Tue 13 Mar 2007
As you know I have been thinking of the concept of leisure and its connection to education for the last 8 months. The more I think on it the stronger the tie becomes. Because learning is hard work, the learner must have time (leisure) to assimilate. That is why entertainment is the antithesis of leisure. Entertainment pulls the learner away from contemplation, keeping him too busy to learn. If the entertainment industry is any indication, our culture has plenty of time. We could be a very educated culture but instead we have traded our time for entertainment rather than leisure. This, I think, is the natural outcome of Enlightenment thinking which puts originality ahead of craftsmanship.
In his character sketch of Bach, Glory and Honor,
” Emulation of the classics provided a firm foundation in what was excellent and a model on which to base new creative work. This concept also reflected the medieval and Baroque concept that craftsmanship was of greater importance than originality-a view contradicting that held by the emerging secular Enlightenment, which placed individuality and originality above all else.”
Somewhere in this thought is the seed for the idea that classical education is not, in the early years, the efficient memorization of facts. The early school years are not the time to be cracking the whip, but rather the time to be developing the palate. This, of course, brings us around to Charlotte Mason. It also hints that much of what is called classical education in the early years is, in fact, the antithesis of true classical education.
With my 5 older boys out of the house for the day, I am going to enjoy my leisure.
Music provided by J S Bach St John Passion
10 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“This concept also reflected the medieval and Baroque concept that craftsmanship was of greater importance than originality-a view contradicting that held by the emerging secular Enlightenment, which placed individuality and originality above all else.”
Cindy, I have been thinking about your post all morning. My mind is attempting to form a connection between the secular Enlightenment and the current emphasis on creative writing for elementary-age children, but I haven’t quite made it yet.
The contrast between Baroque and Enlightenment thinking is really so interesting.
I am also trying to understand the difference between leisure and entertainment– right now it seems to me the difference is whether your free-time activities give you space for contemplation and thought, or whether they are suppressing and inhibiting thought.
Thanks for a very thought-provoking post!
Comment by Katie (March 13, 2007 @ 11:32 am )
Katie,
That is a pure straight line connection, which is why classical writing courses rely heavily on imitation rather than creation. I also believe CM style narrations are more imitation than creation.
I personally haven’t given a creative writing assignment in years, although the children have been know to write creatively on their own.
I think we can safely forgo creative writing.
Comment by Cindy (March 13, 2007 @ 12:23 pm )
Cindy,
Thanks so much for writing this post. I’ve been thinking many of the same thoughts but wondered if I was crazy. I know that when the boys are in the back yard digging tunnels, they are engaged in this contemplation that is a big part of how we homeschool. Three hours of school and three hours of digging somehow seems more effective than six hours of school, IMO.
Eric Brende talks a little about how there’s much room for contemplation and/or conversation while performing agrarian tasks. My husband and I got a taste of this while harvesting snow peas today. We discussed some big ideas and enjoyed each other’s company while doing an activity that feeds our family. I loved it!
I remember hearing somewhere that artists spent their first several years of study trying to copy what the masters before them had done before painting anything original. Is it just me, or were folks back then a lot smarter than we are now?
I really enjoy your blog. I appreciate your honesty and humility. You’re a blessing to me.
Comment by Jo (March 13, 2007 @ 9:46 pm )
Cindy,
This post reminded me of an essay I read not too long ago, by John Erskine, entitled “Originality in Literature.” He makes very much the same point, and contrasts Dante and Milton, who open their works with a determination to excel at something that has been done before, to Rousseau’s Confessions, in which he declares he is going to do something which has never had a parallel.
Oddly enough, I penciled in the margin, “excellence is better than originality,” and although I don’t remember doing it, I think that is why your post sounded so familiar. I sought out Erskine, btw, because Jacques Barzun mentions him so often in Teacher in America.
I’m with you all the way on foregoing creative writing in favor of narration and excellent writing.
Comment by Karen Glass (March 14, 2007 @ 2:43 am )
This is off the subject, but would you consider commenting on Gileskirk? How do you use it and what do you like/dislike about it? Thank you very much! I have a 13 yob and am wondering about it for him. We use AO currently.
Comment by Tarheel mama (March 14, 2007 @ 5:51 am )
You example of Bach gives me an idea. I have a student who is interested enough in music that I’ve learned something of the classical music “farm system.” I know just enough to be dangerous, but it’s always disappointed me that there seem to be two ways with classical music these days: technically brilliant and fiercely competitive on the one hand, and so original as to have an extremely limited audience on the other. (And then there’s the pop world, which is outside the scope of my analogy, but I wonder how many of both ends listen to pop as a way to blow off steam.) Maybe things were similar in Bach’s day, but I suspect not. I’m watching my daughter wade out into both music-training pools simultaneously, and it miffs me a bit that there’s pressure to choose. When it gets too bad, we listen to Bluegrass.
I think that similar splits have occurred in many other domains, because of philosophical developments since the Enlightenment. I think that this Bach concept of “craftsmanship” reflects a pre-split mentality. Some people think you can’t go back, but I tend to reply, “Oh, yeah?” Homeschooling is the ultimate attempt to return to craftsmanship, in my way of thinking.
Speaking of which, I have another theory, though I’m not sure whether the chicken or egg came first in this one. Of course this is a simplification, but I have watched kids at our local classical school from an anecdotal distance and I think that they tend to work hard at their dry-ish studies, then “clear their heads” with entertainment. The question is, do the students not genuinely engage in their studies because they are already distracted by entertainment, or do they want entertainment as a distraction because they are not genuinely engaged in their studies?
I don’t know, but I think that only way to develop leisure is to carve out a space for it to happen. In our family, that means very limited entertainment, and as much free time as possible so long as no one tortures the cat. Ironically, to get by in Sunday school during kindgergarten, my daughter memorized cartoon characters like she was studying for a test, but reveled in Mr. Toad. Peculiar, isn’t it? The difficulty, of course, is that being something of a Luddite makes you feel like you’re inhabiting a parallel universe, but I’m beginning to think that the general culture is already doing that anyway.
Comment by Laura A (March 14, 2007 @ 7:30 am )
Laura A,
For what it’s worth, bluegrass can be viewed as one side of such a split, originating from old-time country music. When radio and recordings became established there were various attempts to fashion genres that would serve as commercial vehicles, with mixed results. For awhile everyone sounded like Jimmie Rodgers, and then later everyone was a brother duet. Nothing stuck, though, until Bill Monroe came along and fashioned his own kind of music, a hopped-up performance oriented take on country music that eventually came to dominate the field. Soon enough the techical brilliance and fierce competetiveness you mention came to rest in bluegrass.
Country music may be odd in that the other strain you mention, originality for a limited audience, has not focused on inventing new and idiosyncratic forms of the music but instead has gone back and explored the weirdness that was there from the beginning. The most inventive country musicians I know are the ones who dig deep into the sources, come to understand something that the mainstream missed, and then find a way to present that thing to modern ears. Some exciting stuff results; too bad there’s not much of a living in it.
Comment by Rick Saenz (March 14, 2007 @ 8:29 am )
Wow, Laura, lots of food for thought. First, I think Bach did face some of this during the 2nd half of his life when he was in Leipzig. The head of the school wanted Bach to change his teaching style and move away from imitation. I think Bach felt the full force of the split as he was standing in the gap.
We have noticed the same entertainment mindset among school children and I must admit we fight this mindset also. My husband has been working 70-80 hours a week so he only has a short window of time when he come home and he is exhausted. Some nights he gathers everyone around to watch one episode of Monk before he retires. Then he cuddles up with the little guys. He could be reading a book to them and sometimes he does but when you are THAT tired it is much easier to watch. He uses the nights we are at baseball practice to read.
Comment by Cindy (March 14, 2007 @ 8:33 am )
Rick,
It is always interesting to me that many pop country stars refer to old country music in positive way and new country music in a negative way even while they are doing it the new way.
For instance, Tim McGraw speaks of someone putting “pop in his country” even while he has another hit song with a rap artist.
The Dixie Chicks also frequently seem to carry that theme which shows up in the lyrics to Long Time Gone as:
But the music aint got no soul
Now they sound tired but they dont sound haggard
Theyve got money but they dont have cash
They got junior but they dont have hank
It is almost like in Nashville it is popular to discuss roots just not to return to them.
Comment by Cindy (March 14, 2007 @ 8:51 am )
Yes, Cindy, I think everyone faces the exhaustion-that-leads-to-entertainment at some point. It’s the reality of where and when we live. I think husbands have a particularly hard time of it. And even if we’ve carved out a little niche, there’s that parallel universe feeling. I don’t know the answer but can only do what God has put on my heart.
Rick, I don’t know enough about the inner workings of country or bluegrass to comment knowledgeably, but I wouldn’t be surprised that they are similarly split. I do know that there are classical musicians who do something like what you’ve described with early music. The group Anonymous 4 comes to mind, partly because they’ve also delved into American shape-note singing, which might be construed as a kind of country music. I have some other thoughts, but this is a comments board, and I don’t know enough to back myself up, so I’ll desist. I do know that there’s a song on the Reeltime Travlers CD that reminds me of REM’s “It’s the End of the World as We Know It.” What I don’t know is what earlier tradition both groups may be taking this common sound from.
And Cindy, I thought about Bach feeling the split, too, so that I almost edited it to read that he experienced an “earlier in the split” mentality instead of a “pre-split” one, but it sounded cumbersome, so I left it. There are all sorts of places that one can put the beginning of that split. Some people like to pin it on Descartes. Maybe it was inevitable in a fallen world, and the split began in the Garden.
And then, someone like Jonah Goldberg (of National Review) would just call us (anyone who wants to have all their life integrated) all a bunch of bobos who want “authenticity” and are actually just duped by Madison Avenue. I beg to differ, but I can see why it comes up. The world is SO split that cynics see everything as a product of its time and something to be reached as a “target market.”
Boy, am I rambling! I meant something coherent, but I don’t know if I said it clearly–quite possibly not, but I have to go be a mom and do housework now. Anyway, you really got my mind going, Cindy!
Comment by Laura A (March 15, 2007 @ 7:07 am )