Knowledge

In a society, so far as I can tell, there are two ways to approach knowledge (that is, two ways to value it). Neither are mutually exclusive and can occur simultaneously. I don't see this fact as being "bad", so to speak, but I do believe having a higher concentration of one rather than another is preferable for a society that wishes to be aware and constructively conscious of its surroundings.

The first approach is that which seeks knowledge in order to question, experiment, achieve personal intellectual growth, challenge onself and ones context, and explore new territories. One may very well call it "knowledge for the sake of knowledge", but I'd rather say "knowledge for the sake of growth". The second approach is that which seeks knowledge in order to attain status, money, or power over others. The pursuit of intellectual growth is very much an after-thought and knowledge is merely a means to a monetary or power-related end.

When in one person or society the latter takes on a significantly higher concentration than the other in manifest goals, that entity is headed for serious and possibly existential trouble.

I don't mean to suggest that seeking skills or information that may gain one resources in a short term setting is bad as a rule or without exception. I only mean that most decisions made that lead to resourceful lives often involve much more long-term measures which include looking outside of an immediate context or understanding and acting appropriately.

We do make decisions in the short-term on occasion that impact us in resourceful ways for the long term. But these decisions tend to be habitual in nature. Take, for instance, smoking. Smoking cigarettes is a short-term action, bringing a short-term stimulant effect. However, it is, over time and with addictive habit, something that holds bearing on our long-term health. Very infrequently do we make short-term decisions non-habitually that reflect a reality for the long-term. That is, having one alcoholic drink a month or every two months is unlikely to affect ones health in any significant way that would alter resourceful living later.

And so, with knowledge, gaining knowledge for short-term gain or benefit may seem to be the most resourceful (cheating on a test to gain an A in a course). But doing less tangible work for knowledge, panning ones learning out for long-term benefit, brings us resourceful benefits over time and in advantageous ways we may not have predicted (opening a retirement account that you put small amounts into over time). Recently, I've begun to extrapolate this idea to many in my generation and how we as young-adults view education - specifically college.

I've attended three schools over the past eight years for various reasons. Two of them were community colleges, having changed from one to another for travel reasons, and the last (and most recent) was a public university. During that time and in all of these places my serious intent for a major has changed three times from Nursing (in which I graduated with a nursing license for work) to Biology (took a total of 20 hours in the field) to finally a double major in Spanish and Anthropology (with which I'll graduate in May 2011). I've thus experienced education from the technical, quotidian field in which I explored Nursing (meant for a technical job with a daily application) whose end of studying was to make money and provide a decent living. The rest of the studying had to do primarily with a love for knowledge of the subject. I'll return to this idea later. I've only introduced this information to explain how I've been around different areas of college life and have thus heard plenty of what is about to follow.

Most any college student would profess, if pressed, some value for education. But is seldom followed up with is a question as to "What do you value education FOR?" In this question we gain a much deeper understanding of the values of a society and its citizens approach to knowledge.

The typical representation of what I'm about to start into would focus on primarily a History major and a Marketing major. The two might chat and eventually reveal their majors to each other. Typically, the Marketing major might ask the History major "What are you going to do with that major?" In this question, the essence of that Marketing majors value of education is unveiled (and thus, the value of education for society is unveiled, as the open environment to ask and believe in such a questions authenticity would have to be fertile in order to permit it).

The Marketing major sees education and knowledge in a pursuit to gain something tangible. These is nothing wrong with this as a facet of educational attainment. People do, after all, need access to resources, and it would be silly to suggest that education not be some sort of indicator of how they might do so. But the underlying point of the question is often in a marginal yet notable jabbing manner. Obviously the marketing major knows what he/she will do with the degree. They'll obviously get a job selling something in the capitalist framework they are brought up in and are valuing so much as to make it the center of their pursuit for knowledge. The history major, unless the answer is to go to grad school, is latently understood by the other student to have either made a mistake or not know what they are doing. That is the entire point of the question, most of the time, and this tells us a lot about where education is in our society.

That the history major will not gain as immediatley and monetarily apparent as the marketing major is unimportant, as least to the major in question (or, anyways, it shouldn't be to my estimation). Studying history is the study of human records, activity, and more importantly - mistakes and misfortune. Studying this record and internalizing its lessons brings a reward that will intangibly go a long way for a person making political decisions, in voting for his/her society's future, and in raising their children in how to see the world. The benefits of properly learning such a discipline do more than possibly bring money. They bring the benefit of consciousness of ones interactions, decisions, and happenings in a broader sense.

This is not to deride the marketing majors choice for education. I have never studied marketing formally nor do I plan on it in the immediate future (though I do some for my tutoring freelancing). I simply mean to point out that from the point of view of power and influence in a society, the history major has to know why marketing majors will make money and what they will be possibly successful for. They have to know the value of that degree due to its obvious esteem in the predominance of advertising in our everyday lives and how it props up our dominant pastimes in the country (football, reality TV, etc.)

The marketing major does not have to, as a rule, because historical lessons are not as apparent nor are they socially sought-after to be understood and discussed. By virtue of the society's focus on one rather than the other, we see very quickly how much esteem is given to one instead of the other. The more tangible results given from one make us value marketing more, even if implicitly through how we reward its work on our everyday lives, and the less tangible results of valuing history go ignored or undervalued.

Like I've said earlier, it is not entirely wrong to want education in some degree as a measure of attaining tangible resources. I love to study Spanish and Anthropology, and do see how knowing other languages and cultures helps me understand my own point of view and place in the world more effectively (and that is, to be sure, my primary value). However, I'd be foolish to say that I didn't also at some level appreciate and take into account how knowing Spanish would help me in a job or how Anthropological knowledge might aid me in knowing about another culture in order to make my dealings with others at a job more pleasant. These, either directly or indirectly, help me in a monetary light.

My eventual point is that we as a society seem to be giving fertile ground to valuing the tangible aspect of education - in the sense of monetary gain, status, etc. through rewarding those who give tangible rewards in the moment - and giving less consideration to those scholars and citizens who value other types of knowledge who can contribute in ways not easily digested or tangible on first glance. This, in my opinion, is a mistake, and based on the understanding presented with the history major, I think we could take some of those facts as the first steps in changing our social attitudes towards knowledge. Not just for liberal arts sake, or for business majors sake - for all of our sakes.