Page 154 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 3-4: Convention on the Rights of the Child: Educational Opportunities and Social Justice, eds. Zdenko Kodelja and Urška Štremfel
P. 154
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 3–4
opening a ‘microphone’. With Plato and Platonisms there will be no way
out, we will have to open ourselves against politics, against political action
and against Aristotle.22 That will no longer be possible: culture is here and
culture is there, and we are very cultural and we are very social. After all,
these are examples of fundamentalisms, and they are predominant here,
fundamentalisms of economic origin. Here the economic type of lan-
guage and ‘unplanned’ gibberish prevails. But it is not easy to get out of
here. The academy is completely immersed in economic fundamentalisms
and in business types of chatter about the market, technology, efficiency,
progress, productivity... These are also many myths from his thicker book
(note: Galimberti’s book Myths of Our Time).
Do we also talk about goals and purposes?
Galimberti, since you introduced him before our discussion, and it
was not a bad choice… He does not distinguish between goals and ob-
jectives. So, my combat strategy is a different one. As a professor, I have
discovered something fascinating, deadly and devastating for me over the
last 20 years, which I have already put into words here and elsewhere, so
I will now only talk about how I approach it. My basic insight from my
quarter century of work and work with students is that male and female
students are illiterate. That they are actually illiterate. I did not say this by
chance, and I know what I am talking about. I am speaking empirically,
from work that has begun over the last 25 years with the student popula-
tion. You already know how to read the series and what is written below.
But if you give them a certain professional, scientific, philosophical, ethi-
cal, political text, they are illiterate. They cannot break through from sen-
tence to sentence. This is a fundamental insight. In other words, if in the
past, in my generation, in high school it was considered ‘not good because
they will read at the faculty’, today we have children in faculties who are
not lazy, without wanting to avoid misunderstandings. They are simply
not capable. They are incapable of reading more demanding texts. And it
is not just about foreigners. They cannot do this. I interpret this as a gen-
eration of images. But that is another story.
How can you fight this or fight against it?
Very simple: I teach them to read. What else should I do? When I am
at the faculty, when I have a student population, when they cannot read,
what else should I do? They might think as they heard it among listeners
and giggles, as if I was joking and not doing it. No, that is exactly what I
22 For the »moral foundations of politics«, see Haidt (2013, pp. 159–187).
152
opening a ‘microphone’. With Plato and Platonisms there will be no way
out, we will have to open ourselves against politics, against political action
and against Aristotle.22 That will no longer be possible: culture is here and
culture is there, and we are very cultural and we are very social. After all,
these are examples of fundamentalisms, and they are predominant here,
fundamentalisms of economic origin. Here the economic type of lan-
guage and ‘unplanned’ gibberish prevails. But it is not easy to get out of
here. The academy is completely immersed in economic fundamentalisms
and in business types of chatter about the market, technology, efficiency,
progress, productivity... These are also many myths from his thicker book
(note: Galimberti’s book Myths of Our Time).
Do we also talk about goals and purposes?
Galimberti, since you introduced him before our discussion, and it
was not a bad choice… He does not distinguish between goals and ob-
jectives. So, my combat strategy is a different one. As a professor, I have
discovered something fascinating, deadly and devastating for me over the
last 20 years, which I have already put into words here and elsewhere, so
I will now only talk about how I approach it. My basic insight from my
quarter century of work and work with students is that male and female
students are illiterate. That they are actually illiterate. I did not say this by
chance, and I know what I am talking about. I am speaking empirically,
from work that has begun over the last 25 years with the student popula-
tion. You already know how to read the series and what is written below.
But if you give them a certain professional, scientific, philosophical, ethi-
cal, political text, they are illiterate. They cannot break through from sen-
tence to sentence. This is a fundamental insight. In other words, if in the
past, in my generation, in high school it was considered ‘not good because
they will read at the faculty’, today we have children in faculties who are
not lazy, without wanting to avoid misunderstandings. They are simply
not capable. They are incapable of reading more demanding texts. And it
is not just about foreigners. They cannot do this. I interpret this as a gen-
eration of images. But that is another story.
How can you fight this or fight against it?
Very simple: I teach them to read. What else should I do? When I am
at the faculty, when I have a student population, when they cannot read,
what else should I do? They might think as they heard it among listeners
and giggles, as if I was joking and not doing it. No, that is exactly what I
22 For the »moral foundations of politics«, see Haidt (2013, pp. 159–187).
152
