"Education"
Education is crucial; I doubt anyone could seriously deny this. But the term "educate" has been lately appropriated most inappriately by masses of English "speakers" who deprive the word of its meaning with use both sloppy and pompous.
All too often, I hear of folks going out to spread the word, to pontificate, to preach, but claiming to educate. "We need to educate the population about the importance of (insert important topic here)" seems to be heard daily in the press, from those promoting safer sex, birth control, environmental standards -- name it, they're saying it.
Despite their claims, education is not the random dissemmination of information. It describes a very specific interaction, the relationship between teacher and student, master and pupil, informed and ignorant. Let me emphasize the last example; the process of education implies an acknowledged and accepted status between the participants. In every true case of education, the student admits prior ignorance on the topic of the lesson, and seeks from the teacher instruction, guidance, and a degree of enlightenment. The education may take place over just about any length of time, from the brief (would you teach me that card trick?), to the lifelong (Obiwan, Show me the ways of the Jedi).
Key, though, to any education, is the pupil's admition of ignorance, recongition of a teacher's superior knowledge of the topic, and willingness to participate in the educating process. Without these three elements, there is no lesson taught, no education.
What passes as "educating" to many of the ill-informed can often be described with better clarity. Let's say two people are discussing the relative merits of an upcoming election topic. Let's further stipulate that the participants are not in any way involved in the campaign except as opinionated potential voters. And just for fun, let's call the topic a proposed law called Digestion.
Participants can inform: "Let me show the Intestinal passage."
They can promote: "I feel you may have overlooked the potential blockage caused by the Duodenim Section in paragraph 3."
They might attempt to persuade: "Yes, that's right! You're begining to understand the importance of peristalsis in moving the process."
Heck, they might resort to coercing the listener: "Am I getting through to you, Numbskull?"
If one party to this discussion achieves a victory of promotion, persuasion, coercion, or whatever -- say, getting their opponent to concede that the result of the Digestion is crap -- that victorious loudmouth cannot claim to have "educated" the listener. The semantic moron should be taught better manners.
You see, dear reader, when one dons the mantle of an educator without the consent of the would-be pupil, one makes what could easily be an assinine assumption, that the pupil admits his or her ignorance and is wanting to correct that ignorance with instruction. I have often seen this not to be the case. In one instance, the "pupil" being educated by some motormouthed zealout was actually an expert in the field who had debunked the "knowledge" imparted by her "master"; in another, the "swine" catching the tossed "pearls" agreed completely on all the information, but not at all with the conclusions the tosser drew. In both cases, the receivers of this information regarded labling the exchanges as "education" as far from the truth, and regarded the very use of the term to be insulting, the ultimate in belittling condescension.
In fact, now that I think of it, this condescending attitude may very well be what motivates this bastardizing appropriation. The automatic posturing it bestows to the speaker loftily raises his or her words to the edifying position of authority. They must be thinking, if only subconsciously, "Those that don't agree have yet to accept the wisdom of my words; yes, that must be it. How could I be wrong?" This Position must be far more reassuring to the insecure than admitting to personal shortcomings.
So be careful how you describe your daily exchanges of information. Dissagreement on any issue signifies neither ignorance nor an invitation to correction. Just accept the fact that you could be the uneducated.
All too often, I hear of folks going out to spread the word, to pontificate, to preach, but claiming to educate. "We need to educate the population about the importance of (insert important topic here)" seems to be heard daily in the press, from those promoting safer sex, birth control, environmental standards -- name it, they're saying it.
Despite their claims, education is not the random dissemmination of information. It describes a very specific interaction, the relationship between teacher and student, master and pupil, informed and ignorant. Let me emphasize the last example; the process of education implies an acknowledged and accepted status between the participants. In every true case of education, the student admits prior ignorance on the topic of the lesson, and seeks from the teacher instruction, guidance, and a degree of enlightenment. The education may take place over just about any length of time, from the brief (would you teach me that card trick?), to the lifelong (Obiwan, Show me the ways of the Jedi).
Key, though, to any education, is the pupil's admition of ignorance, recongition of a teacher's superior knowledge of the topic, and willingness to participate in the educating process. Without these three elements, there is no lesson taught, no education.
What passes as "educating" to many of the ill-informed can often be described with better clarity. Let's say two people are discussing the relative merits of an upcoming election topic. Let's further stipulate that the participants are not in any way involved in the campaign except as opinionated potential voters. And just for fun, let's call the topic a proposed law called Digestion.
Participants can inform: "Let me show the Intestinal passage."
They can promote: "I feel you may have overlooked the potential blockage caused by the Duodenim Section in paragraph 3."
They might attempt to persuade: "Yes, that's right! You're begining to understand the importance of peristalsis in moving the process."
Heck, they might resort to coercing the listener: "Am I getting through to you, Numbskull?"
If one party to this discussion achieves a victory of promotion, persuasion, coercion, or whatever -- say, getting their opponent to concede that the result of the Digestion is crap -- that victorious loudmouth cannot claim to have "educated" the listener. The semantic moron should be taught better manners.
You see, dear reader, when one dons the mantle of an educator without the consent of the would-be pupil, one makes what could easily be an assinine assumption, that the pupil admits his or her ignorance and is wanting to correct that ignorance with instruction. I have often seen this not to be the case. In one instance, the "pupil" being educated by some motormouthed zealout was actually an expert in the field who had debunked the "knowledge" imparted by her "master"; in another, the "swine" catching the tossed "pearls" agreed completely on all the information, but not at all with the conclusions the tosser drew. In both cases, the receivers of this information regarded labling the exchanges as "education" as far from the truth, and regarded the very use of the term to be insulting, the ultimate in belittling condescension.
In fact, now that I think of it, this condescending attitude may very well be what motivates this bastardizing appropriation. The automatic posturing it bestows to the speaker loftily raises his or her words to the edifying position of authority. They must be thinking, if only subconsciously, "Those that don't agree have yet to accept the wisdom of my words; yes, that must be it. How could I be wrong?" This Position must be far more reassuring to the insecure than admitting to personal shortcomings.
So be careful how you describe your daily exchanges of information. Dissagreement on any issue signifies neither ignorance nor an invitation to correction. Just accept the fact that you could be the uneducated.