To observe that curiosity is central to reading is not unlike observing that breathing is necessary to life. But what is curiosity? And if it is so important to reading, how can we as teachers foster it? Artists, philosophers and scientists have long been interested in curiosity and have frequently associated it with appetite. Edmund Burke claimed that curiosity “has an appetite,” and we speak casually of a hunger or thirst for knowledge, of curiosity as something beyond our conscious control and demanding to be satisfied. Philosophers speak of curiosity as a desire to know that exists independent of the utility of knowing and therefore is different from a simple need for cognition. We might feel the need to know how to complete a form, but that is not curiosity. We might feel the need to know whether Bono has a real name, but that too is not curiosity. In the first case the desire is instrumental and in the second it is essentially generic, part of the general stockpiling of knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Curiosity requires what philosophers call a motivationally original desire to know something. In other words, curiosity is a desire to know that originates with and belongs to the individual. It is my desire to know. It is essentially involuntary, non-utilitarian, and deeply personal.
And therein lies the problem. As commentators on and reformers of education have noted at least since Socrates, curiosity is central not only to reading but to the active intellectual engagement with the world that is the ultimate goal of education. But as most of these same commentators have noted, educational institutions seem perversely designed to stifle curiosity. According to one expert, the teacher’s goal ought to be “to protect the spirit of inquiry, to keep it from becoming ... fossilized through dogmatic instruction, or dissipated by random exercise upon trivial things.” That one hundred years ago John Dewey needed to emphasize the importance of inquiry and that one hundred years later these same words seem to speak directly to our times suggests either that there really is very little new under the sun or that fostering inquiry and curiosity is something we find easy to claim but difficult to enact.
Perhaps here as elsewhere we can trace our Anglo-American roots. Matthew Arnold, writing in the middle of the nineteenth century, noted that the word “curiosity,” which in other languages was used positively to denote “a high and fine quality” of human nature, was in English a negative term associated with idleness. It was the English after all who made curiosity fatal to felines. We might disagree with Arnold’s comparative linguistics, but his observation that we are uncomfortable with curiosity—the “free play of the mind on all subjects”—and too easily satisfied with “very inadequate ideas” should strike us as all-too-familiar.
Curiosity, with its tendency to ask questions and to question the answers, discomforts the status quo and dissatisfies the self-satisfied. Dewey wrote one hundred years ago, “In the feeling, however dim, that the facts which directly meet the senses are not the whole story, that there is more behind them and more to come from them, lies the germ of intellectual curiosity.” We might ask ourselves what we do in the classroom to encourage this dim feeling, to help students form the authentic questions that will help them satisfy their motivationally original desire to know that belongs only to them. We might ask ourselves what we do to protect the spirit of inquiry and each student’s curiosity.
From John Stuart Mill
Last year marked the sesquicentennial of the publication of J. S. Mill’s On Liberty. The following is taken from the conclusion, where Mill addresses the possibility of state-controlled education and warns of its dangers if it becomes too focused on basic skills and vocational competencies.
“The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of [each individual’s] mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill, or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes—will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish” (Chapter 5).
No comments:
Post a Comment