Halifax men: step up your game

DANGLING BALLS

“That is not to say we want the kind of balls that dangle out the back of your truck. The kind of thing (sic) between your legs that gives you courage.” Take ‘Em Out

His balls dangle out the back of his truck? Does he drive with the back flap down?He must have plenty of courage! But what are you doing looking up between his legs?

Cheerio!

PHILOSOPHICAL BALLS

“Only balls… The kind of thing between your legs that gives you courage.” Take ‘Em Out

There can be little doubt. To say that someone “has balls” is commonly understood to mean that he (or even she) possesses courage. But courage to do what? Ordinarily it is supposed that to have balls means having the courage to engage in physical conflict of one sort or another but does this exhaust the concept? I would argue not. Let me explain.

The current issue of “Educational Theory” is a themed issue consisting of a symposium of half a dozen papers devoted to “Nonideal Theory and Philosophy of Education.” But what does Nonideal Theory mean? According to the Guest Editor who wrote the Introduction, Nonideal Theory rejects the view that in spite of the fact that the current educational system is marred by class, race and gender disparities giving rise to unjust social structures, Ideal Theory proceeds from a perspective which ignores these realities and posits an ideal society towards which education ought to strive. In other words, Nonideal Theory is empiricist, concerned with facts “on the ground,” not with an utopian or a “Fantasy Island” scenario. There are, however, certain difficulties associated with the Nonideal Theory which, since there appears to be a strong consensus among its adherents, requires a degree of courage to bring forward. In other words, it requires philosophical balls. But what are these difficulties?

The major difficulty is that Nonideal Theory is not philosophy at all or, perhaps more properly since it is impossible not to have one, embodies a philosophical perspective which is simply assumed rather than demonstrated. Where empiricism engages disparities in class, race and gender it is, variously, sociology or psychology, depending on whether numbers or individuals are concerned. But it is not philosophy which does not engage such “facts on the ground” but rather the conceptual framework in terms of which such “facts” derive their coherence. In a word, empiricism incoherently reifies the autonomous fact which, of course, does not exist.

This is not a minor matter since, as a consequence, Nonideal Theory is dead at the root. This becomes evident when it is pressed to give a pedagogical roadmap to resolve such inequalities. Other than empty platitudes it can offer nothing. Unlike philosophy which at least can clarify the concepts which support inequalities in class, race and gender, empiricism and its noxious weed Nonideal Theory is mute.

To engage the issue, as I say, requires philosophical balls. Indeed, I am thinking of doing just that. I even have a tentative title, “On the Emptiness of Empiricism: The Poverty of Nonideal Theory in Education.” What do you think?

A pleasure as always,

Cheerio!