Comment by marttt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by marttt | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

A great introduction to his lines of thinking was (to me) "Ivan Illich in Conversation" by David Cayley [0]. Essentially a book-length interview.

While I find him truly interesting, there is an annoyance: he is strongly critical about "traditional" school system, while holding a PhD himself. I've always found this kind of thing somewhat controversial. I wonder if he did consider dropping out during his studies; and if not, then why.

It somewhat feels like first getting the most out of a (by and large still hugely beneficial) system for your own good -- and then stating that actually, this is a remarkably harmful system.

(Side note: I read "Deschooling Society" quite a while ago; might not remember the main ideas all that well, so please correct me if this feedback is too harsh, or superficial.)

In that light, guys like the Finnish ecophilosopher (and fisherman) Pentti Linkola [1] seem more "true". As in, Linkola was heavily critical towards contemporary schooling, but he also dropped out of university at an early stage of his studies already, and (as much as I understand) lived in a cabin in the forest his entire life. It's a different path than first finishing a PhD and then becoming a notable critic of "the system". I don't think Illich would've had the same analytical capabilities and intellectual horizon if he would not have trained his thinking in a doctorate program.

Then again, Pentti Linkola's father was rector of Helsinki University, and also member of the Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters. So I imagine Pentti the son was steeped in sciences and academic thinking at an early age already. Who knows, maybe that's what made him suspicious in the first place (no illusions?). A biography of Linkola is also published in Finland, but haven't read that one.

I will definitely read more of Illich, though. He is really clever and to the point in oh-so-many things.

0: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/253081.Ivan_Illich_in_Co...

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

You can disagree with something, but still do it because your environment expects you to do it. He might not have been able to succeed in his goals if he hadn’t gotten a phd, not because of the phd itself, but how companies and people perceive those with phds. It opens doors, that would otherwise remain shut.

Similar to how no US president would ever say they don’t believe in god, as that would immediately alienate a large part of the voters.

Usually, if you want to win inside a system, it means you have to play by the rules of the system.

I think at the end of the day we want both perspectives. We all benefit from having people from both inside and outside the system critique the system. Certainly, the person who walks the walk and talks the talk deserves more street cred, but from the my layperson’s perspective I’d much rather live in a world where I can read Linkola’s and Illich’s critiques and take the best parts from both of them.

Yeah the tone and style of the text kinda bugged me. Who talks like that?

I'm definitely sympathetic to the kind of ideas he's advocating, but it's dressed up in a language that makes it seem untrue. It's not surprising to me that he has a Ph.D.

Picking something random from the beginning of Tools for Conviviality:

https://co-munity.net/system/files/ILLICH%201973_tools_for_c...

For several years at CIDOC in Cuernavaca we have conducted critical research on the monopoly of the industrial mode of production and have tried to define conceptually alternative modes that would fit a postindustrial age. ...

Alternative devices for the production and marketing of mass education are technically more feasible and ethically less tolerable than compulsory graded schools. Such new educational arrangements are now on the verge of replacing traditional school systems in rich and in poor countries. They are potentially more effective in the conditioning of job−holders and consumers in an industrial economy. They are therefore more attractive for the management of present societies, more seductive for the people, and insidiously destructive of fundamental values.

I think what he's saying is something like:

> Schools use metrics likes grades that are slanted towards the goals of an industrial economy. This isn't the only way of organizing society, or the most ethical way. So let's consider alternatives.

There is an extreme amount of passive voice in his writing (and yes I know passive voice can be useful; it's not used well here.)

e.g. I'm having a lot of trouble parsing this part:

are technically more feasible and ethically less tolerable than compulsory graded schools

Is he actually saying that alternatives to mass education are LESS ethically tolerable than compulsory graded schools?

That feels like the OPPOSITE of what he says elsewhere.

If he actually used the active voice, it would be clear WHO considers it ethically less tolerable.

So yeah my initial impression is this writing is very bad.

> Is he actually saying that alternatives to mass education are LESS ethically tolerable than compulsory graded schools?

Yes, but he's hiding his point in poor phrasing. Compulsory, graded schools are one solution for disseminating mass education. Another solution for disseminating mass education are personalized learning platforms run by algorithms, or video courses that are taught by a teacher far away from the student. These futuristic, alternative solutions are "technically more feasible and ethically less tolerable".

it's old-fashioned, for sure. and therefore less clear to a modern reader.

but it's not that far from the kind of "turgid" prose you find even today in some academic fields (where being difficult to read is desired because a reader may conflate syntactic difficulty with conceptual challenge).

it does come off as performative and thus annoying.

> While I find him truly interesting, there is an annoyance: he is strongly critical about "traditional" school system, while holding a PhD himself.

Isn't it possible that getting a PhD gave him a front row seat to observe the problems of academia? In some sense it lends credibility to his arguments since he's been on the inside.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com