It was crazy, it was different, it was hell, it was a mountain, it turned itself inside out 3+ times, it was my best semester yet.
"When you've got enough mistakes behind you, and enough life ahead of and on top of you, you don't have time to worry about what was and what will be." -- Laura
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Margaret Fuller and the Liberal Arts
Once upon a time back in the day, I asked my mom why it was OK for me -- or any woman -- to go to college. This, you must understand, was a very serious question -- we were close friends with a family who didn't believe in sending their girls to college, and there is a whole Christian homeschool sub-subculture out there that agrees with them. (There is also a more mild sub-subculture that thinks college is OK as long as the girl is still living at home, and an even more liberal variant that thinks it's OK as long as the college is very near by).
I rather wanted to go to college, wanted to go to one that would probably end up being a good distance from home, and desperately hoped there was some solid Christian, biblical reasons for doing so.
I asked several people the question, "why is it OK for women to go to college?" And received in every instance one of the following answers:
I wasn't entirely convinced, but for better or for worse, I bought the arguments, and went to college.
Where, in my junior year, I took Artes Liberales -- a study of how different historical periods have defined a "liberal arts education," and a discussion of what a "liberal arts education" should consist of and aim towards.
One of the main themes of the class was the distinction between a liberal arts education as a "means" and an education as an "end in itself." A basic conclusion of the class was that, yes, a liberal education is useful for many, many things. But that shouldn't be the main reason one pursues that education. The main reason to pursue it is that human beings were created by God with an intellect that can apprehend reality, and a desire use that intellect to understand reality. Developing these faculties is a part of fulfilling what God designed us to be -- part of fulfilling our telos as human beings. Though the hows and whys are subject matter for another post, I ultimately came to agree with this position (at least so long as it always includes the words "part of" when discussing telos and fulfilling).
Jumping further ahead: This semester, we had to read a portion of Margaret Fuller's Woman in the Nineteenth Century for American Intellectual History. And I was rather surprised -- and a bit delighted -- to find in her writing echoes of Dr. Whalen's argument for a liberal arts education. Moreover, she applied them specifically to the question of why women should pursue higher education -- a question I still had not managed to resolve in my own mind:
It's unfortunately a rather convoluted quote -- Fuller wasn't known for her scintillating prose. Rephrased a bit better: "A woman's intellect is no more to be cultivated to make her a more valuable companion to man than is her sense of hearing. Both are to be cultivated primarily because the Power who gave that power desires His gift to be brought to perfection."
And this is now the answer I'd give if someone asked me why women should be able to attend college (especially a liberal arts college). It's not, at root, for the end of "better helping one's husband" or even "making a better home" -- it's because God created us as beings with the capacity and desire to understand reality, and that capacity ought to be developed, both for its own sake and to prepare us for ANY role we undertake later in life. I can see the value of the other arguments people offered me; practical considerations about specific later roles in life do have a place. Indeed, most men are told to go to college for similarly utilitarian reasons. (E.g. -- "You will need to support a family later on." "You will be a more competent intellectual and spiritual leader of your household with an education.")
But, at root? I'm with the strange bedfellows of Dr. Whalen and Margaret Fuller.
I rather wanted to go to college, wanted to go to one that would probably end up being a good distance from home, and desperately hoped there was some solid Christian, biblical reasons for doing so.
I asked several people the question, "why is it OK for women to go to college?" And received in every instance one of the following answers:
- "A woman is supposed to be a helper to her husband. And one can be a better helper by having a higher level of education, closer matching to the husband's" (This was my mom's answer, and the one I took the most seriously at the time)
- "What if the husband dies? A woman needs some practical means of supporting herself and her family if worse comes to worse."
- "One is better prepared to make and enrich a home if one has an education. People who try to force a dichotomy between "learning to be a homemaker" and "pursuing an education" are wrong."
I wasn't entirely convinced, but for better or for worse, I bought the arguments, and went to college.
Where, in my junior year, I took Artes Liberales -- a study of how different historical periods have defined a "liberal arts education," and a discussion of what a "liberal arts education" should consist of and aim towards.
One of the main themes of the class was the distinction between a liberal arts education as a "means" and an education as an "end in itself." A basic conclusion of the class was that, yes, a liberal education is useful for many, many things. But that shouldn't be the main reason one pursues that education. The main reason to pursue it is that human beings were created by God with an intellect that can apprehend reality, and a desire use that intellect to understand reality. Developing these faculties is a part of fulfilling what God designed us to be -- part of fulfilling our telos as human beings. Though the hows and whys are subject matter for another post, I ultimately came to agree with this position (at least so long as it always includes the words "part of" when discussing telos and fulfilling).
Jumping further ahead: This semester, we had to read a portion of Margaret Fuller's Woman in the Nineteenth Century for American Intellectual History. And I was rather surprised -- and a bit delighted -- to find in her writing echoes of Dr. Whalen's argument for a liberal arts education. Moreover, she applied them specifically to the question of why women should pursue higher education -- a question I still had not managed to resolve in my own mind:
So much is said of women being better educated that they may be better companions and mothers of men! They should be fit for such companionship, and we have mentioned with satisfaction instances where it has been established. Earth knows no fairer, holier relation than that of a mother. But a being of infinite scope must not be treated with an exclusive view to any one relation. Give the soul free course, let the organization be freely developed, and the being will be fit for any and every relation to which it may be called. The intellect, no more than the sense of hearing, is to be cultivated merely that Woman may be a more valuable companion to Man, but because the Power who gave a power, by its mere existence signifies that it must be brought out toward perfection.
It's unfortunately a rather convoluted quote -- Fuller wasn't known for her scintillating prose. Rephrased a bit better: "A woman's intellect is no more to be cultivated to make her a more valuable companion to man than is her sense of hearing. Both are to be cultivated primarily because the Power who gave that power desires His gift to be brought to perfection."
And this is now the answer I'd give if someone asked me why women should be able to attend college (especially a liberal arts college). It's not, at root, for the end of "better helping one's husband" or even "making a better home" -- it's because God created us as beings with the capacity and desire to understand reality, and that capacity ought to be developed, both for its own sake and to prepare us for ANY role we undertake later in life. I can see the value of the other arguments people offered me; practical considerations about specific later roles in life do have a place. Indeed, most men are told to go to college for similarly utilitarian reasons. (E.g. -- "You will need to support a family later on." "You will be a more competent intellectual and spiritual leader of your household with an education.")
But, at root? I'm with the strange bedfellows of Dr. Whalen and Margaret Fuller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)