The Ideal of Liberal Education

Today is the day of the Crimmel Colloquium at St. Lawrence University. In honor of this event, I would like to quote from Professor Crimmel's book, sharing his view of the ideal of liberal education:

The ideal of liberal education is: "the development of wise people--that is, people who possess the capacity and inclination to act on the basis of knowledge of reality and ideality" (Crimmel, Henry H., The Liberal Arts College and the Ideal of Liberal Education: The Case for Radical Reform, University Press of America, 1993, p. 125).

Here is a later expansion: "The wise person [is] one who possesses the capacity and inclination for rational action. To act rationally is to act on the basis of knowledge of what is and what ought to be, and with prudence, and with the aid of moral virtues" (Crimmel, p. 217).

One more statement I would like to quote: "The wise person acts to transform reality into ideality" (Crimmel, p. 222).

And here are other statements of ideals that he does not think are as worthy:

Ideals Giving Priority to Theory:

To provide a religious faith
To provide specialized knowledge
To provide general knowledge
To provide both specialized and general knowledge
To understand the Great Books
To develop cultural literacy
To provide an understanding of Western culture
To provide an understanding of world cultures
To provide an initiation into the forms of knowledge
To develop the critical thinker

Ideals Giving Priority to Practice:

To provide vocational training
To prepare students for graduate school
To prepare for a mature, effective, adult life
To provide political liberation
To develop solidarity
To actualize human potential
To cope effectively with change
To develop the citizens of a free society
To develop "the democratic personality"
To develop a person

Ideals Giving Priority to Interests

To satisfy student interests
To satisfy a plurality of interests

It is not that all of these other statements of ideals are unworthy. He argues that his statement of the ideal is superior to all of these other statements. (His arguments can be found on pp. 127-163.)

As I look over his list of other statements of ideals, I see that the ones that give priority to theory all neglect the question "to what purpose?" The ones that give priority to practice point to goals but do not fully articulate them or justify them. Of each of those implicit goals, the further question "why?" still can be asked. This is not necessarily a problem. It just means that a person must choose such a goal outside of the educational system that supports that goal. But those who have set such goals for themselves might find such educational systems quite meaningful. I am inclined to agree with Professor Crimmel, however, that these would not count as institutions providing liberal education. I also agree that orienting education around interests is problematic.

I am struck most of all by the emphasis Professor Crimmel places on the study of ideality. I agree with him here (and have written previously about a similar theme here in the SLU Philosophy Blog). We seem to put more emphasis on the study of various dimensions of reality. And we often delude ourselves into thinking that "ideality" is not really real. Setting ideals and choosing values is just a matter of personal preference, and it is a bit rude (even an infringement of "academic freedom") to question each other about our values and our moral choices. And yet these relativistic attitudes about ideality, about what ought to be, miss the point completely. "Ought" gains much (most, all?) of its meaning from the reality of our essential interconnectedness with each other. It is crucial for us to be able to examine this, study it, question each other about it.

Our lives are permeated by the force fields of many "oughts" that compete for our attention. Our lives are so much more than aimless wanderings through a dispassionate world of what is. We always regard that world through lenses of "ought." All of our actions are oriented towards transforming the "is" we find ourselves in to the "ought" we want it to be.

It does seem to me that the wise person gives some serious consideration to the study of ideality, as well as the study of reality. To ignore paying explicit attention to understanding ideality is to unthinkingly follow the force-fields of "ought" that others have set up and that you happen to wander into unawares. I agree with Professor Crimmel that such a person is not very wise. Our "oughts" are not always good ones. Nor do we always succeed in effecting the transformations we hope for. This is why it is good to study ideality, and also good to study "practical wisdom," or, how to be effective in transforming reality to ideality.