one's thinking, and how they need to be considered and decided upon over time in an era where they're not provided clearly by the culture. I do try and hold open space for student ideas that I don't like, so they don't feel unheard or dominated, but I also explain my own values and the reasoning behind them. I also try to push them to explore in an ongoing way, rather than deciding impulsively, and model what I believe for them, so the Ayn Rand kid or the 8chan kid gets to see what kindness and generosity feels like in practice.
I love your thorough questions and explanations - really appreciate it, man. Thanks.