|
There is an
indication from studies conducted at The University of Northern
Iowa between 1968 and 1970 that there may exist 4% of the
population, untrained, uneducated, and unsophisticated in matters
of aesthetic judgment who are as perceptive as experts in the
field.
It is not
unreasonable to expect a small percentage of any population to be
more perceptive than the rest. In what other way might we account
for the germination of so many kinds of interests, pursuits, and
mental activities? Someone, somewhere, at some time had to be more
perceptive than others in some matter or other, or leaders in any
field could not be identified, nor, indeed, could the field itself
exist, for the existence of different fields presupposes divergent
points of view.
Consider the idea
that 4% of the population might be the number appropriately
destined to lead a society out of sterile contentment toward the
edge of awareness. Such a view supports the idea that there are
decisions which can be better made by the very few than by the
many. An oligarchic think tank may be appropriate after all even
within a largely "democratic" system. If it were not so,
what role would democracy play in the field say, of aesthetics, or
in the establishment of truth? Is it possible to accept the idea
that "beauty" and "truth" are a matter of
majority opinion?
The 4% to which I
have special reference earned a grade point average (GPA) of
somewhat below 2.2 at The University of Northern Iowa. Because of
this and an administrative decision not to allow students who
earned a GPA lower than 2.2 to register for practice teaching, a
requirement for graduation within the program for teacher
preparation, these students would not be expected to enter the
teaching field. I imagine that other institutions have similar
requirements.
This particular
4% indicated that their perceptions in a field, for which they had
had no special preparation, were the equivalent of trained
specialists. Thus it may be that there are throughout the country
thousands of perceptive college students enrolled in its
institutions of teacher preparation who will never see a public
school classroom and by not being there will impoverish the
educational system and deprive the nation of enlightened
leadership.
It is not my
intention to suggest that a GPA has no bearing on an individual's
effectiveness as a teacher. Although at this institution ,The
University of Northern Iowa it is the deciding one. However, it
may be important to point out the possibility that it may be a
difference in values, a difference in kind as well as a difference
in degree of conformity to expectations which determine the amount
of energy an individual may be willing to use in meeting pre-set,
system -determined goals. In the research identified above it was
indicated that some of those who would not be allowed to teach out
young are among the most perceptive in matters of aesthetic
judgment. If it seems reasonable that we should provide sensitive
and perceptive persons the opportunity to fill positions where
their special abilities could be most effectively utilized, why is
it that a significant percentage of such people are excluded, by
decree? Not to use them where and when they can be helpful in
providing the young with higher order insights in these times is
wasteful, negligent, and criminal.
I suspect that
what might be operating between the consistently lower academic
ratings (at both the high school and lower division college levels
where these differences were consistently one GP lower than with
the less aesthetically perceptive) may be a conflict between what
the perceptive individual recognizes through his senses and the
structured "reality" presented by the representatives of
the system to which the individual is expected to respond in
agreement. Lie scales developed by other researchers were
administered to the population and it was learned that those who
received acceptable GPAs , that is above 2.2, also told more lies,
whereas, the more perceptive 4% lied by accident or out of
carelessness. This suggests that in order to achieve a higher GPA
one had to present an image of conformity.
The situation
presented to the highly perceptive group might be described as
some kind of dilemma. On the one hand his perceptions, honestly
expressed, allow him to achieve a level comparable to experts,
perhaps because his responses are genuinely his own, rather than
the offspring of consensus. On the other hand his GPA
remained lower than most of his concensus -bound colleagues
because he, perceiving more accurately, more clearly, and with
greater interest, than his peers finds that there are fewer
persons with whom he might establish consensual validity. This
might, understandably, restrict one's willingness to take the risk
of revealing one's perceptions to peers, or to faculty. Sensitive
to the pressures of conformity he might not assert the superiority
of his perceptions. By not asserting their pertinence he might
retain some of the security offered by agreement with the
majority.
If this
interpretation is correct, it suggests that a psychologically
healthy person is one whose modes of adjustment have not included
denying the evidence of his senses in an effort to achieve the
false security held out by consensus and still has been able to
withstand the terrors of uncertainty and the pressures of
isolation.
In summary, the
culture which adopts a zenophobic fear of differences and
incorporates it into its functional agenda does so at the risk of
remaining inert and becoming moribund. |
