Sunday, March 07, 2004
Reading the debate on the Elementary Education Bill was, I must note to begin with, rather difficult for me. I usually don’t have trouble reading for classes, even large volumes of material, but this stuff seemed to be deliberately calculated to put me to sleep. I imbibed large quantities of Mountain Dew, however, and forced myself to continue, with the result that I read it, but very little of the information that entered my brain was actually retained there. One passage, though, jumped out at me as particularly interesting: “Upon the speedy provision of elementary education depends our industrial prosperity. It is of no use trying to give technical teaching to our artisans without elementary education; uneducated labourers – and many of our labourers are utterly uneducated – are, for the most part, unskilled labourers, and if we leave our work-folk any longer unskilled, notwithstanding their strong sinews and determined energy, they will become over-matched in the competition of the world” (465).
This got me thinking about the purpose of education, as I’ve always thought of it, as it has been treated historically, as it has been reflected in the two novels we’ve read and as we have discussed it in class. To me, education has always been something worth having for its own sake. I’m an English major because I’m interested, and fascinated, not because I believe that a degree in English will be essential in order to make me a skilled laborer. But that’s not the way the characters in Our Mutual Friend seem to regard education. The passage I quoted above makes me think, of course, mostly of Sloppy. The Boffins decide to pay for some training/education for Sloppy so that he can become a skilled member of the workforce, which seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing that W. E. Forster is talking about in that quote. Others of the working-class characters also seem to think an education is an important duty, rather than something one might pursue for pleasure. I don’t recall (but I may be wrong) Lizzie Hexam at any point saying that she wants to learn to read so that she can enjoy a good novel now and then. Of course, she doesn’t say that she wants to read in order to get a better job, either, but on reflection I do find it interesting that it’s reading that Bradley and Eugene both want to teach her, rather than music or art appreciation or something. Reading is a much more practical skill, but their interest in her is generally less than merely practical (Wouldn’t a “cultured” wife be more useful to Eugene?). And once I’m talking about Lizzie, the jump to Bella is easy. Can Bella read? We must assume so, since she reads that lovely little manual of housewifery. But how and when did she learn? And what else has she been taught? We talked a lot about “the education of Bella Wilfer” but I don’t remember anything about a formal education in the text. Bella, of course, is not, at the end of the novel, a working-class character. So is institutionalized education only important for laborers, so that they can become more skilled laborers and better apply those “strong sinews and determined energy”?
And how about in Waterland, which is set so much later than both this debate and Our Mutual Friend? Things seem to be different. Dick, who is definitely the character with the strongest sinews and the most determined energy, is also the least-educated. He can’t even read. Tom, of course, is extremely well-educated, and deeply, deeply ineffectual in the majority of the situations calling for practical and physical responses that come along. And where does our in-class discussion about whether or not the average guy who wants to be a cop needs a college degree fit in with all of this? Are we going in circles? What –is- the point of education, at any level?
This got me thinking about the purpose of education, as I’ve always thought of it, as it has been treated historically, as it has been reflected in the two novels we’ve read and as we have discussed it in class. To me, education has always been something worth having for its own sake. I’m an English major because I’m interested, and fascinated, not because I believe that a degree in English will be essential in order to make me a skilled laborer. But that’s not the way the characters in Our Mutual Friend seem to regard education. The passage I quoted above makes me think, of course, mostly of Sloppy. The Boffins decide to pay for some training/education for Sloppy so that he can become a skilled member of the workforce, which seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing that W. E. Forster is talking about in that quote. Others of the working-class characters also seem to think an education is an important duty, rather than something one might pursue for pleasure. I don’t recall (but I may be wrong) Lizzie Hexam at any point saying that she wants to learn to read so that she can enjoy a good novel now and then. Of course, she doesn’t say that she wants to read in order to get a better job, either, but on reflection I do find it interesting that it’s reading that Bradley and Eugene both want to teach her, rather than music or art appreciation or something. Reading is a much more practical skill, but their interest in her is generally less than merely practical (Wouldn’t a “cultured” wife be more useful to Eugene?). And once I’m talking about Lizzie, the jump to Bella is easy. Can Bella read? We must assume so, since she reads that lovely little manual of housewifery. But how and when did she learn? And what else has she been taught? We talked a lot about “the education of Bella Wilfer” but I don’t remember anything about a formal education in the text. Bella, of course, is not, at the end of the novel, a working-class character. So is institutionalized education only important for laborers, so that they can become more skilled laborers and better apply those “strong sinews and determined energy”?
And how about in Waterland, which is set so much later than both this debate and Our Mutual Friend? Things seem to be different. Dick, who is definitely the character with the strongest sinews and the most determined energy, is also the least-educated. He can’t even read. Tom, of course, is extremely well-educated, and deeply, deeply ineffectual in the majority of the situations calling for practical and physical responses that come along. And where does our in-class discussion about whether or not the average guy who wants to be a cop needs a college degree fit in with all of this? Are we going in circles? What –is- the point of education, at any level?
