Better or Worse

In 1992 Francis Fukuyama wrote an interested book entitled, The End of History and the Last Man. In that book he wrote this:

"The experience of the twentieth century made highly problematic the claims of progress on the basis of science and technology. For the ability of technology to better human life is critically dependent on a parallel moral progress in man. Without the later, the power of technology will simply be turned to evil purposes, and mankind will be worse off than it was previously."

Now I have no idea where Fukuyama stands spiritually, but I can probably guess after reading his book, but that does not matter. The issue is not his spiritual standing; the issue is his statement above. Is it valid?

We tend to look at technology as a panacea - something that will solve all of our social and educational ills. Today's technology is no different than yesterday's; the computer, the horse or the car... all must be created or managed by mankind. Technological advances, no matter what they are, better no one and save no one on their own. We can examine history and see evidence of how technological advances, initially used for good, were eventually used for evil. Does that mean we do not continue to create and invent? Absolutely not!

But, it does mean that we must understand culture to understand where we currently are in relation to the past. Fukuyama is right in the fact that the moral progress must not stop. Sadly, it's progress has slowed. Somewhere along the way, morality became a weakness, a sickness, if you will, of which we must be cured.

It is interesting that Fukuyama makes this statement early in chapter one of his book, goes on to examine the Industrial revolution and its role in history, democracy and its relationships to fascism and communism, and, yet, never comes back to visit this idea of moral decline. Instead, he ends chapter one pointing to this idea of betterment as he writes,

"As we reach the 1990s, the world as a whole has not revealed new evils, but has gotten better in certain distinct ways. Chief among the surprises that have occurred in the recent past was the totally unexpected collapse of communism throughout much of the world in the late 1980s." 

Today, in 2011, we struggle with many things. In our country alone, we have two parties who have lost the ability to debate on issues. We have a national debt spiraling out of control, an economy on the brink and a polarized nation. Why? When morality is removed from the our national psyche everyone is right, all the time. There is no equation for unity because 1+1=1.

Morality is the fiber that strengthens the national fabric in ways that allow for difference and debate. When there is no moral fiber there will be no debate because the fabric is weak and frail, especially in the middle. The middle is where the real work gets done, and where the moral fiber is strongest. It is the moral fiber that brings the many different pieces of fabric together in order to have one large quilt made of many different pieces of fabric, each important and distinct in their own way. The moral fiber takes all those differences and brings them together, forming one strong quilt. Without the moral fiber, each individual fabric stays isolated and becomes paranoid and protective, and all actions are for its own purposes and protection. Sound familiar? Better or worse, that may not even be the question any more? Blessings! 

Is Class Mobility Possible?

Is there such a thing as class mobility? Some will say yes, and others will say no. What do you say? There are many answers out there that say many different things.

Isn't this the American dream? My grandfather was born and raised in Trentino, Italy, came to the United States when he was 16 years old and made a better life for himself. But, did he actually move up in class?

The New York Times has an interesting take on class. They have an interactive poll on class that focuses on four continuum which they claim defines class: occupation, education, income and wealth. Click HERE to interact with the article and see where you fall on those four continuum.

But, are those four areas all that there is to defining class? Many would say with passion a resounding no. Class, in higher education circles, is thought of as so much more than socio-economic factors which is pretty much what those four areas cover. Class is thought of through the cognitive, the moral, the emotional... just to name a few other areas of focus.

There is a great blog called Understanding Society. It has some good things to say about this idea of class mobility. I suggest you visit it as I am going to quote it in the next few paragraphs regarding education and class mobility. Understanding Society asks a crucial question: where do children fit?

"A crucial question to pose as we think about class and social mobility, is the issue of the social mechanisms through which children are launched into careers and economic positions in society. A pure meritocracy is a society in which specific social mechanisms distinguish between high-achieving and low-achieving individuals, assigning high-achieving individuals to desirable positions in society. A pure plutocracy is a society in which holders of wealth provide advantages to their children, ensuring that their adult children become the wealth-holders of the next generation. A caste system assigns children and young adults to occupations based on their ascriptive status. In each case there are fairly visible social mechanisms through which children from specific social environments are tracked into specific groups of roles in society. The sociological question is how these mechanisms work; in other words, we want to know about the "microfoundations" of the system of economic and social placement across generations."

At first glance, it would seem simple to assign our country one of the above labels, but is it really that simple. Understanding Society has more to say...

"Education is certainly one of the chief mechanisms of social mobility in any society; it involves providing the child and young adult with the tools necessary to translate personal qualities and talents into productive activity. So inequalities in access to education constitute a central barrier to social mobility. And it seems all too clear that children have very unequal educational opportunities throughout the United States, from pre-school to university. These inequalities correlate with socially significant facts like family income, place of residence, and race; and they correlate in turn with the career paths and eventual the socioeconomic status (SES) of the young people who are placed in one or another of these educational settings. Race is a particularly prevalent form of structural inequalities of opportunity in the US; multiple studies have shown how slowly patterns of racial segregation are changing in the cities of the United States."

I will leave you one more quote from Understanding Society.

Professor Kathryn Wilson, Associate Professor of Economics at Kent State University,“People like to think of America as the land of opportunities. The irony is that our country actually has less social mobility and more inequality than most developed countries."

Well what do you think? I s she right? Is Understanding Society right? Many questions in need of answers, but one thing is certain, the question is no longer as simple as it once was, is it? Blessings!

The Power of Culture

Recently I posted comments on a book entitled, To Change the World by Dr. James Davison Hunter. In his book, Dr. Hunter questions the normative view of culture and every norm associated with it.

Culture is thought to be about hearts and minds, and to change culture one simply had to change the majority of hearts and minds. Dr. Hunters believes this is not the case at all. He, not only, challenges this notion but provides an alternative view of culture, which, after dwelling on it and re-reading that section of the book, I tend to agree with his analysis and subsequent theory on this.

Dr. Hunter believes that culture is a "normative order by which we comprehend others, the larger world and ourselves and through which we individually and collectively order our experiences." Dr. Hunter believes that the heart of culture is a "complex of norms" or as he has termed them, "commanding truths." Dr. Hunter believes that these "commanding truths" define the "shoulds and should nots of our experiences and the good and evil, the right and wrong, the appropriate and inappropriate, the honorable and the shameful. To put it succinctly, Dr. Hunter describes culture as a system of truth claims and moral obligations." To him culture is really about ideas.

If Dr. Hunter is right, and I believe that he is more right than wrong, then, what does this new view of culture say about the role of education in acquiring morality? Outside of the family, there is no greater teacher of morality than the educational institution. It is said that values and morals are caught more than taught, and that the act of catching comes from sheer hours of time spent in connection with others who already have values or are also catching values. The truth that we claim and the morality that we follow, from where do they come?

Truth and morality begin within the family, but as your child grows others begin to partner with you in this process despite your greatest protests. Teachers, friends, coaches and friend's parents start to become part of this process - not intentionally, of course. As your child's world expands, they begin to spend more time away from you and with others. They play, run and imagine in different ways and with different others. They interact with the world through their family, their friends, their teachers, their coaches, their mentors and their heroes. All of this affects the formation of their truth and their morality in a deep and impacting way. Eventually, a fabric is woven into a worldview that is, in essence, reality for all of us. Dr. Hunter believes this created worldview is so embedded in who we are that it is reality for all of us. He writes,

"[Worldview] is not just our view of what is right or wrong or true or false but our understanding of time, space, and identity - the very essence of reality as we experience it."

Dr. Hunter's view of culture is very different and very helpful to those of us who want to understand the power of culture and its impacting effect on all of us. He writes on what culture is,

"One must view culture, then not only as a normative order reflected in well established symbols, but also as the organization of human activity surrounding the production, distribution, manipulation, and administration of these symbols. Another way to say this is that culture is intrinsically dialectical. It is generated and exists at the interface between ideas and institutions; between the symbolic and the social and physical environment."

If it is indeed a battle of ideas and their relationships to all of us, and I am beginning to believe that it is, then the education we choose matters greatly. The power of culture is two-fold: culture is a powerful influence on who we are, and it is a power that can be changed by ideas and the people who promote them. Education is an important variable in their equation. Stay tuned for more comments on this very interesting topic! Blessings!

What is...

One rainy afternoon, many years ago, before children, I discovered the brilliant mind of Dr. Gordon Clark. It was the cover that caught my eye - a painting from the past. As I picked up the book, I discovered it was entitled, Essays of Politics and Ethics by Dr. Gordon H. Clark. I opened the cover and have been a fan ever since.


Dr. Clark still has some profound things to say to us today about proper behavior. I believe, currently taking place, is a population being slowly convinced that "what is" can lead to "what ought to be"... I will let Dr. Clark explain.

"Empirical premises contain nothing but statements of empirical facts. They give observational data - they state what is. Hence, nothing but observational data can be put into the conclusion. If the premises state only what is, the conclusion can not state what ought to be; there is no way of deriving a normative principle from an empirical observation."


A normative principle is a theory that establishes a single principle against which all other actions are judged. The key assumption in normative ethics is not complex: there is only one ultimate criterion of moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles. Using Dr. Clark's point, we can not use empirical date - data that states what is - to declare what ought to be. His point is that the premise can not support the conclusion.


For example, if you wake up and find a cloudy day and no sun, you would be illogical to surmise from this observation that the sun no longer exists. You are just as illogical to deduce that God does not exist because you can not see Him. If you do not see the sun because of cloud cover in your part of the world it does not mean that there is no sun. Announce that to some of your friends and observe their reaction. Yet, we allow so many to use the same fallacious argument for the existence of God... I do not see Him, therefore, He must not exist. I am confident in my assertion that God's existence is not dependent upon whether you or anyone else see Him.

Normative ethics involve arriving at high moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. As Christians are there any higher standards than those of our Lord? Do we allow those standards to govern all that we do? Do we understand that every time we declare "what is" as "what ought to be" we are committing a fallacy and playing God? What are your answers? Blessings!