The intellectual division of labor refers to the idea that knowledge in society is distributed among many individuals. Just as the physical division of labor involves the specialization of different people in particular tasks in which they have a comparative advantage, the intellectual division of labor involves the use of specialized knowledge that each individual possesses as he goes about his task. I’m not talking about the expertise of certain scientists in certain subjects, but the more commonplace and unique “knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place.” It is this knowledge, which is different for every man and therefore gives every man some small advantage over his fellows in that he may utilize the unique knowledge that he possesses in some beneficial way, that is referred to by the intellectual division of labor. This concept is derived from The Knowledge Problem, as conceived by Hayek, that it is impossible to organize or design or control society because the human mind is incapable of possessing all of the requisite knowledge for such a course of action. The knowledge that makes society work is spread among all the members of society.
To quote Hayek extensively: “The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. The economic problem of society is...a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality.” As my work has made clear this year, and as several of my students are coming to realize through their own projects, the state of any individual’s knowledge is always substantially incomplete and riddled with errors. Hence the need for social institutions, such as the market, that can utilize the dispersed and complementary knowledge of all of society’s members for solving all the problems that society faces.
There is a dangerous tendency in pretty much everyone, but especially among intellectuals and academics, to believe that they know more than they do, or rather that they know what’s best. The archetypical social planner mentality can be discerned in the writings of many, if not most, of the greatest social thinkers throughout history, from Plato to Augustine to Roussou to Kennedy. They all have a vision for what they think the world should look like (as we all do), and believe that it is within their power (and rights) to fundamentally transform and control society to fit their image of what they believe is best. But this mindset is by no means limited to these figures; every time a high school student howls on social media for increased gun control, they are sharing their vision for what society should look like and calling for this vision to be forcibly brought into existence by the coercive powers of the State. Indeed, the very idea of the State may be viewed as a means created by great men to effect the changes they desire on others in society. Now, it should be obvious to anyone with developed critical thinking skills that no politician or bureaucrat, or even a large number of them, could possibly possess all of the knowledge necessary to successfully plan and shape society as they please, nor could they effectively utilize this information if they had it without the guidance of market prices. Every attempt, therefore, is doomed to failure, and these monuments to man’s vanity will no doubt have deleterious effects on the smooth functioning of the spontaneous organization of society.
[I recently attended a lecture entitled “Economic Calculation and the Vertical Division of Labor: A Causal-Realist Perspective on Development Economics” that discussed the attempts by governments of developing countries to speed-up economic growth through the encouragement of various industries and the enactment of various social welfare programs. In every case, such efforts have resulted in a colossal misallocation of resources and capital consumption, causing the government program to appear quite successful in the short run but ruinous in the long run. Again, this is because of the central planners’ lack of knowledge of present and future conditions in the country, and even of the secondary consequences of their own actions. Each government believed, and were encouraged in this belief by the most prominent Western economists, that they could centrally plan growth and advancement: the results of their experiments confirm the veracity of the knowledge problem as well as any theoretical argument ever could.]
Now, considering a phenomenon called the knowledge problem, my thoughts of course turn to education, and I’ve been trying to see what applicability the knowledge problem and the intellectual division of labor might have to education and the schooling system.
As I have explained countless times, I think that education should be highly individualized to fit the unique needs of each student. Indeed, education should be student-centered, in that the student should be in charge of their own learning. This necessarily includes the right to not learn, if they so choose. Additionally, schooling should be much less structured than it currently is. The artificial apparatus of assignments and grades and scheduled classes is somewhat oppressive and not conducive to authentic learning, which is motivated by a sense of purpose and can occur naturally through conversation and the careful reflection on and analysis of life. The lecture model of schooling seems particularly antiquated in light of the universal availability of information. What kids need are not lecturers, but advisors who will talk with them and give them feedback and ask them questions and teach them how to think and argue in a noncoercive manner. This can happen one-on-one or in small groups; probably not classrooms. It’s important, I think, to conceive of education as an individual experience. And it should be based on respect for the student in the sense that the job of the teacher or advisor is to serve the student and offer him not what the teacher thinks he needs, but what the student wants from the teacher. [The teacher may, of course, use his relationship with the student to influence what the student wants, based on the teacher’s advice.] As I said in an email to Bott when discussing the plan for next year’s EMC2 program: “We shouldn't be asking what the class will look like next year. We shouldn't be planning a class. This shouldn't be a class. This should be a space for kids to learn and relationships to grow and skills to be practiced. Through conversation. For a purpose. Based on the utmost respect for every student. To do that, we need to focus on the students as individuals….Let's not think of EMC as a class to be designed. Let's think of it as a group of students to be aided in their own development. No class, just students.” I said all this because I was worried that focusing on the planning of a class would hurt our ability to work with students as individual cases. “Every student is different, with different learning styles and different learning needs. I think that, with a structured class, it's too easy to see the kids as students-in-a-class, and since the class is at this point, the student should be at that point. The class calendar says this is due, so the student should be doing it. It's too easy to guide and plan and design the class' course, rather than the individual student's.” Anyone who has observed my work with EMC2 this year will see that I have already embraced these principles in my own approach to educating students.
Now, it seems obvious that the current public schooling system is designed in a way antithetical to the insights provided by Hayek’s presentation of the knowledge problem and the nature of the intellectual division of labor. Recall that the intellectual division of labor does not refer to respective fields of expertise, but to the knowledge of particular circumstances that each individual possesses and uses in a complex economy. Superficially, this does not condemn education as such; indeed, it suggests that there should be people who specialize as teachers and work in the education industry with their particular knowledge. But, the message one gets from an understanding of the knowledge problem, the futility of central planning, is directly attributable to modern public schooling. A clearer example of central planning than modern public schooling is hard to fathom.
First, there is the compulsory attendance laws that force students to attend school. Besides being just a draconian, barbarous practice, this is a harbinger of the idea behind public schools. Those who created it enlisted the coercive powers of the State to force their vision upon everyone else. Their idea for what kids should be learning and how they should be learning it is so good that is must be made mandatory for everyone. Second, there is the highly structured nature of school, which groups students together by age, not necessarily interest or ability, and assembles regular schedules for these groups of students to follow, and imposes a strict and stark hierarchy of authority upon students with all the rules and regulations one has come to expect from a government agency. Third, there is the curriculum that students are subjected to. It was decided, in some far-off conference room somewhere, what exactly all students should be taught and how it should be taught and when it should be taught. As I’ve said elsewhere, the implications of the modern approach to public schooling is that students are all to be treated exactly the same so that they can all turn out exactly the same. [This is enforced through standardized testing.] And fourth (although probably not last), there is a lack of respect for students or trust in teachers. Students are not given choices about what they want to learn or how they want to learn it or when they want to learn it, despite their own knowledge of their own specific circumstances. Similarly, teachers are not given the freedom or flexibility to adapt their material or method of instruction to fit individual students, as they might wish in light of their knowledge of specific circumstances. Modern public schooling is, in every way, a centrally planned institution.
Like every central plan, public education has been a colossal failure. Kids who are forced into its uncompromising and oppressive hallways and classrooms are unhappy and constrained. Their agency is stolen from them, and they are treated like wheat in a mill, destined only to be ground into whatever form of flour the central authorities have decided is best. But, of course, the schools cannot quite accomplish the central planners’ vision. Many students leave school without the knowledge or skills that the schools were meant to impart. Literacy rates in America, while high, are startling lower than one would expect. I know from experience that most students cannot write well at all. Knowledge of basic civic facts, such as the name of the Vice President or the role of the Supreme Court, is unpossessed by about half the population. Less than 1% of people report that their several years of training in a foreign language has left them any more confident in their communication abilities than they'd be without them. And the soft skills that people need to succeed in this world, such as creativity, curiosity, and critical thinking, are everywhere in short supply. In the meantime, the unintended consequences of school, discussed in other posts on this site, have left our economy and society severely disadvantaged. Not to mention the effects on students themselves. Did you know that the suicide rate among teens jumps tremendously every finals season?
But surely, one might say, there must be a plan. How else could we know what to teach? There must be some things that students must be taught, and surely the experts can tell us what those things are and how and when they should be delivered, right? But, again, this is a fatal conceit. Who are these experts, and who decided that they were experts? And while they might know a lot of educational theory, what knowledge have they of the particular circumstances in which a teacher or student might find themselves? Furthermore, how can anyone possibly decide what knowledge is necessary to be known by everyone? Most of the jobs students will occupy in the future have not been invented yet. The world is one of constant change; the future is always uncertain. How can anyone confidently know what knowledge the future will demand? How can anyone have confidence in another person who asserts that they have such knowledge? [Recall that information is cheap in the Information Age.] And why does there need to be a plan? Why must every student have the same knowledge as every other student? Why does everyone need to be the same? I have a student, Noah, with a presence and a personality and an attitude that I believe lend themselves to showmanship. His writing abilities, on the other hand, are severely underdeveloped. But, I have chosen to give him opportunities to develop his showmanship, rather than writing, because in his particular circumstances, we agreed that this was the course best for him and his future success. So his education was adapted to better suit him individually. Why can’t this happen throughout the education system? Again, who could possibly be qualified to abstractly decide the educational objectives of every child in a nationwide system of millions? The most cursory critical examination of the idea reveals its absurdity.
If we are to truly transform education such that it can actually serve the individual needs of students, we need to free it from its central plan and utilize the unique knowledge of each child, parent, and teacher of their particular circumstances. Educators should focus on the task before them: this conversation, this project, this relationship. Does the student have a future that will require certain abilities and knowledge of him? Of course. But to try to foresee exactly what these abilities and knowledge are is a vain exercise, and will only result in decreased efficacy in the here-and-now, when the teacher can have the most good. Let the student decide what he wants and needs to know, and serve that need. We should not try to mold children into our idea of what we think they should be. We should meet them where they are and help them get where they want to go and become who they want to be. Education must be individualized and made voluntary. The knowledge problem provides just another reason why this is true.
No comments:
Post a Comment