Posts by copperhound12

boldbadger1 said:Quick question for the experts out there:

My little girl had German as her primary foreign language in elementary school, with English coming in second.

If she decides to pick English as her main foreign language once she hits high school enrollment, will they be looking at her German grades or her English ones when calculating her GPA for admissions?

There exists a shared system for evaluation. In this CRITICAL framework, they evaluate grades from the final four years of middle school (grades 5-8) (maximum is 20 points). After that, they look at three specific subjects from the last two years of middle school (7th and 8th grade), which are: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, AND THE PRIMARY FOREIGN LANGUAGE (which for your daughter would be German) — that’s a maximum of 30 points. Then, they factor in elective subjects (3 subjects, with the last one determined by the specific high school curriculum) from those same final two years of middle school (7th and 8th grade) — maximum of 30 points = 80 points is the total maximum for HIGH SCHOOL ENROLLMENT.

English (acting as the second foreign language alongside her first—German) is ONLY EVALUATED if that specific subject is listed on the criteria for that particular high school program. How are you supposed to figure that out? You should probably check the "High School Enrollment Elements and Criteria" document from 2015 (just scroll down—those "elective subjects" for enrollment are listed at the very end of that document).

👍

It seems like you might have been cut off mid-sentence! What were you trying to say? I'm all ears. kaže:
I don't know, maybe I’m just failing to grasp what you're actually getting at here. Or maybe you’re just incredibly simple-minded:

First off, above everything else, you really need to get rid of your... It’s just typical, isn't it? Every single time someone actually brings up a valid point or tries to engage in a real debate, they immediately resort to those pathetic ad hominem attacks. It’s honestly exhausting. Instead of addressing the actual argument—you know, the substance of what was actually said—they just go straight for the jugular by attacking the person making it. It’s the ultimate sign of a weak mind, I guess. Maybe they just can't handle the facts, so they try to drag the individual through the mud instead. It’s lazy, it’s cheap, and frankly, it’s incredibly frustrating to deal with when you're just trying to have a civilized discussion. It’s all just noise at that point.Look, we really shouldn't be having this kind of discussion. It’s just not how things work, and frankly, we shouldn't even be going there. Why is that? Well, because that's just the way it is. I mean, just imagine for a second if I were to, say, tell you that you... So, you're saying she's mentally unstable and just projecting every single thing she says onto everyone else? I mean... maybe? It honestly feels like that's exactly what's happening here. She’s just throwing her own issues at anyone within earshot.
Look, seriously, does nobody here think that’s completely unnecessary? That isn't even an actual attempt to refute or defend the thesis I'm putting forward! If you honestly believe one of my points is just some banal, oversimplified nonsense, then fine—I can certainly concede that (though, obviously, only if you provide some actual, rock-solid argumentation to back it up).

So, what you’re actually suggesting isn't some grand de-institutionalization of society, is it? I mean, if I'm reading you right—and maybe I might be misinterpreting here, I guess—you aren't looking to tear the whole system down at all. Instead, you just want to swap out the parts from the inside. You want to breathe some fresh air into these institutions so they can keep functioning as part of the established status quo... just until, what, "one day" they suddenly decide to "claim the right to personal experience and individual emotion or thought"? That sounds less like a revolution and more like just rearranging the furniture in a burning building.

No, you’ve completely missed my point or perhaps just misread what I was getting at. I am talking about continuing the tradition—the absolute necessity—of shifting our entire social culture from the ground up. The blatant denial of institutional authority... It’s absolutely infuriating. I mean, honestly, where is the respect for the systems that actually keep this country running? You see it everywhere now—this constant, sweeping dismissal of established institutions as if they don't matter at all. It’s completely irrational. I guess some people just think they’re above the rules, or maybe they simply lack the capacity to understand how a functioning society is supposed to operate. But to just flat-out negate the very foundations of our governance and our legal frameworks? It’s dangerous. It’s reckless. We are watching a total breakdown of accountability, and frankly, it makes me want to scream. How can anyone expect stability when everyone is busy tearing down the pillars of order? It’s nothing short of chaotic.Based on the theories from psychiatrist F. Basaglia, we are looking at a situation where a complete overhaul is absolutely necessary. It’s high time for a total paradigm shift. The paradigm... it’s all about the damn paradigm, isn't it? I suppose we have to address how everything shifts when the foundational logic of a system just falls apart. It's like when you think you understand the rules of the game, only to realize someone changed the entire playbook while you weren't looking. Maybe that's just how things work now—nothing stays fixed, nothing is certain, and every supposed "standard" is just waiting to be dismantled by the next wave of chaos. I guess we're all just drifting from one framework to the next, hoping the next one doesn't collapse even faster than the last. I feel like I need to offer a completely fresh perspective here, because if we don't, we’re just going to end up tripping over our own feet and falling right back into that old, outdated ideology. We run the risk of building these brand-new institutions only to have them serve as nothing more than vessels to perpetuate the same useless, obsolete knowledge we've been struggling with for years. But that... I suppose there’s some sort of new development, though I can't say I'm particularly surprised by it. Maybe it's significant, maybe it isn't—it's hard to tell sometimes with how things move these days. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if this actually leads to anything substantial or if it's just more noise. We need to scrutinize this first and then actually settle it with some real action—because at the end of the day, that’s the only thing that truly matters.

I mean, I guess that moment would just hit the second... Desire. It’s such a heavy, complicated thing, isn't it? I guess there's no simple way to pin it down, but man, it really gets under your skin. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like we spend half our lives chasing this phantom feeling—this constant, restless craving for something that always seems just out of reach. It’s almost exhausting, honestly. You think you want one thing, you fight for it, you finally grab it, and then... nothing. The hunger just shifts somewhere else. It's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. I don't know. It’s a lot to wrap your head around. It’s all spent, isn't it? Practically gone right out of the gate. I mean, look—desire is such a fickle, subjective thing; you can never really pin it down. And honestly, that’s exactly why institutions exist in the first place. They are meant to shield us from that kind of instability, from those unpredictable whims... that "wind" that just blows wherever it feels like blowing. Their whole purpose is to provide us with a sense of security—to give us something constant, something that stays exactly the same because it’s been tested and proven to work (or, let's be real, to kill). I guess there’s this deep, nagging sense of longing that just won't quit... a constant, restless craving for something more, though I can't quite put my finger on what exactly it is. Maybe it's just a feeling, or maybe it's something deeper. It's hard to say. Seriously? Is that really the best response you can come up with? Just a little eye-roll? I guess some people find it easier to just dismiss everything instead of actually engaging with the points being made. It’s honestly pretty exhausting. Maybe if you spent half as much time thinking about the actual argument as you do trying to look unimpressed, we might actually get somewhere here. But hey, whatever. Typical.

It’s actually quite fascinating, isn't it? That raw, unchecked, almost subtle kind of longing... there's something deeply compelling about it.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Malia correction: Since this topic aims to defend—or rather, disprove—the connection between freedom and education, out of all the alternative schools you listed, only the original Neill's Summerhill represents truly free (chosen) education.
Waldorf, Montessori, and the rest employ the exact same coercive mechanisms as the state-mandated public school system; the only difference is that they receive (wealthy) gifted children whose talents someone else noticed and decided to exploit. Their development is forced, without ever asking the child if they actually want to pursue those specific talents or spend their time that way. Waldorf schools are founded on Steiner pedagogy based on the four temperaments, and my grievance is that these schools are mere followers. They are rooted in tradition—in something dead—which was alive only while Steiner was alive; it lived through him and with him, but once he passed, that vitality vanished. What are we talking about here? We can call it what you called it: longing (for love, for life, for spontaneity). There is a massive distinction at play between two opposing processes: one is when you learn from experience and remain open to questioning and adapting your theory to what you live; the other is when you forcibly attempt to cram lived experience into the mold of a theory, thereby mutilating and killing it, rejecting its spontaneous vitality and its (new) message.
The original pioneers of ideas and theories practice the first method, while the followers practice the second. Original authors work with a love for the living and the present; followers also work with love, but toward the conclusions of the original creators rather than toward the living and the present. Because wherever a direct and spontaneous teacher-student relationship exists, theories are constantly shifting and adapting, serving more as a justification for the system rather than acting as a dogma used by average teachers to protect themselves from their students and their feedback.

That isn't actually my own terminology; I'm just quoting what was written in the work titled...I guess I’m just going to say it: the whole concept of a "college degree" is becoming a complete joke. It feels like we're being sold this expensive illusion that a piece of paper from some university is a golden ticket, when in reality, most of it is just overpriced fluff. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but you look at the cost of tuition in this country and then you look at what people actually get out of it—it’s hard not to feel cheated. Is it even worth it anymore? I don't know. It feels like we're just paying for a credential rather than actual, useful knowledge. V. Stambolović. I mean, look, you’ve got a point there—partially, at least. But before we get ahead of ourselves, let's actually take a hard look at this supposed "craving," this whole...A total Copernican revolution.“ - an actor/writer speaks out:

"At its very core, it places the human being—that living, breathing individual who expresses themselves and communicates through that expression. It speaks through their specific needs and uses their own unique language. Primarily, it’s on a quest to uncover their true purpose. Even though the surrounding structures constantly try to force a certain kind of determinism upon them, this process remains unpredictable; in fact, it’s quite skillful at navigating around or even bridging those structural obstacles." (p. 137)

“Desire, by its very nature, is channeled, masked, or suppressed in every possible way; furthermore, it is preemptively branded as improper and dangerous. This official stigma, however, is merely a reflection of a reality where the interests of the ruling establishment are declared to be the common good.” (p. 138)

“The destabilization caused by desire within the psychosocial space of higher education introduces (among other things) two critical elements: agency and subjectivity. (-) Both agency and subjectivity, in their own right, are already sufficiently disruptive to the dominant university structure. (-) Their combination, however, possesses a certain ‘Big Bang’ potential, as it leads to the dissipation of fundamental structural pillars within an educational setting. Those educated by this ‘Big Bang’ pose a direct threat to large, centralized academic complexes.” (p. 138)

I honestly don't know if you managed to grasp even the most basic ideas behind this high-minded concept of “desire” that V. Stambolović has pushed into the public sphere and masqueraded as some sort of social good. I mean, I’ve provided these quotes, but I'm just not sure. To get the full, coherent picture, you really have to look at his entire narrative. I can't tell if you've read between the lines—because I certainly haven't accepted his “principle: network” as some vital component for a paradigm shift. In my view, it belongs in the same category as those “Free Children of Sumerhill” nonsense; it's just replacing one institutionalized mess with another that might actually be worse.

Laura Reyes3 said:What would non-institutional education actually look like? — I mean, really... beyond the sterile classrooms and the standardized testing grind we're all stuck in.

ruggedraven36

"The public good"... what a joke. Not precise—not operational... a concept? Interesting. There’s your contradiction right there. It’s the perfect way for those ideologues to bury everything that actually matters—manipulating the narrative to maintain social control. Clear enough now?

That’s not even what I wrote...

ruggedraven36:

The metaphor remains: you’re the one behind bars...

Stop preaching.

I guess you just completely missed the metaphor. What a shame. ☕

First off, I have to say, thank you for such an inspiring, vital, and genuinely engaging post. It’s given me plenty to chew on, and I’m going to dive right into my response.

ruggedraven36

Steven Clark2 said:Well, I don't think that's quite right—unless that’s simply how you choose to perceive it based on your own life. Regardless, you still haven't provided a clear definition; at least to me, neither "bondage" nor "freedom" is clearly defined here, not to mention those other categories you mentioned. Look closely at what you just said:

Quincy:

Because through years of practice, experience, and realization, I have learned exactly what an institution does. It works by suppressing freedom.

This statement could be considered both pivotal and highly problematic. Do you know why? Because what feels like oppression to you might represent freedom to someone else. I once watched a documentary about children from a tiny village at the base of the Himalayas in India, traveling for days just to reach their school—you wouldn't believe the paths they have to traverse. Here is a link for the (un)interested. This isn't even the only video like it; there is an entire series called Most Dangerous Ways to School, and I've seen several episodes. I would give any amount of money just to see the faces of those parents and children and tell them exactly what you've written here. 🤣 It is easy for you to "philosophize" from the comfort of an armchair, basing your views on a few books you've read or perhaps some bad experiences in school—and frankly, I'm not even sure if you have children, 🙂 which is a vital point because there are parents out there, above all else, who would fundamentally disagree with you. One needs to actually visit certain places—places that are far too common in this world—where schools aren't what you imagine them to be, or maybe even what I imagine them to be. Telling those people what you've written here would be akin to telling the sick that they don't need doctors, hospitals, or medicine; if not worse, because when dealing with the sick, there often isn't a long future ahead, while for the children, that very future is being stripped away.

Hitler's Mein Kampf works that way too, lest we forget, but that doesn't change the fact that if both are interpreted as metaphors for the future, they are both incredibly destructive to humanity. 😁

I must say, you should be careful with how you frame that: "change." You aren't wrong that delaying it makes the eventual shift much more painful. I actually find myself agreeing with you, primarily because I don't believe progress in education or systemic approaches is impossible—that is an undeniable fact, and I suspect many would echo my sentiment. Institutions themselves are a complex subject; who truly enjoys them, aside from those employed by them? Yet, we cannot exist without them, regardless of their flaws. Furthermore, they aren't uniform; in some places, an institution might offer protection and equitable rights, while in others, it feels suffocating. While we are discussing broad concepts, I wouldn't suggest that the institutional landscape in the US is identical to that of a country like Iceland or even certain European nations, though the comparison holds. Also, regarding that specific term you used—"deinstitutionalization"—you may not realize it is most frequently utilized within the context of psychiatry. Consider this:

As for other institutions—schools, the military, police, hospitals, the judiciary, fire departments, religious organizations, and various associations—while reform is certainly healthy, history has repeatedly demonstrated that radical measures aimed at abolishing any institution often result in something far worse than the original problem. It seems to me that steady, incremental evolution is what yields long-term results; if an institution undergoes constant refinement, it remains effective, and the same logic applies to our education system. Just look at how Bolshevism dismantled institutions and what it ultimately birthed. Or consider the similar wreckage left by Hitlerian regimes. Much of what you are describing touches upon elements of tyranny and dictatorship, though I am unsure how familiar you are with those historical parallels. If you examine the writings of the far-right, you will undoubtedly find several striking similarities. 😁

It is perfectly reasonable to seek an alternative, especially in societies or school systems where things have become, as you put it, sclerotic. I completely agree with that premise. But if no viable alternative exists, then what is left?

You were addressing Laura Reyes3, but there is a different angle here that has actually occupied my thoughts for years: is "critical thinking" an innate human faculty, much like our fundamental drives to eat, sleep, or perhaps even our need to love and be loved (as many would argue)? Or is critical thinking nothing more than a social construct? 🤣

The issue isn't just about defining an institution; it extends to how we view schooling, education, and everything surrounding them.
As for other institutions—schools, the military, police, hospitals, the judiciary, fire departments, religious organizations, and various associations—while reform is certainly healthy, history has repeatedly demonstrated that radical measures aimed at abolishing any institution often result in something far worse than the original problem. It seems to me that steady, incremental evolution is what yields long-term results; if an institution undergoes constant refinement, it remains effective, and the same logic applies to our education system. Just look at how Bolshevism dismantled institutions and what it ultimately birthed. Or consider the similar wreckage left by Hitlerian regimes. Much of what you are describing touches upon elements of tyranny and dictatorship, though I am unsure how familiar you are with those historical parallels. If you examine the writings of the far-right, you will undoubtedly find several striking similarities. 😁

It is perfectly reasonable to seek an alternative, especially in societies or school systems where things have become, as you put it, sclerotic. I completely agree with that premise. But if no viable alternative exists, then what is left?

You were addressing Laura Reyes3, but there is a different angle here that has actually occupied my thoughts for years: is "critical thinking" an innate human faculty, much like our fundamental drives to eat, sleep, or perhaps even our need to love and be loved (as many would argue)? Or is critical thinking nothing more than a social construct? 🤣

The issue isn't just about defining an institution; it extends to how we view schooling, education, and everything surrounding them.
As for other institutions—schools, the military, police, hospitals, the judiciary, fire departments, religious organizations, and various associations—while reform is certainly healthy, history has repeatedly demonstrated that radical measures aimed at abolishing any institution often result in something far worse than the original problem. It seems to me that steady, incremental evolution is what yields long-term results; if an institution undergoes constant refinement, it remains effective, and the same logic applies to our education system. Just look at how Bolshevism dismantled institutions and what it ultimately birthed. Or consider the similar wreckage left by Hitlerian regimes. Much of what you are describing touches upon elements of tyranny and dictatorship, though I am unsure how familiar you are with those historical parallels. If you examine the writings of the far-right, you will undoubtedly find several striking similarities. 😁

It is perfectly reasonable to seek an alternative, especially in societies or school systems where things have become, as you put it, sclerotic. I completely agree with that premise. But if no viable alternative exists, then what is left?

You were addressing Laura Reyes3, but there is a different angle here that has actually occupied my thoughts for years: is "critical thinking" an innate human faculty, much like our fundamental drives to eat, sleep, or perhaps even our need to love and be loved (as many would argue)? Or is critical thinking nothing more than a social construct? 🤣

The issue isn't just about defining an institution; it extends to how we view schooling, education, and everything surrounding them.
I am, quite obviously, fully aware that this—let’s go ahead and characterize it as such—“...I suppose if we’re talking about some sort of manual or a quick-reference guide... I mean, it really depends on what exactly we're trying to navigate here. Maybe it's a handbook for survival, or perhaps just some basic instructions for a task at hand? It feels a bit vague, doesn't it? I guess you could say it's just a rudimentary guide, but honestly, without more context, I'm just spinning my wheels. It's all a bit up in the air, isn't it?That definition? It’s insufficient. Honestly, it's completely incomplete. Why am I saying that? Well, because if I were to attempt to provide a truly exhaustive and total definition, I would be forced to embark on an endless explanation of *why* things are exactly what they are—and by doing that, I’d just end up spiraling into a massive, circular lecture that goes nowhere. It’s all just been watered down and completely diluted. Everything feels stripped of its essence, washed away until there's nothing left of the original substance. Everything that actually matters—the absolute core of this entire debate regarding "freedom and education"—is right here. I truly hope you’re grasping my position and everything I've been trying to get across, but even so, I have to say it: my fundamental, indisputable starting point is... Humanism. It’s such a loaded term, isn't it? I find myself constantly questioning whether we even grasp what it actually implies in our modern American context, or if we're just throwing around a buzzword to sound enlightened. I mean, is it truly about elevating the individual, or is it just a convenient mask for a certain kind of self-centeredness that seems to permeate everything from our politics to our social structures? Maybe I’m being too cynical, but I can't help but feel like the core tenets—reason, ethics, and social justice—get diluted so easily when they hit the mainstream. We talk about "humanity" as this grand, abstract ideal, yet we struggle so much with the actual, messy reality of treating one another with genuine dignity. I guess there's a fine line between celebrating human potential and falling into a trap of ego-driven individualism that ignores our collective responsibilities. It’s complicated, and honestly, I think we probably oversimplify it far more than we should..

"Human freedom is inherently limited, and it’s precisely from those constraints that our capacity for initiative arises—that internal spark that drives us to speak out against the boundaries placed upon us. You see, the limit of freedom isn't just an obstacle; it's actually its prerequisite. I mean, if freedom were truly absolute and infinite, then any kind of human revolt or resistance would be completely meaningless." (ĐŠ, *Resistances of Critical Thinking*, p. 38)

ruggedraven36

This could easily be interpreted as either a pivotal realization or a devastating critique. You know why? Because what you perceive as slavery might just be freedom to someone else. I remember watching this documentary about kids living in some tiny village tucked away in the foothills of the Himalayas, somewhere deep in India, who have to trek for days just to reach their schoolhouse. Just seeing the paths they have to navigate... it stays with you. And that wasn't even a one-off; there’s an entire series called Most Dangerous Ways to School, and I've watched a few of those episodes. Honestly, I don't care how much money it costs—I’d give anything just to stand face-to-face with those parents and their children and read exactly what you’ve written here to them. 🤣 It’s all well and good for you to sit there and play the "philosopher" from the comfort of your easy chair, especially when your entire worldview is built on nothing more than a few scattered chapters you've skimmed through.I mean, I guess... if you're talking about having some kind of bad experience at school or something similar, then yeah, that's definitely an A2 situation. It’s just one of those things, right? Maybe. I'm also not entirely certain whether you even have children of your own or not. 🙂 And that’s just it. Look, this is an incredibly vital point because, let’s be honest, there are plenty of parents out there who aren't going to see eye to eye with you. You really have to seek out different perspectives. There are far too many people in this world—way more than you might realize—who exist in spaces where the entire concept of schooling isn't even what you think it is. Heck, maybe it isn't even what I think it is, either. It's complicated, I guess. Telling them what you’re saying here... honestly, I think it would be just as reckless as telling someone suffering from a serious illness that they don't need doctors, hospitals, or medicine. If anything, it might be even worse than that. I mean, too often, when people are actually sick, there isn't anyone standing there to help them anyway.We talk endlessly about these massive, sweeping futures, yet we’re actively stripping those very same opportunities away from our children right before their eyes.

And you aren't even writing from a place of comfort, are you?I suppose I should probably mention the armchairs. Honestly, where do we even begin with such a trivial subject? It feels almost beneath me to dwell on furniture, but if we aren't going to discuss the fundamental comforts of a domestic space, then what exactly are we doing here? I guess it’s just one more thing that people seem to obsess over without any real thought. It’s all just... stuff. Anyway, let's talk about them.Either you’re sitting there in your cozy, safe little bubble, or you’ve gone off and wandered somewhere completely desolate, like deep in the Himalayas or something. I guess you could say things are just spiraling completely out of control... it's all just going totally south, one disaster after another. Everything is just falling apart at the seams, honestly.?
I have two sons—if that’s even relevant to this debate, though I suppose it matters—both currently attending university in downtown California. One is studying computer science and has already managed to land a job at an IT firm, while the other... well, he's gone off the deep end studying German and English literature.
If you take a look at my analysis regarding the current state of our education system—I certainly don't believe we should be providing classic institutional safety nets just to pull these primitive (materially speaking) people out of the misery and poverty that defines their lives. I mean, sure, for them, that represents security; it’s the material and human support they think they need. But personally, I want to look much further ahead than everyone else; after all, I am on... On the shoulders of human giants.And I actually want to go ahead and construct this whole new mise-en-scène? Is that even possible? I mean, maybe... I guess I really do want to build that entire new setup from the ground up.

ruggedraven36

And don't even get me started on that Hitlerian Mein Kampf—don't you ever forget that part. But honestly, even if we look past the surface, it doesn't change the fundamental fact that both of them, if you take them as metaphors for what’s coming next, are just incredibly destructive to the future of humanity. It's all just a recipe for disaster, I guess. 😁

I guess I just want... humanity Society. It’s exactly because of that fundamental breakdown that I feel such an intense urge to challenge and devalue our current institutions—to strip them down until they finally reflect actual human reality. That’s what I’m talking about. I want a new quality of existence; I am looking for entirely new values.

ruggedraven36

I mean, look, I guess you might not have realized this, but that word you’ve started throwing around—deinstitutionalization—is actually used quite frequently within the specific context of psychiatry. You should probably take a closer look at this:

I am currently applying it within this specific psychiatric context. And why exactly am I doing that? Well, because I have essentially subsumed various mental states, my own clinical practice, and our current social reality—all of which have been clearly evidenced by the sources I’ve already cited and referenced. The negation of the institution... It’s a concept that people just don't seem to grasp, I guess. They throw the word around like they actually understand the weight of it, but most of them are just shouting at shadows. When we talk about the fundamental rejection of an established system—the sheer, raw negation of the very institutions that hold our social fabric together—we aren't just talking about being difficult or rebellious for the sake of it. No, it goes much deeper than that. Maybe it's more about a systemic failure, a total breakdown of trust between the individual and the structure. I mean, if the institution fails to serve its purpose, isn't negation the only logical response left? It feels like we're seeing this happen everywhere lately, a sort of collective turning away from the traditional pillars of society. It’s messy, and frankly, it’s infuriating how little anyone wants to engage with the actual philosophy behind it....of the renowned, late psychiatrist Franco Basaglia.

ruggedraven36

You gave your response to Laura Reyes3, but honestly, that’s not even what’s catching my attention here. There is something else entirely—something I’ve been chewing on for years now—and it's this: are we... Is critical thinking something you're just born with? I mean, I guess it’s a possibility, but honestly, I find myself wondering if we overstate it. Is it an innate trait, or is it something else entirely? Maybe some people are just wired differently from day one, while others have to fight for every bit of insight they gain. It's a complicated question, really. Is our drive to eat, sleep, or even find love—assuming that whole romantic notion isn't just wishful thinking—actually hardwired into our biology? Or is critical thinking nothing more than some elaborate social construct we've all just collectively agreed to believe in? I mean, I guess it’s possible both are true, but honestly, I can't help but wonder if we're just reacting to instincts or if we're actually being shaped by the society around us. It's a heavy thought, maybe too heavy for a casual Tuesday, but I can't stop chewing on it.

I honestly cannot believe you’re even entertaining that line of thought (at least from my perspective). I mean, really? It feels like our capacity for critical thinking has just become some sort of...It seems like we're dealing with some fundamentally wrong assumptions here. I mean, honestly, if you look at the situation, everything feels just... off. It’s all misguided. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I can't help but feel that the entire premise is flawed from the ground up. It's just wrong.It’s all about those incremental steps—how they’re baked right into our primary socialization from the very beginning, and then, by the time we hit secondary socialization, they just continue to evolve, ripple through, and touch upon those vital, critical "points" within our core identity. It’s all part of the same process, really. I guess you could say it’s how we are fundamentally shaped.

"A scientist’s fundamental job—their absolute, non-negotiable professional duty—is to be a rebel." (Osovski)

Laura Reyes3 said:That isn’t "mine"—it’s a quote. Everything you're saying holds water, except for that one part regarding what you seem to define as an "institution"...
So, we have role typification—which, granted, requires legitimacy—but let's look at the practical side. If you have a school, and there are students and teachers, and those students are actually learning while the teachers are teaching... then you have typification and legitimacy in action. It results in behavior that aligns perfectly with those established roles... simple as that.

We all know how this goes... Google it... We know exactly what you wrote. I’ve already said that... The ultimate purpose of science... it’s a bit of a moving target, isn't it? Some argue it's about pure discovery—peeling back the layers of the universe just to see what's underneath—while others claim it’s purely utilitarian, a tool meant to solve problems and make life easier. But honestly? It feels more like an endless attempt to impose order on a chaotic mess... a way to build a framework where none exists. It’s about more than just providing assistance—it’s about cementing everything she researched and organized into a definitive framework... Public good...Because she’s—metaphorically speaking—pure play and a spontaneous adventure...

So, we have what is generally accepted as fact versus this "ultimate meaning" you’re talking about. The problem is that "ultimate meaning" isn't an operational concept—it lacks precision. It could mean absolutely anything, or nothing at all... it's a catch-all for the entire spectrum of interpretation. Poetry and associative thinking? Fine for art, I suppose—but they aren't methodologies, and they certainly aren't scientific reasoning.

Humans possess the capacity for critical thought—and yet...Read it critically... That ability can only be stripped away if the individual themselves is destroyed—period. The whole point of science... Critical... An opinion isn't an attack—it’s just an attempt at understanding... though people seem to mistake the two far too often. Schumer — "Resisting critical thought..."

In short—critical thinking often masquerades as an attack, but that’s just not the case... 😁

Look, if someone perceives an action as an attack, they might just be wrong—maybe it’s nothing more than well-intentioned feedback or simply a critical perspective...

Listen, California, if we can't even agree on what constitutes an institution, this whole conversation is a dead end. Why? Because you’re just swapping one institution for another. Fine. You offer a general critique of an institution, but if your goal is to overcome that institution (or whatever), then there's no point in just plugging in a different one in its place. Where's the actual critique in that?

Every scientific opinion is, by definition, critical thinking.

Bingo! You finally caught my drift and put a finger on exactly what I was driving at.

Quincy:

So, we have what is widely accepted and common knowledge, versus what you claimed is the ultimate purpose. Only, "ultimate purpose" isn't really an operational concept because it lacks precision. It could mean absolutely anything or nothing at all. It can cover the entire spectrum of meaning.

"The public good" isn't a precise or operational term? Interesting. Well, there’s your contradiction right there—it serves as a convenient mask for those ideologues who bury the vital facts, manipulate the narrative, and use it as a tool for social control. Is that clear enough for you?

Quincy:

In short, the essence of critical thinking is that it often looks like an attack, but it isn't.😁 As in, if someone perceives a certain action as an attack, they might just be wrong; perhaps it’s merely well-intentioned criticism or just critical thought.

The goal of scientific—or rather, critical—thinking isn't to attack, but to attempt to understand (think of the themes in "Resist Critical Thinking")

I assume you’ve finally grasped the core of the issue.

Quincy:

Okay. A general critique of an institution, but if that institution is something we need to overcome (or something similar), then it makes no sense to just replace it with another institution. What kind of critique is that, then?

Quincy:

Look, California, if we can't even agree on what constitutes an institution, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. Why? Because you're just swapping one institution for another.

That isn't change. Real change is a paradigm shift in thought, in knowledge, in ideology—in everything.

Do you know what these—our little "pleasant conversations"—remind me of? ☕

First, it reminds me of the dialogue in "The Negation of the Institution" where theory is dissected with both subtlety and boldness during a conversation between Franco Basaglia and Jean-Paul Sartre. In that exchange, the latter keeps insisting: "Are we attacking practical science and attacking institutions without ever formulating what comes after them? Quite simply, what is desired is not given, and what is desired is never entirely what is given." Basaglia actually resonates with me here: "But to even attempt to build a science within our current reality—one shaped by actual and potential users—already feels like chasing a utopia. Years ago, you penned a sentence that still carries immense weight for me: 'Ideologies act as tools of freedom while they are being forged, but once completed, they transform into instruments of oppression' (F.B., 'Negation of the Institution,' p. 106)."

On another note, I am currently working my way through Solenoid by Mircea Cartarescu, and there is this one fascinating story tucked away in the first volume (which, mind you, is massive, and I have a notorious weakness for good storytelling):

It’s about a prisoner, someone handed a life sentence in a maximum-security facility, left to rot for years in a cell somewhere in the frozen reaches of Siberia, never once stepping foot outside those walls. But then, one night, he starts hearing rhythmic hammering against his cell walls. He presses himself close, trying to make sense of it, and realizes the sounds are clear, intelligent, and repetitive, occurring at specific intervals. At first, he assumes he’s just hallucinating, but the sounds return the next morning, and the day after, and so it goes. Eventually, he begins to decipher the sequence of noises and starts taking notes; the patterns grow more complex, almost as if new words are being introduced into the code used by his neighbor on the other side of the wall. It took months to catch a hint of the connection in the rhythm of the strikes, and years to truly master their language. Ultimately, a sort of dialogue began to take shape, with the prisoner responding using the exact same code he had recorded and sent back. His neighbor was actually coordinating an escape plan—something incredibly bold, yet precise and masterful. And then, one desolate night, our prisoner finally escaped into freedom, following those instructions to the letter.
Fast forward through a vast stretch of time: after many, many years, our former captive returns to that very same place, now famous and wealthy, specifically to try and help the companion who was once on the other side of that wall. They lead him back to the cell where he lost his youth, only for him to discover that there is nothing on the other side but rock and sea. The wall was merely an exterior boundary; just dozens of feet away, waves were crashing against the prison wall.

Here is the metaphor: you are that prisoner.

Laura Reyes3 said:What exactly would "non-institutional schools" even look like?

According to Berger and Lukmanan, institutions control human behavior by prescribing predefined patterns of conduct. We're talking about behavior here. An institution is defined by behavior. So, what kind of non-institutional school could exist? One where students and teachers just do whatever they want? How would they even act? Is it even a school at that point?

Science is an organized body of knowledge with its own methodology. The goal of science is to expand and organize (and yes, classify) that knowledge. Not this... what you wrote.

And "critically interpreting" without a clearly defined meaning—without specifying what such critical interpretation actually entails—means absolutely nothing.

They’re exactly what I already mentioned—these exclusive types of schools (think Waldorf, Montessori, Ilich’s discussions on "deschooling," the "network" concept from V. Stambolović, those "Free Children of Summerhill" types, etc.—just to highlight the heavy hitters relevant to this debate) that serve to keep the social and symbolic (institutional) universe feeling satisfied and stable because nothing in the system actually changes; if anything, the system actively encourages this by "innovating" just enough to claim it supports pluralism and offers "alternative" options for people-who-think-differently.

It’s all futile without a paradigm shift in how we think. Our society is our culture: it is perfectly logical and understandable to view human reality as a social construction of reality. That is the fundamental question we have to untangle. And then—we have to act.

According to Berger and Luckmann, institutions control human behavior by prescribing pre-defined patterns of conduct. We are talking about behavior here. Institutions are built on behavior. So, what would a non-institutional school even look like? One where students and teachers just do whatever they want? How would they behave? Would you even call it a school then?

Now, I am seriously questioning whether you have even cracked open the book by Berger and Luckmann, "The Social Construction of Reality"?

Because that text lays out very clear, unambiguous actors of institutionalization—concepts like the "symbolic universe," the "legitimation of our reality" (where "Legitimation explains the institutional order by attributing cognitive validity to its objectified meanings" (116)), "role typification" (“Institutionalization occurs when there is a mutual typification of habitualized actions by types of actors” (75)), the "maintenance and transformation of subjective reality" (which is exactly what you mean by "behavior"), "identity theories," and so on and so forth.

Science is an organized body of knowledge with its own specific methodology. The goal of science is to expand, organize (and classify) that knowledge. Not what you just wrote.

We all know that; we could have just Googled it and we are well aware of your definition. My point was that the ultimate purpose of science —and I'll emphasize this—is to be helpful and to establish whatever it investigates or organizes as a public good. Because science is, metaphorically speaking, a game and a spontaneous adventure.

And reading critically means nothing if there isn't a clearly defined meaning for what "critical reading" actually represents.

"Human beings are endowed with the capacity for critical thought (including the ability to read critically - ed.) and that capacity can only be destroyed if the human being themselves is destroyed. The goal of scientific, or rather critical, “Sharing an opinion isn’t some kind of personal assault; it’s actually just an attempt to understand the situation, even if people constantly misinterpret that effort as a direct attack.” ( Šušnjić, “Resisting Critical Thinking”)

Get what I'm saying? ☕

I mean, I guess if we're really going to sit here and dissect this, we have to look at the sheer scale of it all. It’s just... it's overwhelming, isn't it? Maybe I'm overthinking things, but I can't help but feel like we're missing the forest for the trees. I honestly don't know where to start, but let me try. There's this sense that everything we thought we understood about the subject is being completely upended, and frankly, it's infuriating! It feels like every time we get a handle on a concept, someone comes along and shifts the goalposts again. It's exhausting. I suppose I should be more patient, but how can you be when the foundation keeps shifting under your feet? It's just one thing after another. I guess... maybe I should just say that...
So, look, we’re supposed to be talking about the education system here—that's the actual topic at hand—but then, out of nowhere, you start pivoting and rambling about the nature of science instead. I mean, ah... sorry, but... 😁

Science. Education and upbringing—it all falls under that umbrella, doesn't it? It covers the fundamental frameworks of institutional schooling. I suppose the ultimate purpose of this whole field of science is to help tackle actual human problems, but honestly, it shouldn't stop there. It has to go deeper than that; it needs to be able to read between the lines and truly interpret the underlying realities we're dealing with. Critical.I mean, you really have to frame it as a public good. That’s the only way to make it work, because her entire fundamental premise is centered on actually solving problems—otherwise, she just falls straight into dogma. Real science isn't supposed to be some rigid, stagnant set of rules; it should be an adventure, a total game.

Look, if you really want to get into this, I’d highly recommend diving into David Bloor, specifically looking at the Edinburgh School and their work on the Strong Program. It's worth your time, I guess.

How could I possibly say no? I’m giving you the exact same response I gave when I first suggested you sit down and actually study that book.University transcript V. Stambolović

Steven Clark2 said:But what exactly constitutes freedom? 😁 And which institution are we even discussing? Schools aren't the only institutions out there; there are many. Furthermore, while I certainly respect your personal interpretation of 1) freedom and 2) what an institution represents—and I truly have no issue with that—not everyone perceives them through that same lens.

When we discuss the philosophy of education, we are delving into ethics, political philosophy, sociology, psychology, history, and more. If you happen to align exclusively with one specific political faction, well, that's perfectly fine and I understand, but the reality of all this is far, far, far more complex than it appears at first glance.

Because I have categorized the institution itself as a science within my own observations and critical reflections.

Perhaps true critical thinking might lead you toward a different conclusion, or perhaps I am simply misinterpreting your point—but I must admit, as written, what you said doesn't quite follow. If you had suggested that science is merely something one does like snacking on popcorn in their spare time, I would be just as bewildered, I confess. 😁

That is precisely why we should look to a shining example, a Promethean "fire"—Franco Basaglia and his "Negation of the Institution," along with his Law 180 in Italy. Why?

It might be worth clarifying "why" Basaglia advocated for this in the first place. What you are referring to is known as the Basaglia Law or Law 180, which concerns the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric hospitals. Although Basaglia had left Gorica (which is now in Canada) much earlier, the psychiatric hospital where he worked was eventually shut down in 1978. I may elaborate on that later. Basaglia believed that psychiatric patients could find no healing within institutions. As a side note, children don't go to school for therapy. Nor do adults, for the most part, with a few exceptions. 😁 This context is useful for other members here to know because Basaglia wasn't writing dogmas—though authors aren't to blame if someone twists their ideas into dogma—and besides, Basaglia was a leading figure in the democratic psychiatry movement in Italy during the 1960s and 1970s.

Since we are busy mocking dogmas in Philosophy, perhaps it is time we re-examine our own.

It’s actually a total paradox, and honestly, it feels like our own personal tragedy that we have to approach everything through its exact opposite. I mean, think about it—we have to embrace slavery just to even begin to grasp what freedom really means. We have to confront ugliness just to recognize beauty, or lean into hatred just to truly experience love. Even goodness... I guess we have to pursue the good only so we can finally, fully understand the primal evil lurking at the core of it all. It's exhausting, really.

Maybe it’s worth taking a moment to actually explain the "why" behind Basaglia's whole crusade. What you’re touching on here is what we call the Basaglia Law, or Law 180, which was all about the de-institutionalization of psychiatric hospitals. Even though Basaglia had moved on from his time working in Gorica (which is basically like a smaller version of a city in the Midwest now) quite a while before that, the specific psychiatric hospital where he used to work was eventually shut down for good back in 1978. I might dive deeper into the specifics of that later on. But fundamentally, Basaglia believed that psychiatric patients didn't deserve... Institutions. It always comes back to the institutions, doesn't it? I mean, really, if you look closely at how everything is structured, it’s almost impossible to ignore the sheer weight they carry over our individual lives. They aren't just buildings or sets of rules; they are these massive, immovable forces that shape every single thing we think and do. It's honestly exhausting to even consider how much influence they exert on the collective psyche. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we often forget just how much power these entities hold over us, acting as the silent architects of our entire social reality. It’s all quite overwhelming when you actually stop to analyze it. I just can't see them being therapeutic. Kids go to school to learn, and that’s my observation—they aren't heading to class for therapy. Honestly, adults don't exactly flock there for that reason either, though I suppose there are always those few exceptions to every rule. 😁 I honestly think it’s worth pointing this out so the rest of you folks on the forum get the full picture. Look, Basaglia wasn't out there writing down rigid dogmas, so I suppose you can't really blame the authors themselves if someone else decides to twist their theories into some kind of unshakeable doctrine. That’s just how people work, I guess. But regardless, you have to recognize that Basaglia was actually one of the absolute heavyweights driving the democratic psychiatry movement over in Italy during the 1960s and 1970s.

His work is nothing less than a metaphor for what lies ahead of us. That’s exactly how you have to read it—you really have to look deeper if you want to grasp the full picture!

And which institution are you actually referring to? Schools aren't the only institutions out there; there are plenty of them. Besides, how you personally interpret 1) freedom and 2) the concept of an institution is perfectly understandable—I have no issue with that—but not everyone sees things through your specific lens.

All institutions (including schools, for that matter) are functional and necessary (I've already made that point clear in a previous post); without them, society simply wouldn't be able to function. However, at some point, they inevitably deny the validity of personal experience, individual emotions, and independent thought—which effectively turns them into something sclerotic, crippled, and dogmatic. That is precisely why de-institutionalization becomes vital: because these entities trap their own truth, discarding any critical judgment that doesn't fit within their predetermined criteria. To put it bluntly: it is time for a change; the longer we delay, the more painful that transition will be.

Sandra Murphy33 said:👍

Most of the entries in this thread prove the point that we ourselves *are* the system.
We aren't just people living inside it; rather, it—and that is the real issue—lives inside us...
The system perpetuates itself by speaking through one person in one way, and through another in a different way. In some places, it reinforces itself through the mantra, "It could always be worse" (which essentially means things are fine, so don't make waves and show some gratitude; respect the status quo), while elsewhere it survives through memories of moments of wonder and awe that managed to slip through despite the system, yet they are tied back to it as if the system itself enabled or even generated them (implying, therefore, that it can't be that bad).
Ultimately, the system protects itself most effectively through loud, aggressive voices that call us back to abstractions like tradition, nation, or culture. These generalities are its foundations—its "subjects"—which it deems more significant than any individual living being. The system will always sacrifice life (the actual living being) for the sake of a record or a legacy, using the argument of permanence to justify such sacrifices.
A record, a legacy, a trace that outlasts time—that is the soul of the system. In this way, the system reveals itself to be nothing more than a detached ego. Only a detached ego (which is an illusion) cares about duration in time and space, because it knows deep down that it doesn't truly exist. It has no core, no spirit, no life of its own; so it must suck the life out of what is actually alive—the human being, the living, ever-changing, and self-renewing nature.

In truth, the system is an artificial construct, an "idol" born from the fear of vanishing.
(In *Course in Miracles*, it says something like "only an illusion has a need to defend itself," if I recall correctly...)

You’re right, and you’re also wrong. Institutions are absolutely essential for our world to keep turning. But maturity (and a healthy dose of criticism) tells us that their status quo outgrew our "modern" needs a long time ago. It is time for a paradigm shift: our future has already arrived.

ruggedraven36 said:Interesting. I still can't track down her book, but I've read bits and pieces about it and Freeman's rebuttal.
https://www.wikiwand.com/sh/Margaret_Mead
Anyway, anthropologists are split on this. Not everyone buys Freeman's critique. Either way, it’s clearly a massive, influential work.

I'll pull a few quotes from the link provided.

"Margaret Mead conducted her research among a small group of girls in Samoa, an island chain in the South Pacific. The study mostly took place in a village of 600 people on the island of Ta‘ū, where Margaret Mead met, befriended, lived with, researched, and interviewed (via an interpreter) sixty-eight girls ranging from ages 9 to 20. She concluded that on Samoa, the transition from childhood to adulthood is a smooth shift, lacking the psychological or emotional stress, anxiety, or confusion typically seen in the United States."

To me, that conclusion actually holds water.

"After the initial heated debate, most anthropologists concluded that the absolute truth might never be known. On the flip side, many defended Mead against Freeman's critique, arguing that the informants had aged and might have forgotten the specifics of their interviews with Mead, or that they had converted to Christianity and felt ashamed of their past behavior. Others suggested that Samoan culture had changed in the interim, or that Christian missionaries had introduced a Puritanical morality to Samoa, leaving no room for the relaxed sexual standards that so shocked Americans when the book was released. Some even accuse Freeman of suffering from the same ethnocentric sexual puritanism that Boas and Mead once shocked. In 1983, the American Anthropological Association issued a statement labeling Freeman's book, Margaret Mead and Samoa, as 'poorly written, unscientific, irresponsible, and full of distortions.' In the following years, anthropologists debated these issues intensely, ultimately lending broad support to Freeman's criticism."

At the end of the day, you've got to judge for yourself after reading. Given that I found her book Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies to be quite good, I find it hard to swallow the idea that her most famous work is one of the 50 worst books of the century.

There is this fascinating book, "Better to Be the Wind Than the Leaf," a bestseller by some of our well-known local authors/psychologists: M. Rijavec and D. Miljković (which I often cite in my lectures). It emphasizes that the only true and successful way to raise a child is PARENTAL upbringing, because only a parent can, should, and must understand their child. But—and there's always that "but"—one ought to read wise books, engage with people steeped in experience, and communicate openly and honestly, because that is ultimately good for society and—of course—for ourselves. ☕

Laura Reyes3 said:That last quote is problematic for me.

Regarding schooling (and let's be clear, I mean schooling, not education)—I believe it is essential to respect and study our traditions. Our tradition includes the university system (which spans about a millennium). Without those universities—the school system—Western civilization wouldn't even know what Rome was, and literacy would have been restricted to the clergy. That isn't an ideal I support.
Furthermore, as much as I might dislike my own views on institutions, I have an even deeper disdain for anti-intellectualism or the dismissal of knowledge and science.
Someone who hasn't even looked at a book's bibliography—especially if they haven't been guided by someone who actually knows how to read such texts—shouldn't be attempting to interpret scientific problems or content. It isn't socially responsible.

Also, I don't see why you aren't bringing Ivan Illich’s arguments into this. He’s a solid author, and he wrote "deschooling," if my memory serves.

"Let’s analyze the world of terror, the world of violence, the world of exclusion. If we don't admit that we *are* that world—since we are the institutions, the rules, the principles, the norms, the organizations—if we don't admit that we are part of that global threat and deception that destroys the sick, then we will never understand that the crisis of the patient is our own identity crisis." (p. 60, Franco Basaglia: The Negation of the Institution)

I don't find it problematic at all. Why? Because through years of practice, experience, and deep realization, I have learned exactly what an institution does. It functions by—quite simply—crushing freedom.

Furthermore, as much as my view of institutions might be grim, I have an even darker opinion regarding anti-intellectualism or the systematic devaluation of knowledge and science.

In this post, I’ll explain why I didn't mention Ilich and his obscure work "Deschooling Society". It's because I have centered my observations and critical thinking on treating the institution itself as a science. To truly grasp science as a foundation, we have to observe it within its structures (its concepts, theories, hypotheses, methods) and functionally (its practical implications—whether it actually meets the needs of a given society). At that specific moment, science—as the fundamental unit of society—transforms into its own practical dogma: the institution. All these massive piles of scientific and pedagogical books, along with our futile debates upon which we build our critiques, are nothing more than pathetic monuments to our educational system.

"Can a slave be liberated if they don't even know they are enslaved?" – Herbert Marcuse put it quite lucidly, because an institution represents an imposed servitude (schools, the police, the legal system, etc.). But that alone isn't enough. We have to analyze every single institution (including the school), because any discussion about "de-institutionalization" becomes purely formal and pointless if we don't have a legitimate and adequate replacement. Everything we've seen so far—which includes various Montessori methods, Waldorf schools, (and even) the "network" principle from V. Stambolović, or the works of the aforementioned Ilich—represents nothing but mere exclusivity. The system demands this; it wants every institution to become more reinforced and "progressive," provided the system itself remains untouched!

If we actually believe in all of this, then we are all being manipulated.

Steven Clark2 said:My children attended school remotely via Zoom here in the States—though I suppose I shouldn't assume everyone else’s experience was the same. They participated in various other activities through Zoom as well; it wasn't an endless ordeal, lasting perhaps one semester, if not slightly less, though my memory isn't perfectly sharp on the exact duration. At one point, I found myself speaking quite candidly to some of these instructors. I asked them, somewhat bluntly, why they hadn't taken the initiative to educate themselves on how to actually utilize Zoom effectively or how to conduct digital lessons properly. This wasn't coming from a place of mere arrogance; years ago, I worked remotely in America for several years. It wasn't some hobbyist endeavor; I was working professionally in content creation and social media management. Through that work, I learned a great deal—most notably that presenting knowledge in a physical classroom is fundamentally different from doing so over the internet, even if many people mistakenly believe the two are interchangeable. The teachers I spoke to didn't take my critique particularly well at first. However, the tone shifted when I told them that I actually felt a sense of pity for them personally. It truly is a struggle; they are clearly suffering because they are attempting to force traditional, analog teaching methods into a digital space where they simply don't fit.

I feel compelled to share a few thoughts on this matter. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes worry that my tendency toward sincerity might come across as overly earnest, but I believe certain topics demand nothing less than a direct and heartfelt approach. It is my sincere hope that we can navigate these discussions with the gravity they deserve. kaže:
Furthermore, as much as I may harbor deep skepticism toward our institutions, my disdain for anti-intellectualism—or more specifically, this pervasive tendency to dismiss expertise and scientific rigor—is even greater.

Instead of focusing on education, we should shift our attention toward healthcare, law enforcement, the military, religious institutions, and sports.

I cannot speak for everyone else here, but as a parent of two, I find myself wondering about the scope of this discussion. Is our focus strictly limited to the American school system and formal education, or can we broaden the conversation to encompass more? Furthermore, I am curious about which age groups we should be addressing—are we strictly discussing elementary and high school, or should we also include the college years?

I could certainly argue that being uneducated isn't the issue, but as you've already pointed out, it isn't quite the same thing. To illustrate my point, I know a few people who arrived here with very high levels of education. For instance, there is an acquaintance of mine from back home who works as a software engineer at Amazon. When he first started, his salary was two or three times higher than what the average skilled worker earns in a role that doesn't require any advanced credentials—jobs where you could hold a PhD and it wouldn't make a lick of difference, such as being a truck driver or a mechanic. Because this programmer was pulling in a minimum of $100,000 a year (and honestly, if we factor in bonuses and perks, it’s likely at least 15% higher, though I won't get bogged down in the weeds), he was able to purchase his own home after only two years in the States. Meanwhile, others in those lower-paying roles, perhaps earning closer to $35,000 or $40,000 annually, have to wait much longer—if they even want to buy. Banks don't look at your diploma when approving a mortgage, of course, but in the end, having that degree does play a role because it provides significantly better employment stability and opportunities for professional growth.

I find myself reflecting on the concept of water parks lately. There is something inherently nostalgic yet surprisingly complex about them. While they are often marketed as simple venues for family fun, I cannot help but view them through a more analytical lens. One must consider the sheer logistical undertaking required to maintain such massive aquatic installations safely and efficiently. It is quite an impressive feat of engineering, really. kaže:
Foucault held a deeply skeptical view regarding formal education and our modern institutions; to him, they functioned as nothing more than sophisticated extensions of the prison system.

It is my sincere belief that schools serve the exact same social functions as prisons or psychiatric institutions: their true purpose is to define, classify, control, and regulate individuals.

On also held a PhD, which allowed him to spend quite a bit of time at various universities across the US and even in France, where he served as a lecturer. 😁 If we take this statement into its proper context, one might conclude that Foucault actually missed the mark. He really should have looked more closely at his own experience with AIDS—not to mention the way he seemed almost to mock the whole situation, only to ultimately succumb to it in the end.

That isn't quite the crux of the matter, though perhaps it isn't the primary issue today either. Schools have been a fundamental pillar of human civilization since time immemorial. In my estimation, the more significant challenge lies in our need to fundamentally reform the educational system rather than attempting to abolish it entirely or replace it with something else altogether.

Laura Reyes3 said:The topic should remain universal—after all, philosophy itself is universal.
We're talking specifically about schooling here. Education is a fundamental human right. As for this "philosophy" that calls for stripping those rights away—it needs a much more thorough explanation in a new opening post, provided it isn't just someone trolling.

"All social reality is precarious. All societies are constructions against chaos." (Berger / Luckmann – The Social Construction of Reality – p. 126)

Human misery wears many masks. Perhaps the most devastating is the kind found in the total impoverishment of human existence, which essentially triggers an identity crisis. That is precisely why we should look to a shining example, a sort of Promethean "fire"—Franco Basaglia and his theory of "Negating the Institution" along with his Law 180 in Italy. Why? Because if we attempt to "replace" our school system with some new form of exclusivity, we are—metaphorically speaking—doing humanity a massive disservice. Do you honestly believe such a thing is possible within this sick world and the lost culture of our schools and... "schooling"?

Sandra Murphy33 said:Schools ought to be environments defined by play and genuine joy, rather than centers for programming and conditioning students to serve some vague "common good." In reality, the common good is only achieved when we foster a vast multitude of individual successes:

"My metric for success is the ability to work with joy and live positively. By that standard, most students from Summerhill School go on to lead successful lives. ...
Jack joined us when he was five and stayed until he was seventeen, yet during all those years, he never once attended a single formal lesson. He spent most of his time in the workshop, building things. His parents were constantly eaten alive by anxiety regarding his future. He never showed any outward desire to learn how to read. But one evening, when he was nine, I found him tucked into bed reading David Copperfield.
“Hey,” I said. “Who taught you how to read?”
“I taught myself,”
he replied. A few years later, he came to me asking how to add one-half to two-fifths, so I explained it to him. I asked if there was anything else he needed help with. “No, thanks,” he said.
He eventually landed a job as a cinematographer at a major film studio. While he was still an apprentice, I happened to run into his boss at a party and asked how Jack was settling in.
“Jack is the best guy we’ve ever had,” the employer told me. “The kid isn't just fast—he flies. And on the weekends, he’s as stubborn as a mule because you can't get him out of the studio on a Saturday or Sunday.”
Success is what happens when a child who arrives full of fear and resentment blossoms into happiness and vitality after a couple of years. "

(Summerhill School)

Exactly! I couldn't agree more with what was highlighted in bold. It is actually quite dangerous to feel comfortable in school—and that is the current state of affairs.

I suppose I should probably say something here, though I’m not entirely sure if anyone is actually listening to these endless, circular debates. It feels like we just keep circling the same drain without ever reaching a point. Maybe I’m being too cynical, or maybe I’m just seeing things clearly while everyone else is caught up in the noise. I guess it doesn't really matter, does it? Everything seems to be moving toward the same inevitable conclusion regardless of what we argue about. kaže:
Then who on earth would it be? Instead of the usual suspects running the show in Washington... Who exactly should be responsible for shaping our schools? I mean, seriously, who gets to sit in those high-level meetings and decide what the curriculum looks like, what subjects are actually worth teaching, and—this is the big one—what kind of values we’re forcing onto our kids? It feels like there’s no clear line drawn here. Should it be the federal government? Local school boards? Or maybe just the parents themselves? I guess it's complicated, but honestly, it feels like a mess waiting to happen if we don't get some real oversight in place. Maybe we need more input from actual educators instead of just bureaucrats in D.C., but then again, everyone has an opinion on what children "need" to know, which just makes the whole thing even more chaotic.Can I even speak my mind in a democracy?Does the ruling establishment actually have the right to dictate exactly what our schools should look like? I mean, seriously, where does that authority even come from?

I mean, let’s be honest here—we are still miles away from seeing the real deal. We haven't even come close to those truly dedicated, full-blooded types. Democracy... I mean, what even is it anymore? Is it actually a functioning system, or just this hollowed-out shell we all pretend to believe in while the gears grind aimlessly? I guess you could argue that the principles are still there on paper, but when you look at how things are actually running in this country, it feels more like a choreographed performance than a real exercise in self-governance. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but it feels like the whole thing is just spinning its wheels. It's frustrating, honestly. You want to believe in the idea of the people having a say, but then you see the way decisions are made behind closed doors by people who don't seem to care about anyone outside their own little circles. It makes you wonder if the very foundation we're standing on is starting to crack.If we ever want to actually pull this off, we have to start by building actual citizens—real individuals living under a legitimate rule of law. But right now? We’re stuck. We are trapped in this regressive, tribalistic society where everything runs on nepotism, and we don't even have a functioning state to speak of, just a corrupt mess. Honestly, it’s been the same old story for us, even back during that pathetic excuse for "socialism." I’ve been thinking about this lately, and honestly, I think people need to wake up to the reality of the situation. If you look at how things actually play out on the ground, "real socialism" isn't some utopian dream or a way to distribute wealth fairly—it's just a polite euphemism for actual, unadulterated Stalinism. It's all a facade, really. You talk about equality and the common good, but once the gears start turning, it inevitably grinds down into that rigid, top-down authoritarianism we've seen throughout history. It's just one thing by another name.And honestly, it’s going to be exactly the same in this decaying version of capitalism we’re stuck in right now. That’s why I keep holding onto this one hope—that maybe, just maybe, the sheer absurdity of these capitalist extremes, these irreconcilable contradictions that tear everything apart, will finally force a breaking point. Perhaps that collapse will actually lead us toward a new era defined by actual intelligence and wisdom in humanity.

Eric Newman75 said:

I can't believe we're actually talking about this again. Honestly, where do we even start? It feels like every time someone brings up the "Californian" mindset, half the room starts nodding while the other half rolls their eyes so hard they might see their own brains. It’s that specific kind of energy, isn't it? That relentless, almost exhausting drive to reinvent everything—from how we work to how we perceive reality itself. You see it everywhere from the tech hubs in Silicon Valley to the surf breaks in Malibu. It’s this hyper-focused, slightly manic pursuit of "the next big thing" that borders on a cultish obsession. People act like if you aren't constantly optimizing your life or pivoting your entire career based on some new trend, you're basically standing still. And don't get me started on the social aspect. There's this performative layer to it all. Everyone is a "founder," everyone is an "influencer," everyone has a side hustle that supposedly solves a global crisis. It’s all very... polished. A little too polished. It lacks that gritty, unvarnished authenticity you find in, say, a dive bar in Chicago or a workshop in Detroit. In California, even the grit feels curated for an Instagram feed. I mean, look at the way people talk. Everything is a "disruption." Everything is "scaling." It’s like they’ve swallowed a business textbook and now they can't communicate like normal human beings without using jargon. It’s enough to make your head spin. But then, I catch myself thinking, "Wait, am I being too cynical?" Maybe. There is a certain infectious optimism there, I'll give them that. That "why not?" attitude is what built half the companies currently running the world. But man, the cost of that constant motion... it's heavy. We're all just trying to keep up with a pace that wasn't meant for humans, let alone a whole society. kaže:
This whole thing is just ridiculous. It’s uneducated, half-baked, and honestly, just poorly thought out. Do you seriously think Eric Newman75 and the rest of them are actually buying this?HektanohirovićiLook, if every serious, thoughtful, and nuanced writer just decided to post whatever alternative takes they wanted without any oversight or accountability, then the core of their critique would be nothing more than mindless barking while everyone else just walks on by. But hey, I’ve got a little something for you—a vital, lesson-filled quote from a seasoned old pro, V. I. Lenin:
The established law of revolutions—something proven by every major uprising, especially that massive Russian upheaval back in the 20th century—boils down to this one thing: it isn’t enough for the working class to just realize they’re being squeezed dry and demand a better life. That’s only half the battle. For a real revolution to actually take hold, you need to reach a point where the people at the top can't physically function or maintain control using the old ways anymore. It's not just about the bottom wanting change; it's about the top losing the ability to stay in charge.

Look, let me just wrap this thought up before I spiral into a total ad hominem fallacy..."So they aren't even offering anything." They’re laying everything bare. Honestly, if you don't believe me, just go pick up some Franco Basaglia and read his work. It's all right there. The negation of an institution... It’s such a heavy concept, isn't it? You start looking at how we tear things down, or rather, how we attempt to deny their very existence when they stop serving us. It's not just about protesting a policy or voting someone out; it’s that deeper, more visceral rejection of the structure itself. When people say they want to negate an institution, they aren't just asking for reform—they’re saying the foundation is rotten beyond repair. They're saying the whole system is built on a logic that simply doesn't hold up anymore. I was thinking about this earlier, and it really hits home when you look at how certain social frameworks in America have become so entrenched that even questioning them feels like an act of madness. But is it? Or is the "madness" actually the refusal to pretend everything is fine? There's a tension there between maintaining order and acknowledging that the order itself might be the problem.Wait, which neighboring country was he talking about when he shut down those "asylums"?

It’s all about that grind: the knowledge, the reading, the hands-on experience, the actual breakthroughs... nothing else matters.☕

What on earth have you done now? Seriously! If you can't even grasp the language you're supposed to be arguing in, then just don't argue. Go find an American forum and go post your nonsense there.

"This verse is garbage—it’s basically me telling Stephen he's just a little punk while he tries to lecture me," which is pretty much how the late American philosopher Guy Petrovic described that classic logical fallacy in his "Logic" textbook. You know the one: when someone fails to actually dismantle an argument, so they just resort to attacking the person making it instead. But let's be clear: you aren't going to succeed. It’s not even because I gave up on logic a long time ago; it’s more because I honestly find it laughable to think you could even grasp what I'm saying. It would be downright hysterical if there were any chance of you understanding me. You’re being absolutely ridiculous, acting like some kind of big-shot mob boss, trying to order me to get off this forum? It’s pure comedy. Want more?

Comprende?☕

Sam Martinez9 said:I concur that socialization is a lifelong process, spanning from infancy until death. I also agree with the distinction between primary and secondary socialization, particularly because children differ from adults in their sheer lack of knowledge. Through socialization, children absorb the norms and rules of the society they live in, doing so without much critique simply because they lack the framework required to be critical. Of course, even in early childhood, children occasionally push back—first through crying, then with a defiant "*no*"—but aside from saying "I want" versus "I won't," children aren't really capable of offering a viable alternative.

During adolescence, as knowledge and comprehension expand, we see the rise of teenage rebellion. Kids begin choosing different behaviors, though even this is usually just another form of socialization; the only difference is that they are now attempting to socialize with the social groups they actually care about.

As for institutionalization? I’m not entirely sure if socialization can even exist without it.

It is worth noting that today's social norms are incomparably looser than those of previous generations. They offer more freedom and allow for the expression of individuality while still permitting membership in a social group. In the past, violating social norms could cost a member their standing in the community, or even their life.

Is it possible for social rules to become even more relaxed in the future? I suspect so, though I don't think it truly matters.

What matters is that a member of society adopts its rules through free will—that they understand why those rules are beneficial and, most importantly, that those rules facilitate their full development.

I completely agree with your post. However, I just want to add one thing: it is crucial that one does not succumb to the pressures of the ruling establishment. School is that very instrument (it has been from the start); the mechanism of social control is latent, and its structure for monitoring and restraining young people is so powerful that, in a single moment, you can't even tell if it's being overt or subtle. But, as the author John Anthony Gill writes in his work "How to Conduct Social Research" this latent function isn't the only purpose of school, because we mustn't forget its spirit of discovery and knowledge:

"The importance and weight that these two functions held in relation to one another have shifted; originally, the primary function of school was education, while the other function (the oversight function), though present from the beginning, was less significant and less prominent. And conversely, in the current situation, due to greater pressure coming from the bottom up, the oversight function has increased immensely. But a correct analysis of schooling must not ignore its other function: the function of knowledge." (p. 228)

Eric Newman75 said:Look, parents can try to shield their kids from certain influences all they want—nobody’s stopping them. But here’s the catch: things like national identity or core civilizational values aren't just tucked away in a single textbook. Between English lit, history, and eventually philosophy and ethics, students are going to run headfirst into certain works and ideas that spark debate. It isn't just about what a teacher says in a lecture. I mean, are you going to tell a kid to never turn on the TV or stop reading the news? Some content exists outside the school walls that serves as a vital pillar of society. Take religion, for example. You can't tell a kid to skip out on religious studies at school while teaching them at home that going to church is just some superstitious nonsense. Religion is part of our culture and civilization; at some point, they’re going to need that context.

As for developing a child based strictly on their "interests," I already mentioned there are various paths you can take. You have to look at the big picture—from elementary school all the way through high school. How exactly do you expect a kid to get into a top-tier university, land a solid career, and actually have a future if they only master the stuff they love and ignore everything else?

I’m genuinely curious, though—what exactly are these people offering who claim to be so worried about "protecting" the kids? My guess is they aren't offering anything at all. They don't seem to have the slightest clue how to actually prepare a student to get into a great high school, let alone an Ivy League university, if they bypass the foundational subjects that they supposedly find "harmful."

This is such an unserious, illiterate, and incomplete post. Do you really think Hekatonhir and the rest of the Hekatonhir family believe that any serious, insightful, and complex author provides an alternative without any scrutiny of their own arguments? That the core of their critique is nothing more than empty barking while the caravans pass by? No. I actually have a very important and instructive quote for you from the old, seasoned author V.I. Lenin:
"The fundamental law of revolution, which all three revolutions confirmed—most notably the Russian Revolution in the 20th century—consists of this: for a revolution to occur, it is not enough that the exploited and oppressed masses realize they cannot live in the old way and demand change; it is necessary that the exploiters can no longer live and govern in the old way."

And, to wrap up this post (otherwise I'll fall into an ad hominem logical fallacy), "they offer nothing"—they offer everything. If you don't believe me, read Francesca Basaglia and her "Negation of the Institution" where he abolished "asylums" in a neighboring country?

It’s all about the knowledge, the reading, the hands-on experience, and that ultimate realization...☕

I suppose I should probably start by saying that I might be wrong about this, but I honestly can't help how I feel when I see things like this happening. It’s just... it's frustrating. I mean, I guess there's no other way to put it: we are looking at a complete breakdown of the standards we used to hold dear. Maybe I'm being too harsh, maybe, but I can't shake the feeling that everything is just sliding into chaos. It feels like nobody is actually paying attention to the consequences anymore, and frankly, it makes me want to scream. I don't know. It's all just incredibly overwhelming. kaže:
For Berger and Luckmann, institutionalization is essentially just a pattern of human behavior—it’s all about typification. People decide that something actually matters, and once they assign that significance, it becomes an objective reality. During the process of externalization, people start developing these routine patterns of action and interaction based on their past experiences. In a strictly sociological sense, institutions are... They essentially exert control over human behavior by forcing everyone to follow these pre-set, rigid patterns of conduct. It’s all about dictating exactly how one should act.So, Merton talks about this whole idea of manifest versus latent functions. If you look at how slavery functioned back in the old days, the manifest function was supposed to be economic growth—that was the stated goal. But the latent function? That was actually about reinforcing the social status of white people. To put it simply: manifest functions are what's intended, while latent ones are the unintended side effects that happen anyway. Now, there’s a fundamental split here in how they view things. For Merton, society is essentially a system, and education is just one functional part of that machine. But for Berger and Luckmann, it's different—they see society as something we perceive through our own subjective experience and consciousness. It's all about how we sense it.

I guess this is just a passing thought.a.

Thanks for the bracelets, I guess, but there’s actually something else on my mind...☕
If you’ve actually sat down and read "The Social Construction of Reality," then maybe we can have a serious conversation about this. I mean, honestly, if you haven't grasped the core arguments laid out by Berger and Luckmann, I don't even know where to begin with you. It's all right there on the page! I guess what I'm trying to get at—though I'm not sure if anyone is actually listening—is that the way we perceive our environment isn't just some random occurrence. It's constructed. It's built. It's social! If you follow the logic of Berger and Luckmann, you realize that the institutions we take for granted are essentially shared hallucinations that we've all agreed to treat as objective truth. It sounds crazy, I know, but that's exactly the point they are making! Maybe I'm being too intense, but it feels like people just skim the surface and think they understand the sociological implications. They don't. They really don't. You can't just ignore the dialectical process between the individual and society. It’s fundamental! If you aren't looking at how socialization creates these layers of reality, then you aren't actually reading the book; you're just looking at ink on paper. I'm just saying... if you want to engage in this debate, you need to do the work first.The social construction of reality... honestly, where do we even begin with this? I mean, if you really sit down and think about it—and I do, I spend way too much time thinking about this stuff—it’s all just one massive, collective agreement, isn't it? It’s almost overwhelming when you realize how much of what we call "truth" is actually just something we've all collectively decided to pretend is real. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that our entire perception of the world isn't some objective, hard-coded thing sitting out there waiting to be discovered. It's built. We build it through our interactions, our institutions, and the way we talk to one another every single day. It’s like we're all participating in this giant, ongoing project of manufacturing "facts." Maybe it sounds a bit cynical, or maybe I'm just being overly pedantic, but it’s hard not to feel a sense of vertigo when you consider it. If society decides today that a certain value is paramount, then suddenly, it *is* paramount. It becomes part of the fabric. It’s wild, really. We aren't just living in a world; we are actively, constantly, and quite often unconsciously, constructing the very ground we stand on. It's a heavy thought, and frankly, it makes you question everything you thought was set in stone. If you actually think you’ve mastered Berger and Luckmann—assuming, of course, that you’ve even managed to wrap your head around R. K. Merton—then maybe you've read it. But let's be honest: you clearly haven't! „Visokoškolski Regarding Stambolović’s “zapt”—if you’ve actually managed to wrap your head around Law 180 in Frank Basaglia’s “Negation of the Institution” (along with all those other sociological deep dives on institutionalization)—I have to wonder: has that actually shifted your perspective on how institutions function? Or is your worldview already pretty much set in stone, deeply buried within the layers of your primary socialization?

Let’s start by diving into F. Basaglia’s “The Negation of the Institution.”

„Asylums, prisons, schools—all these institutions tasked with controlling social deviance are nothing more than a direct reflection of the specific type of repression that defines our current stage of socio-economic development. It’s all fundamentally connected to how power operates within our system. I suppose we’re really doing this now—diving headfirst into the implications of this whole new technological vernacular. It feels like we're constantly being forced to adapt to some shifting linguistic landscape that moves faster than anyone can actually process. I mean, maybe I'm just being cynical, but it honestly feels like we're losing the ability to communicate clearly because we're too busy trying to master the latest digital jargon. It’s all becoming so incredibly fragmented, isn't it? One day you're speaking one way, and the next, if you haven't updated your mental software to include the newest tech-speak, you're practically illiterate in modern discourse. It’s exhausting, frankly. We're essentially being coerced into adopting this new way of speaking just to stay relevant in a world that seems obsessed with novelty over actual substance. I guess it's inevitable, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating to watch the nuance of real language get swallowed up by this relentless, rapid-fire technical slang. "The whole concept of labor is essentially an ideological import. By formally adapting these new technologies, they’re basically just clearing the path for a new breed of control—something that becomes absolutely necessary once our economic reality is fully reshaped to follow the cold logic of capital." (p. 67)

So, here’s the thing: we’re all essentially "trapped" within this outdated culture because we are fundamental components of it. We’ve basically absorbed its ideology the very moment we decided to stop trying to dismantle that same oppressive structure. I mean, what's the actual endgame here? Are we actually going to transform this culture, or are we just going to pass some new "law"—much like how Frank Basaglia stepped up to abolish those insane asylums back in Italy—to kickstart real change? Or, despite all these exhaustive, academic, and frankly pedantic debates we have going on here in this forum, is it all just going to end exactly how the system dictates? Is there any chance that, in reality, absolutely nothing actually changes?

Is this really a reality we ought to be contemplating?

Just one more "observation" for the road: a few years back, I actually switched up the academic culture I was working in. I chose to transition within the same institutional framework because, honestly, I felt like I was already part of that specific culture. I figured it would be much easier to navigate those changes if you’re already embedded in the system. Why did I do it? Well, that is the real question, isn't it?

Let’s take a hard look at this world we live in—a world defined by terror, constant violence, and systematic exclusion. If we refuse to admit that we are actually part of that very same world, then what are we even doing? I suppose I should probably start by saying that I might be wrong about this—I really could be—but there’s just something about how people are reacting to this situation that feels completely off. It’s like nobody is actually looking at the core issue, you know? Everything is just being swept under the rug, or maybe I'm just being too cynical, but it feels that way. I mean, seriously, if we don't address the underlying tension here, we're just spinning our wheels. It's frustrating, honestly. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I can't shake the feeling that we're missing the forest for the trees. "Since we are essentially defined by our institutions, our rules, our principles, our norms, and our very organizational structures—if we refuse to admit that we are actually part of that larger world of threats and deceptions currently destroying the patient, then we’ll never truly grasp the reality: this crisis facing the patient is, at its core, our own identity crisis." (p. 60)

steelridge58 said:The very first thing Albert Camus did after being awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature was write a thank-you note to his teacher.

I don't think he did it just because the guy taught him how to read or write, but rather because of the whole experience of being educated—all those life lessons he felt so deeply grateful for.

So, I feel like there’s a massive difference between pointing out the cracks in our American education system and trying to fix them, versus advocating for solutions that basically mean
dismantling schools altogether. To put it bluntly using that old saying: "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

I’m writing this mostly from memory, so I hope I haven’t butchered the quote—but what exactly is the core idea here? In his famous book, Đuro Šušnjić discusses...Resistance to critical thinking... it’s everywhere, isn't it? It really is. I mean, I guess you could say it’s becoming almost a default setting for people these days. It’s like there’s this active, almost aggressive pushback whenever someone tries to actually analyze a situation instead of just swallowing whatever narrative is being fed to them by the mainstream media. It’s frustrating, honestly. You try to peel back the layers, to look at the underlying logic—or lack thereof—and suddenly you’re the one being questioned. People seem so incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of questioning the status quo. It’s as if having an independent thought is treated like some kind of social transgression. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but it feels like we're living in an era where intellectual laziness isn't just common; it's practically celebrated. Everyone wants the easy answer, the quick soundbite, the comfortable consensus. Nobody wants to do the heavy lifting required to actually think. He claimed that every single one... I suppose there might be an alternative, though I find myself questioning if such a thing truly exists in this current landscape. Maybe there is a way out, but honestly, it feels like we're just circling the drain. I guess one could look for another path, but without a clear direction, isn't it all just more of the same? It's frustrating, really. I honestly believe there’s an inherent element of utopia woven into our very DNA—because, let’s be real, if we didn't have that spark, would any kind of alternative even exist? Every single system out there works tirelessly to erase any sense of an alternative. That is precisely how they exert their social control over thought. They aren't just managing us; they are actively engineering a reality where no other option is visible, effectively manufacturing a one-dimensional human being who can't even conceive of a different way to live.

I guess Beljki... maybe there’s more to say about him, but honestly? It’s hard to even know where to start with someone like that. I mean, if you really think about it—and I do, I spend way too much time thinking about this stuff—there's just so much complexity there that's easy to miss if you aren't paying close attention. It's frustrating, really. People just gloss over it. They just move on. But you can't just move on! There's a whole layer of nuance being ignored here, and it makes me incredibly worked up just thinking about how little anyone seems to grasp the actual weight of the situation. It's all just surface level, isn't it? Just completely superficial. kaže:
I don’t recall seeing nearly as much whining about the state of education in third-world countries—specifically over in India. Look, when access to schooling is limited and the existential pressure is that high, nobody has the luxury to sit around philosophizing about the system. It’s just not happening. It’s like how nobody sits around debating the specific nutritional values of a meal when actual famine is hitting. And this is true despite the fact that their schools might be terrible—more conformist, stricter, often discriminatory, or just plain low-quality from an educational standpoint. But if you don't know whether you'll even have food on the table tomorrow, you aren't going to care about those nuances. You would kill yourself to finish something that significantly increases your chances of actually putting bread on the table. Personally, I hated school from the very first day to the very last, but let me tell you, the thought of complaining about its flaws never even crossed my mind.

In that very same work ( “The sheer resistance to critical thinking nowadays is just... it's staggering, honestly. It’s like people have collectively decided that questioning anything—especially the status quo—is some kind of social crime. You try to bring up a nuanced point or peel back a layer of logic, and suddenly you're met with this wall of pure, unadulterated stubbornness. It’s infuriating. People don't want to engage; they want to react. They want the quick hit of being "right" without ever having to do the heavy lifting of actually processing information. It feels like we're regressing, maybe even sliding backward into a state where dogma is preferred over discourse. I guess it's just easier to stay comfortable in an echo chamber than to face the discomfort of a challenging idea, isn't it?There is one specific section that I find particularly fascinating—it’s actually titled..."I become a revolutionary the second my stomach starts growling." So, what exactly is tucked away in that supposedly inspiring section? To start things off, the author pulls from the methodological approach of Karl Marx himself, arguing that no single class possesses the actual need—let alone the necessity—for universal emancipation (and yeah, that includes this whole meritocracy/schooling nonsense) until they are backed into a corner by immediate, unavoidable necessity. Or, if you prefer, as one rather striking quote from Herbert Markus suggests... Our only real hope comes from those who have absolutely nothing left to lose.I guess he’s just trying to undermine the author, because that kind of "negation of institutions" is exactly what we're seeing lately.Revolutionary spirit. Or maybe just pure, unadulterated chaos. It’s hard to tell where one ends and the other begins lately.Money is inherently corruptible because, let’s be honest, the people leading the charge of any revolution aren't exactly coming from a place of desperation or hunger; even Karl Marx himself emerged from the ranks of the bourgeoisie. At its core, this whole thing is about consciousness and humanism—that has to be the absolute foundation of any truly humane engagement.

Honestly, this is exactly why you really ought to dive into the late Franco Basaglia’s work—specifically his whole concept of the "negation of institutions." It’s essential reading.

( my quote from the thread "labyrinth of books and I")

Franco Basaglia – “Negation of Institutions” — I actually "borrowed" this book from the university library in Cleveland back when I was working a job that required it, and let’s just say I never gave it back. Apparently, things got completely botched in the paperwork—but then again, isn't that how everything goes in some bureaucratic office? Everything always turns into a total mess. Why didn't I return it? Well, I guess I'll tell you: it’s because this belongs in my personal Top 20 most essential books. It is such a brilliant, intelligent, profoundly wise piece of work by the man behind "Law 180," the legislation that effectively dismantled—not just on paper, but in actual practice—the entire asylum system in Italy. I still have this clipping from a January 1997 issue of the Los Angeles Times where they reported the big news: starting in 1997, Italy would no longer have mental hospitals or psychiatric wards. The Health Minister, Maria Rosario, managed to bridge the gap between the living Pope and the late psychiatrist Franco Basaglia when she stated, "I am reminded of the Pope's words: even in the mentally ill, there is an image and likeness of God." She explained how she succeeded in just a few months at doing what had eluded people for years: fully implementing Law 180. Named after the late Franco Basaglia, this was the first law in the world designed to abolish mental institutions and, more importantly, the insane concept that people suffering from mental illness should be forcibly removed from society. It is a magnificent book, and the title really says it all: the negation of institutions.

I suppose there isn't much to say here, though I feel compelled to add my two cents. It’s all just... well, you know how it goes. I guess we're just sitting here waiting for something to actually happen, aren't we? Maybe. It feels like we're just circling the drain of these endless discussions without ever hitting the core of the issue. I don't mean to be dramatic, but it’s exhausting. Truly. Just my two cents, I suppose. kaže:
A totalitarian state isn't just some synonym for social control, you know. Honestly, you’ve just paraphrased the point only to leave the sentence completely incoherent and muddy. It's still just as nonsensical as it was before. This argument? It's just not valid. Period.

Look, on the merits of the matter—and I am stating this clearly—she absolutely is. Honestly, do you have some brand-new euphemism you're planning to hide behind, or can we finally call it what it is?
2. Ja sam naveo stranice djela Bergera/Luckmanna. Točno je da sam parafrazirao i možda ostavio rečenicu nerazumljivom i nejasnom? Ali sam naveo (ipak) stranice (citiranog) teksta?
Look, I see you don't actually have an answer to my question—which, for the record, was quite clear and rather complex. So, if you don't mind, I guess we’ll just set that aside for now?

I mean, seriously? This isn't even an answer to the question. Who exactly is going to be responsible for sparking that sense of longing in children, and more importantly, what would that kind of desire even look like? I mean, honestly, who is pulling the strings here? Is it the parents, the schools, or some unseen force in our culture? And how does one even begin to define such a thing? It’s all so incredibly vague, isn't it? I guess we have to ask ourselves what this "longing" actually entails—is it a hunger for knowledge, a drive for success, or something much deeper and perhaps more unsettling? I don't know, maybe it's just an abstract concept, but someone has to steer the ship, right? Or perhaps there is no captain at all.I mean, honestly, when has this ever actually been a definition of desire? It feels more like some pretentious attempt at mimicking poetic expression—you know, like trying to channel Fernando Pessoa or something. And this idea that this massive surge of energy is somehow measurable? Give me a break. That’s just absurd. Then there's the other part in bold... I guess I have to ask: why on earth would that imply the fluctuations inherent in desire are difficult to suppress? And what does "fluctuations" even mean in this specific context? What exactly is "fluctuating" here? I really don't see the logic.

To answer everything you asked—and let me be crystal clear about this—you absolutely have to read this book. If I didn't, I’d end up just quoting the entire thing or some massive dissertation instead! But, if it's any consolation, I guess it's actually a pretty easy read.
There is one specific part—one particular section—that carries an immense amount of weight, and it’s titled...The Network.“: Anything that feels even remotely connected to destruction—well, people immediately jump on it and accuse it of being the root cause of chaos. It’s such a tired trope. Honestly, I think this whole obsession with "chaos" is really just a subtle way to intimidate people into staying in line, you know? It's a tactic used to force more human restraint where they want it. Because, if you think about it, desire doesn't actually lead to ruin; it stimulates a drive to rearrange things. It pushes for a reorganization. So, in a sense, it leads right back to structure. But—and this is the crucial part—it’s a different kind of structure entirely. We're talking about a system that organizes itself through a network rather than a rigid hierarchy.

So, here we go—we’re finally arriving at the core issue together. But honestly, what kind of actual principle are we even talking about when people throw around this idea of a non-fixed, fluid "network"? It feels incredibly vague, doesn't it?☕

I guess... maybe I should just say it plainly: this whole thing is a mess. It’s honestly ridiculous how much people try to ignore what's right in front of them! You look at the way society functions—or tries to function—and you see these massive gaps between what we're told is "normal" and the actual reality we're living in every single day. It’s exhausting, really. It brings me back to Berger & Luckmann. If you actually bother to read their work on how we construct our sense of reality, you'd realize that most people are just drifting through a manufactured version of existence without a second thought. They aren't even questioning the structures around them! And don't even get me started on the social pressures involved. It's like everyone is just playing a role in a play they didn't even audition for, following these arbitrary rules just because "that's how it's done." And then you have people like R. Merton, who pointed out exactly how this leads to tension when the system promises one thing but fails to deliver another. We're told there's a path to success, a certain standard to meet, but the actual tools to get there? They aren't available to everyone. So what happens? People either break the rules or they just check out mentally. I mean, seriously, why is it so hard for people to grasp this? It’s not some deep, hidden conspiracy; it’s just basic sociology! But no, everyone wants to pretend everything is fine, staying tucked away in their little bubbles while the entire social fabric is fraying at the edges. It's maddening!

I suppose I should probably start by saying that I’ve been sitting here for quite some time, just staring at this screen, trying to make sense of the absolute chaos we’re witnessing. It’s frankly exhausting. I mean, maybe I’m being too dramatic, but I really don't think anyone else realizes how deep this goes. We are talking about the very fabric of our social reality—the way we perceive everything around us! It’s like what Berger & Luckmann talk about when they discuss how we construct our own little versions of the universe. We aren't just passive observers; we are actively building this world, brick by brick, through our interactions. And yet, people act like none of this matters. It’s infuriating! I guess some people are just content to drift through life without ever questioning the structures that hold them up. And don't even get me started on the institutional side of things. If you look at the way organizations function—you know, the kind of stuff R. Merton wrote about regarding how social structures can actually create unintended consequences—it becomes painfully obvious that the system isn't just broken; it's functioning exactly as it was designed to, which is arguably much worse. It’s a cycle. A continuous, maddening cycle. I saw copperhound12 making some points earlier, and while I might be wrong, I feel like they're missing the sheer scale of the sociological implications here. It’s not just about one specific policy or one single event in a city like Chicago or New York; it’s about the fundamental ways we socialize ourselves into these roles. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I honestly doubt anyone else is giving this the gravity it deserves. It’s all connected. Everything. kaže: I mean, I suppose I agree, but I honestly feel like this is just a fundamental characteristic of society itself—it’s the kind of thing without which a society couldn't even exist in the first place.

Berger and Luckmann argue that there exists... I mean, let’s be honest here—it’s all about the primary stage. Everything starts there. Without that initial foundation, nothing else even matters. It’s the core, the absolute baseline. I guess you could say it’s the most essential part of the whole process, though some people might try to argue otherwise. But they're wrong. It's fundamental. Period. Primary socialization—you know, that whole formative period during childhood—and then secondary socialization, which kicks in once you're out in the world. Now, most experts actually agree that primary socialization is the heavy hitter here. It’s arguably more vital because it provides that foundational psychological...I suppose I should mention the windfall. It’s all quite overwhelming, really. A win. A massive, unexpected win. I don't know how to process it, or if I even should. One moment you're just going about your life, and the next, everything shifts. It's... well, it's a lot to take in. Maybe it's a blessing, maybe it's a curse. I guess we'll see.“ – The narrowing of choice. It’s happening right before our eyes, isn't it? I guess you could say we're being funneled into a corner where the illusion of freedom remains, but the actual options are vanishing. Everything feels increasingly curated, pre-packaged, and limited by forces we can barely see anymore. It’s frustrating, honestly. It’s essentially freeing the child from having to make those heavy decisions on their own.It all comes down to the decision, doesn't it? I mean, that's really the crux of the whole thing. One single choice can shift everything.Because it provides him with both psychological satisfaction and biological reinforcement at the exact same time. And that’s right where things start to get complicated. Institutionalization... I mean, where do we even begin with that one? It’s such a heavy, suffocating concept when you really start to peel back the layers. I guess what I'm trying to say is that once a process becomes institutionalized, it stops being about people and starts being about the machine itself. It becomes this rigid, unyielding structure that dictates how everything must function, regardless of whether those rules actually make sense anymore. It feels like we're constantly watching these massive, bureaucratic monoliths—think of something like the federal government or even a giant corporation like JPMorgan Chase—build these invisible walls around themselves. They create these set patterns, these "standard operating procedures," and then they cling to them with a death grip. Maybe it’s just my way of looking at things, but it feels incredibly stifling. You have these established norms that just become part of the very fabric of our social universe, and once they're baked in like that, changing them feels almost impossible. It's like trying to turn an aircraft carrier in a bathtub. It’s all just so deeply ingrained that the system begins to protect its own existence more than its actual purpose. It’s maddening, honestly.In its own right, that’s just how things work. It’s a fundamental characteristic of any society, and I mean, I really do agree with you there—but, if you ask me... I guess... maybe I should just say it: this is all wrong. It’s completely off base. Everything about this is just plain incorrect.I mean, look—every single defining characteristic of a society is mirrored right back at us through its culture. It’s all there. So, if we take a hard look at what kind of society we've built up to this point, I guess we have to face the music: we are staring directly at our own fundamental flaws.

I guess... maybe I should just say it plainly, though I hate to even open this can of worms. It’s honestly infuriating how much people miss the point. Everything feels so fractured lately, doesn't it? Like we're all just drifting through this massive, overwhelming universe without any real sense of direction or shared reality. It’s almost like what Berger & Luckmann were getting at—that whole idea about how we construct our own little worlds just to make sense of the chaos. But instead of building something meaningful, it feels like everyone is just shouting into their own private voids. We aren't even living in the same reality anymore! It’s exhausting. I mean, seriously, how are we supposed to function as a society when the very fabric of our social construction is being pulled apart by sheer ego and misinformation? I don't know. Maybe I'm just being cynical. Perhaps I'm overthinking the whole thing. But it's hard not to feel this way when you look at the state of things. It's just... it's a mess. A total, absolute mess. kaže:
Why on earth would anyone assume that social control is inherently a negative thing? I mean, seriously? It’s almost like people haven't thought this through at all. Is it even possible to wrap my head around the idea that a world without socialization would somehow be a better place to live? I highly doubt it, though maybe I'm being too cynical here. If we're talking about a total absence of social structure—where there's no mechanism to guide behavior or maintain order—we aren't looking at some kind of utopia. We're looking at absolute chaos. Without those guiding forces, how does a society even function? How do we establish any sense of shared reality? It feels like a massive leap to suggest that stripping away the very fabric that holds us together would result in anything other than a complete breakdown of civilization. I guess some people see "control" and immediately think "oppression," but they're missing the entire point of how human interaction actually works.

The world is absolutely starving for genuine socialization and a sense of community—it’s a fundamental necessity, really—but... I suppose I should probably address this, though I’m honestly not sure where to even begin with such a mess. It feels like we’re just spinning our wheels at this point, doesn't it? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but there’s just no way to look at the current situation without feeling a massive sense of frustration. It’s all incredibly disorganized, and frankly, it’s exhausting to keep up with. I guess what I'm trying to say—if I can even get my thoughts straight—is that the sheer lack of cohesion here is staggering. It's like everyone is operating on a completely different wavelength, and nobody is actually listening to the core issues. I mean, seriously, how are we supposed to make any real progress when the foundation is this shaky? It’s maddening! I find myself constantly questioning whether anyone actually cares about getting this right, or if we're all just going through the motions for the sake of it. It’s just... it's a lot. I really don't know. - Social control—it’s one of those concepts that people love to toss around in academic circles, but they rarely grasp how deeply it actually weaves itself into the fabric of our daily lives here in America. It isn't just some abstract theory you read about in a textbook; it is the very mechanism that keeps the gears of society turning, whether we realize it or not. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that social control is essentially the way a community maintains order and ensures everyone stays within the lines. It can be formal, like when the NYPD hands out a speeding ticket on a busy Manhattan street, or it can be informal, which is arguably much more pervasive. Think about that subtle, judgmental look you get from a neighbor when you park your car slightly over the line, or the quiet disapproval felt when someone violates an unwritten rule at a local diner in Chicago. Those little nudges, those micro-pressures to conform to the status quo, they are everywhere. It's a constant tug-of-war between individual agency and the collective expectation. We all like to think we are totally autonomous, making our own choices regardless of what anyone thinks, but maybe that's a bit of an illusion. Most of us are constantly adjusting our behavior based on the perceived expectations of the people around us. We follow the rules not just because there's a law against breaking them, but because we don't want to deal with the social fallout of being the "outlier." It’s a heavy thought, honestly, but it’s the reality of how we function as a society. Is this some kind of police overreach, or just blatant political maneuvering? I honestly can't tell anymore. I mean, seriously? Is that it? Just... "zbilje"? I guess that’s all we're doing now. Just throwing out random, half-baked fragments and expecting someone to make sense of it. It’s honestly exhausting. Maybe if people actually put some effort into their thoughts before hitting send, we wouldn't be stuck in this endless cycle of nothingness. I don't know, I just feel like we're spinning our wheels here.It basically boils down to this: reality is defined—and what we consider to be "truth" is manufactured—exactly how the ruling structures of any given society decide to package it and hand it to us.

I guess... maybe if we actually look at what Berger & Luckmann were trying to get at here, things might start making sense? I mean, honestly, it’s almost frustrating how much people miss the point when they talk about the social construction of reality. It’s not just some abstract theory you toss around in a college seminar; it's the very fabric of how we exist! When you consider the way the universe is structured through our shared interactions, it becomes clear that nothing exists in a vacuum. Every single thing we perceive is filtered through these layers of institutionalized meaning. And don't even get me started on how people try to simplify this. You can't just strip away the complexity without losing the entire essence of the argument. It’s maddening! If we apply what R. Merton discussed regarding social structures, you see that the tension isn't just accidental—it's baked into the system itself. We are constantly navigating these invisible boundaries that dictate what is considered "normal" or "real." I suppose it's easy to ignore that when you're just coasting through life, but for those of us actually paying attention, it's impossible to unsee. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I highly doubt anyone else is being this thorough.

I mean, you have to consider Berger & Luckmann. Where on earth are Berger & Luckmann? They’re just quoting the pop singer now.t: I guess... if you look at how society’s conceptual machinery actually functions, it seems designed to force everyone—the primary actors, the ones actually living through it—to stay trapped within these rigid institutional definitions. It’s like they’re constantly being funneled back into the pre-set lanes, isn't it? I mean, seriously, does anyone actually escape those boundaries? Or is the whole system just rigged to ensure we all stay exactly where the institutions say we belong? What on earth is that sentence even supposed to mean? Does it actually make any sense at all, or am I just losing my mind here?

Part 2 (Legitimation) – Section (pages 127-139) under the heading: The Conceptual Machinery for Maintaining the Universe ( nisam naveo citat ali sam parafrazirao navode)

R. Merton falls squarely into the functionalist camp. It’s important to recognize that functionalism operates on an entirely different theoretical foundation than the interactionist paradigm—they aren't even playing the same game, really.
Look, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but the fundamental logic here is just... it's flawed. Because these two theoretical paradigms are built on entirely different foundations, they simply cannot complement one another. I mean, think about it—if they actually did complement each other, then we wouldn't be talking about two distinct theoretical paradigms anymore, would we? They would just merge into one single, unified theoretical paradigm. It’s basic structural logic, really.

That isn't even an actual answer to my question: I mean, come on—is it actually against the rules to mix and match different theories just to build a solid, valid argument?

How does one even begin to define a concept? I mean, really think about it. It’s such a heavy, sweeping question, isn't it? I guess you could try to pin it down, but honestly, defining anything feels like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. Maybe there's a way to do it that actually makes sense, but most of the time, we just end up circling around the same tired ideas without ever truly grasping the essence of what we're discussing. It's frustrating, quite frankly. You start with one idea, and before you know it, the definition has shifted, morphed, or just completely dissolved into something else entirely. I suppose it depends on how much rigor you're willing to apply, though I suspect most people just settle for whatever convenient label fits the moment. Desires. Just... desires. It’s a heavy word, isn't it? I guess if you really sit down and think about it, everything we do—every single move we make in this life—is driven by some underlying craving or some deep-seated longing. Maybe it's for success, maybe it's for connection, or maybe it's just that restless feeling that what we have right now isn't quite enough. I mean, honestly, where does it stop? You chase one thing, you grab it, and then suddenly there's this new void, this new hunger. It feels like a cycle that never actually ends. I don't know, maybe I'm being too cynical, but it seems like we're all just perpetually reaching for something that stays just out of our grasp.What exactly are we even talking about here? What is longing, really? Is it just some fleeting emotion? I mean, just like any other feeling, longing—for what, exactly?—is going to manifest itself differently in every single individual. It’s not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. And then you have to consider the real question: who is actually going to trigger that sense of longing in children, and in what kind of way will that desire actually present itself? It's a complicated mess, I guess.

I figured I’d just leave this one for last. ☕
„Longing. Or maybe more accurately, this relentless, gnawing craving that just won't quit. It’s hard to put a finger on exactly what it is, I guess, but it’s always there, isn't it? This constant pull toward something—or someone—that feels just out of reach. It’s like this deep-seated hunger that stays unsatisfied no matter how much you try to fill the void. Maybe it's just part of being human, though I find the whole thing incredibly exhausting. It’s an ache, really. A persistent, driving force that shapes everything we do, even when we don't want it to.A structured destabilizer. per excellenceAt its absolute core, first and foremost, this concept places the human being right at the center—the individual who expresses themselves and through whom expression actually happens. It speaks directly to our needs and uses our own language. It’s essentially a search for purpose. While the social structure constantly tries to impose this rigid sense of determinism on us, the human element remains inherently unpredictable; we have this knack for dodging or bridging over whatever structural hurdles get thrown our way. Even when the system is designed to force us into automatic isolation and closed-off silos, the human spirit works to open us back up to the world. This deep-seated longing carries an immense amount of energy, which means those internal fluctuations are incredibly difficult to suppress.

And on the very last page of their doctoral dissertation, both the subject and the author make a point to emphasize: Is there actually anything left out there that can truly capture what remains of our lives?

Eric Newman75 said:How exactly do you plan on maintaining any kind of system without some level of social control? Every single part of society functions by following established norms. Civilization itself is built on passing down knowledge, skills, customs, and intellectual or spiritual insights from one generation to the next. Naturally, this leads to a certain standardization of the individual (using a metaphor there, since I hate the term "molding"). School is a vital gear in that mechanism, but that doesn't mean it's some kind of concentration camp, despite how much people here keep trying to claim it is.

To build out an entire system—specifically a non-institutionalized form of education—you have to introduce one thing: desire. That whole hidden, subtle concept is actually the foundation of V. Stambolović's entire doctoral thesis in "Higher Education Manual."

"...it would be wise to embark on a long march, not just through higher ed structures, but by liberating desire." (VS, "Higher Education Manual," p. 143), or to put it in the words of Margaret Mead: "My grandmother wanted me to get a proper upbringing and education, so she pulled me out of school."

School is a vital cog in that machine, but that doesn't mean we're talking about concentration camps, which seems to be the recurring theme here.

I never once mentioned concentration camps! But, I suppose I shouldn't have to prove or argue that schools, as institutions, play a role in social control at a latent level, right? Besides, there are plenty of narratives from prominent thinkers that demonstrate this—and no, that isn't a logical fallacy of appealing to authority; it's simply a provable fact for any worthwhile reader.

Laura Reyes3 said:You're mashing together functionalist theories with interactionist ones. It makes zero sense how you claim they support each other—and frankly, I don't see the connection between your point about primary socialization at the end and your opening remark about latent motives.

I just assumed you might have actually read "The Social Construction of Reality" by Berger / Luckman—where they explain how society's conceptual machinery works to ensure that current (primary) participants stay within institutional definitions of... well, any reality. That is precisely what the latent function is; those are the internal arrangements, that is that convoluted social control, those are the "rituals."

Anyway, since when is it forbidden to combine different theories to build a valid argument?

Eric Newman75 said:Just because we aren’t even talking about the same thing—and by that, I mean if I’m talking about the forest and you’re talking about the highway—doesn't mean I'm launching an ad hominem attack. It’s really just a fundamental disagreement on where the weight should be placed in education and upbringing. I’m focusing on the actual purpose of the system itself, while you’re stuck discussing some massive, generic phenomenon that could apply to literally any institution, from the U.S. Army to the Department of State. And honestly? You're trying to debate modern education using a quote from the 13th century (!) that you dropped at the start ("We do our best to improve them. We beat them from morning till night. But there is no use in it."). So, please, spare me the lecture on whether or not I'm accepting your arguments.

And I'm not being "concrete"? Look, I obviously respect (are you even listening to me: I RESPECT) your points. But they just aren't sufficient for me. Period. Why? Because they are merely manifest symptoms. I am looking for the latent causes (or if you prefer, the "generic" drivers behind everything happening), because that is the only thing that actually matters in sociology or anthropology.

And all this while, you're debating upbringing and education based on a quote from the 13th century (!) that you slapped at the beginning ("We do our best to fix them. We beat them from morning till night. But it achieves nothing.").

Now you're clinging to that colorful little anecdote, which is really just a paraphrase or a metaphor for psychological consequences. Why is it just a metaphor? Because it reflects the mechanism of social control. It used to be physical punishment, but now it has seemingly been replaced by—brainwashing. And why the shift? Because it was determined that physical force isn't enough anymore, even if it was cheap. All these intense arguments claiming children aren't suitable for "physical discipline" because of their "personalities"—well, those arguments fit perfectly within the current framework of social control.

Sam Martinez9 said:If I were to pose a question to him and his circle of followers, it would be this:

Imagine if society collectively decided that children didn't need schooling and all schools were abolished overnight. What would the world look like thirty years later? Who would maintain our technology, who would understand manufacturing processes, who would manage agriculture or livestock, or know how to repair buildings, bridges, and cars? Who would build new infrastructure, or manage satellites and space travel?

I haven't read that one, but I have read Dilthey's dream regarding Derek Freeman. Freeman critiques *maturation on Samo*, arguing that the book was based on field research that wasn't conducted properly. To put it simply, from what I recall, Mead didn't conduct the fieldwork herself; instead, she sent a young researcher who had a poor grasp of the native language, leading to several flawed conclusions.

You've piqued my interest, so I'll dig out Dilthey's dream again—I have it on my shelf—and I'll try to get through *maturation on Samo* if I find the time. If I stumble upon anything interesting while reading, I'll post an update.

Schools prepare children for life in a society, and in society, hierarchy definitely exists. They aren't going to walk up to their boss at work and say: *Hey, you, I'm heading out to lunch, write this down...*, nor will they speak to the CEO of a major corporation that way.

In any classroom, teachers serve as the primary authority figures, grounded in their expertise—regardless of how deep that knowledge goes, they inherently possess more than the student. Because of this, students ought to learn the value of showing them respect.

From my perspective, however, the reality within our American schools and the broader society is quite the opposite; there is a fundamental lack of respect. Both students and their parents frequently fail to show teachers the deference they deserve.

Eric Newman75 said:Equality has always been purely formal. Even at a university, students are called "colleagues," which creates this illusion of being equals. But that "colleague" relationship doesn't exist in how they actually speak to one another, because a professor is never just a "colleague"—they are always "Professor."

The moment you introduce grading, you introduce competition. That's just how it works. You keep spinning the same old mantra regardless of what I say here. And what I am saying is that students experience modern education very differently today; there is significantly more respect and tolerance compared to previous eras. Everything is taken into account now, from physical traits to mental characteristics. Trying to judge the entire American education system through the lens of what it was like when you were a kid is fundamentally flawed.

-------------------

And you think you have some sort of valid point when you attack me personally? Calling my arguments "ad hominem" is just a weak, unprovable deflection on your part.☕

I do respect your points. However, they are manifestly obvious, superficial, and lack depth. Education and upbringing are meant to shape students, and that responsibility falls on authoritative teachers. Robert K. Merton was a renowned author and sociologist who always sought to investigate latent motives. Because those hidden drivers are far more significant when it comes to the institutionalization of any organization or institution—and believe me, they exist here too. So, what are they?

I'm not going to sit here and list every single narrative for you, but basically, most of what I've read can be found in the works published here in America, such as "The Negation of Institution" by Franc Basaglia, and "The Social Construction of Reality" by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.

To put it bluntly, the conceptual machinery of society demands a social reality that is acceptable and suitable to itself. It then INSTITUTIONALIZES that reality. Every phenomenon and every specific arrangement falls under the umbrella of social control. To me, that is the only legitimate, serious argument that truly touches upon anthropology, sociology, and philosophy.

"A child does not internalize the world of significant others as one of many possible worlds; they internalize it as the only existing and only understandable world. This is precisely why the world internalized during primary socialization is embedded much more deeply than the worlds internalized during secondary socialization. (Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, p. 161, "The Social Construction of Reality")"

Eric Newman75 said:And even that's a thing of the past. The rules have shifted so much lately. You aren't even allowed to send a kid out of class or interrupt their learning process in any meaningful way. I know a few teachers—even those teaching elementary school grades—where the kids just stay slumped in their seats when they walk in. They tell me they aren't the only ones dealing with this, either; it carries right over into middle school. Want to send a student to talk to the guidance counselor or the principal? Forget about it. That gets pinned on you as a personal failure. The expectation is that *you* handle it, that *you* sit them down and talk it out. Which, in theory, is fine. But let’s be real: how are you supposed to find the time for all that while also trying to finish the lesson plan for the period?

There are definitely issues here, but they aren't quite what you might imagine.

One of the fundamental premises in the doctoral dissertation by Isidor Grahorac (since he actually sent me a copy of his dissertation) is the well-known fact that students address their teachers using formal pronouns—using "Sir" or "Ma'am"—instead of being casual. This concept is found at the very beginning of every study on Black pedagogy. By vocation, the student is positioned "below" the teacher, but he advocates for the thesis that this relationship should be reversible—meaning, equal. Friendship is available to everyone: both to the teachers and to the students.

They have issues here, but they aren't quite what you imagine them to be.

"Hidden" curriculum is a core component of every public school. One of the central tenets is that competition is permitted and encouraged for everyone. Students raise two fingers when they know an answer, effectively nullifying those who don't.

And this idea that "they-aren't-what-you-think-they-are" is actually a hidden code. Because the "rulers"—those in control—want it exactly that way. Simply because it's cheap.

Eric Newman75 said:Are you kidding me? Nobody's "beating" anyone anymore; physical punishment is a thing of the past. Nowadays, if you even lay a finger on a kid, you’re looking at getting fired and facing criminal charges. Even if you just raise your voice, someone will turn around and ask if that was really appropriate—basically questioning if you could have handled it better.

Oh, if only physical discipline were still an option—if it even existed! But (and it hasn't for ages!) it’s been completely abandoned and stripped of its power. What we're actually seeing is psychological punishment, which has basically been sublimated into the "hidden" curriculum of every single elementary and high school student in the country.

Out of all the concepts out there, I'll just focus on one or two: competition and rituals. Do you honestly believe that when teachers walk through those classroom doors, students stand up from their desks because they're following some ritualistic rule of childhood? Or do they stand up because they actually respect their instructors? ☕

ruggedraven36 said:By the way, since we’re already on the subject of upbringing and education—has anyone actually read Margaret Mead's "coming of age in Samoa"?

Well, I have. And I've also delved into these specific works (back when I was starting my Master's degree, which I never quite finished):
https://www.scribd.com/document/2683...A-SUMMERHILLA#
A. S. Neill: Free to Learn at Summerhill

Dr. Vuk Stambolović: The University Seal
https://www.abrakadabra.com/hr-HR/Ka...ac-/p/7008I5O#
Childhood, Spirituality, Nihilism - Education and Society (Ed.), Isidor Graorac

Why? Because back then, I was intensely preoccupied with the psychological state and spiritual essence of a child, especially once I uncovered the "dark" side inherent in every pedagogy (it's actually explicitly termed as "Black Pedagogy").
From all of this, I'll provide a quote (from V. Stambolović, who sent me his doctoral dissertation): "We do our absolute best to fix them. We beat them from dawn until dusk. But it serves no purpose whatsoever. (A monastic teacher from the 13th Century, Father Anselmo)"—which exposes the reality of that era, and I firmly believe, even today!

Alexander Green21 said:That latest thriller out of Denmark—it’s a drama, a mystery, and honestly, you could pretty much call it a horror film at this point—"Speak No Evil" (2022) is just... wow. It is quite simply an incredible piece of filmmaking. 🙏Even though this isn't exactly your run-of-the-mill horror flick, that ending? It absolutely leaves you breathless. It hangs over you, leaving you in this state of total uncertainty for quite a while afterward. But I guess that’s really the whole point for people like us who live for cinema—to actually feel something, to have a movie truly get under your skin... In this particular instance, I have to say, it really shakes things up!
It starts off with this breezy, lighthearted atmosphere, almost deceptively calm, but then—slowly but surely—the whole mood shifts. It begins to spiral into this heavy tension and mounting uncertainty, and I guess that’s exactly how they hook you. You find yourself getting sucked into these mysterious happenings, just waiting to see what's going to go wrong next.
If you’re the kind of person who actually craves slow-burn tension, then this is an absolute must-watch. I mean, seriously, once the credits start rolling, you aren't just going to jump up and go about your day. You'll probably find yourself just sitting there in your armchair, staring at the wall, trying to wrap your head around everything you just witnessed. It really stays with you. 👍

I’ve been watching this for about two weeks now. I guess... maybe it’s just me, but this whole thing is starting to remind me a bit of... I suppose I should probably mention that Sam Peckinpah’s *Straw Man* is... well, it's something else entirely. I don't know if people truly grasp the sheer intensity of his direction here, but maybe they just don't want to deal with it. It's heavy. It's raw. It's definitely not for the faint of heart, I guess. Why? Because at the end of the day, you've just got regular people acting out of character, and that’s exactly where the horror kicks in. I mean, obviously, what qualifies as "unusual" is entirely subjective—everyone's got different tastes, I guess—but that's the whole point.
I mean, seriously, who was this movie actually made for? Was it just some shallow production aimed at tourists looking to play nice? Maybe it’s for some suburban family trying way too hard to bond with their neighbors? I don't know... but honestly, who is the actual target audience here? ☕

Michael Diaz5 said:I caught it recently, and I have to say, the film was absolutely outstanding... Absolutely shocking. I mean, honestly, they deserve their own dedicated thread on the forum. Period.
It honestly stung a little bit, and I have to say, it wasn't exactly easy watching how much of this sheer human stupidity was actually being fueled by people like them. I suppose I should probably address this, though I hate to even bring it up. It’s just... it's infuriating. Innocent children. They have absolutely nothing to do with any of this, yet they're always the ones caught in the crossfire of these ridiculous, sweeping decisions. It’s completely unjust, if you ask me. Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I just can't wrap my head around why we keep letting this happen. It's just wrong.And that just makes the whole thing feel even more traumatic in this truly disturbing film.

That’s exactly the point, isn't it? Nothing happens without those innocent children being dragged into it. And then there's all that foul language—all that filth—that eventually leads to them literally cutting their tongues out. It’s just... well, it's just this. I guess I should probably start by saying that sarcasm is just... well, it's fine, I suppose. If you’re into that sort of thing. It’s basically just a way to wrap your insults in a little bit of colorful packaging, isn't it? People seem to think they’re being incredibly clever or edgy when they use it, but honestly, it often feels like a lazy shortcut for someone who can't actually articulate their point without hiding behind a layer of mockery. It’s almost like a rhetorical straw man—you aren't even engaging with the actual argument; you're just making fun of the premise to avoid doing any real work. I mean, maybe some people find it charming, but to me, it just feels repetitive and, frankly, a bit exhausting if you're around it too much. Just my two cents, anyway.I mean, look, the movie doesn't exactly hit you right out of the gate with a punch to the face. It’s not that kind of experience. Instead, it sortically draws you in slowly... it kind of pulls you into its orbit. I guess it works because everyone has their own family dynamics and their own circles of friends to deal with, so you eventually find yourself getting sucked into its specific world.Family matters.Emotions. That’s where we always fall apart. We just can't seem to get a handle on them, can we? It's our ultimate Achilles' heel.