Ivan Illich - Deshooling Society

who has read this work? favorite bits?

it feels increasingly significant (and therefor shamefully forgotten) the more I read it. bias disclosure: I was homeschooled to unschooled growing up, varying with family circumstance, so Illich really affirms quite a bit for me.

but perhaps more importantly, Illich articulates the relationship between schooling/instruction and institutions. he describes what may be described as an addiction of sorts to institutions:

for the uninitiated, here’s a grab bag of quotes to sketch out some of his views.

"Institutional wisdom tells us that children need school. Institutional wisdom tells us that children learn in school. But this institutional wisdom is itself the product of schools because sound common sense tells us that only children can be taught in school.

"School is an institution built on the axiom that learning is the result of teaching. And institutional wisdom continues to accept this axiom, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

"To understand what it means to deschool society, and not just to reform the educational establishment, we must now focus on the hidden curriculum of schooling…this hidden curriculum serves as a ritual of initiation into a growth-oriented consumer society for rich and poor alike…and all students are academically processed to be happy only in the company of fellow consumers of the products of the educational machine.

"It is simultaneously the repository of society’s myth, the institutionalization of that myth’s contradictions, and the locus of the ritual which reproduces and veils the disparities between myth and reality. Today the school system, and especially the university, provides ample opportunity for criticism of the myth and for rebellion against its institutional perversions. But the ritual which demands tolerance of the fundamental contradictions between myth and institution still goes largely unchallenged, for neither ideological criticism nor social action can bring about a new society. Only disenchantment with and detachment from the central social ritual and reform of that ritual can bring about radical change.

The American university has become the final stage of the most all encompassing initiation rite the world has ever known. No society in history has been able to survive without ritual or myth, but ours is the first which has needed such a dull, protracted, destructive, and expensive initiation into its myth. The contemporary world civilization is also the first one which has found it necessary to rationalize its fundamental initiation ritual in the name of education. We cannot begin a reform of education unless we first understand that neither individual learning nor social equality can be enhanced by the ritual of schooling. We cannot go beyond the consumer society unless we first understand that obligatory public schools inevitably reproduce such a society, no matter what is taught in them."

"School initiates, too, the Myth of Unending Consumption. This modern myth is grounded in the belief that process inevitably produces something of value and, therefore, production necessarily produces demand. School teaches us that instruction produces learning. The existence of schools produces the demand for schooling. Once we have learned to need school, all our activities tend to take the shape of client relationships to other specialized institutions. Once the self-taught man or woman has been discredited, all nonprofessional activity is rendered suspect. [emphasis mine]

"In fact, learning is the human activity which least needs manipulation by others. Most learning is not the result of instruction. It is rather the result of unhampered participation in a meaningful setting. Most people learn best by being “with it,” yet school makes them identify their personal, cognitive growth with elaborate planning and manipulation.

Once a man or woman has accepted the need for school, he or she is easy prey for other institutions. Once young people have allowed their imaginations to be formed by curricular instruction, they are conditioned to institutional planning of every sort. “Instruction” smothers the horizon of their imaginations.

“The institutionalized values school instills are quantified ones. School initiates young people into a world where everything can be measured, including their imaginations, and, indeed, man himself.”

I could go on (and I will, the more I read), but you get the idea.

I’m beginning to think ground zero for a deconstructed society is how we educate and are educated. how we learn.

2 Likes

@greenwood I haven’t read that but I am very familiar with the arguments. You’ll find alternative education models such as Sudbury Valley School (promoted by Peter Gray) and John Taylor Gatto very interesting. This is somewhat my field - I help run Okinawa Sudbury School, and to put it briefly, having spent 20 years in education (mostly in Japan) I heartily concur that institutionalized schooling is an abomination, the very epitome of (deliberate, tho often well-meaning) human domestication.

2 Likes

If I may redirect slightly, what insight and/or advice might you provide in the context of an international community? One of Peter Gray’s significant points is the importance of mixed-age non-adult play/learning groups. It seems many intentional communities or “back to the land” family groups suffer from such groups’ focus (or perhaps the unintended consequence) on being limited to biological siblings.

I’m curious if anyone has thoughts on active focus on diversification of families. It’s been put to me that hunter-gatherer bands (to stay within professor Gray’s framework) are also comprised of close kin networks. While there’s some truthiness to that, I reject the implication on the factual grounds that close kin networks are insufficient for sustainable cultures for obvious genetic reasons, so such proposals can’t be “the answer”.

1 Like

Do I understand correctly that you’re wondering “do the children of HG bands, intentional communities, and groups of the kind Peter Gray supports need to be related to each other?”

To me the answer is “no, not at all”. I help run a democratic school of 18 students, which includes 5 sibling-pairs, the rest are unrelated. And at the weekend my family will get together with my friends families, and pretty soon the kids will all be running as a pack - yesterday probably 8~9 families turned up at the beach, so again whilst there are siblings, the majority are unrelated. What’s interesting is that in this age (and gender) mixed environment where the children are free to do whatever they choose, small groups of players will converge, sometimes but not always with some visible trends of same-age together (often the 2~5 age group will play together, with parents included) but mostly with simply free mixing with the dividiing lines simply being about activities: some kids will be splashing around in the ocean, while some others will be catching crabs in a bucket, and one will be sat quietly eating something in the shade.

The interesting thing is that in some ways this free mixing is a microcosm of what feralcuture is talking about: free mixing between various groups, with no commitment to stay whatsover, an individual can up and move to another group whenever he or she wants. This points to something I’ve often observed: to find out what natural humans do, watch children, since (when they’re not being coerced…) they mostly think and act instinctlvely (a good example is from movement: children often instinctlvely use a perfect flatfooted squat), since they haven’t yet been corrupted by (agricultural-industrial) cultural mores and values. It’s my hypothesis that children the world over are very similar, and that culture only begins to be visible at adolescence when children become much more aware of the social world of adults around them. (Note that observing children doesn’t necessarily provide definitive answers, but it often provides helpful hypotheses.)

A broader but important point here is that it’s my understanding that in HG societies children are not in any way classed as second-class citizens, often they are treated as equals with equal freedom right from the time they begin to develop independence from their parents (usually around 4~5 years old). Included in this is the right to free movement. Somewhere in the book Hunger-Gatherer Childhoods there’s a description of how children will move to another camp to be with friends while their parents stay put. What this means for feralculture is that it’s a mistake to think of children as “property” of their parents (“my children”), and once we make that leap, then blood relations become pretty much immaterial: what’s important is to have a wide variety of ages mixing freely. I haven’t read much about intentional communities outside of the context of democratic schools but I could see how an agricultural-industrial concept of childhood would be inconsistent with a HG subsistence model and could perhaps lead to problems.

I hope that’s helpful, come back to me with any questions.

1 Like

The question of education and of the socialization of children in the village/band setting is particularly important to me, as I have a young son.