The first thing that struck me about this book was the exquisite specificity of Jane Tompkins' memory! There was something about the author's way of recounting details drawn with great concreteness from her early years in school that told me at once that these things had really happened to her, and, too, very much as she was describing them!
What struck me next about this fact was a kind of familiarity I was sensing about Tompkins' style as I read along. As a mother of five children, all of them having spent their formative years in public school, I recognized this narrative style! It was the same vividness of detail I used to hear from my children when it was necessary for them to tell me about some appalling thing that had happened to them in school that day.
I began speculating about what has kept our national compulsory system of schooling in place for all these generations since it was first invented. Because what Jane Tompkins was reporting is by no means exceptional! - she is not reporting on a "bad" school in a poor district! Because Jane's school was typical of an average American grade school! It's just that for all these years we have been accepting this level of intimidation and erosion of the self-confidence of our children as perfectly acceptable behavior on the part of our children's teachers! Why? Because it was practiced on us when we were kids! Because as parents we knew only too well what might happen to our own kids if we made trouble! Because the school held our kids hostage!
This extremity of fear may in fact not have been objectively warranted in many cases&emdash;in fact, probably isn't! But as parents, we have all been conditioned to fear the unknown where school is concerned, and that makes it all too easy to swallow myths about the essentiality for our kids' entire future of making good grades, of developing the capacity for successful academic competition, for warning our kids to stay out of trouble, do our homework, not antagonize the teacher - the whole package! Our entire school system, like our jails and prisons, runs on fear! And the hard work and ingenuity of a few creative, conscientious teachers throughout the system is not going to change that fact! As long as our school system is still compulsory, it will always run chiefly on the power of basic intimidation, on the bottom-line level of fear most people live with and take for granted as "reality."
It is this common fear-base inflicted on our most vulnerable citizens - our young people - which, for me, is the most anti-democratic cultural ingredient we have built into our entire governmental philosophy! Not exclusively, of course. Our entire medical model is fear-based as well, and young mothers are subjected to it at the time of the birth of their young, and in turn, subject their young to it through the practice of pediatrics even before the school system steps in to take over! But, by and large, the medical system through which we operate comes directly out of the school system, selecting its practitioners through keen competition, both academically and economically and initiating them through callously inhuman practices including acute sleep deprivation and premature demands on their capabilities throughout their training!
It is this entire training system Jane Tompkins is writing about in all its seamy glory. She is eloquent about the result this way of living had on her of in essence depriving her of the natural biological support system parents are supposed to have for their children! It placed her in a position of viewing them as spies for the system against her! She knew instinctively that it was not possible for her to get any support or even understanding of her daily terror from her parents. They were themselves products of the system, and took its exigencies for granted as inevitable! Even if they did not take on the role of actively enforcing those rigors, they would never have openly supported their child against them, because they took for granted the necessity of conforming, if one was to have a place of honor within that system! The main difference between working class and middle class children in relation to school, then, is that working class parents, by and large, are as clear as their kids are that the school system is the enemy, because they know from experience that the system is not for them - they are automatically excluded from becoming participants!
It is this instinctive clarity of recognition of one's place within the system that explains the omnipresence of the Ritalin bottles lined up in the nurse's office in middle class schools! The teacher complains to the principal about some child in her class who is not sufficiently conforming to her requirements. In turn, the principal advises the mother to take her kid to a doctor for diagnosis as damaged by that phenomenon they call ADHD. The doctor automatically takes the school's description of the child's "symptoms" as definitive of this phenomenon, and writes the prescription.
No one questions the entire procedure! Why? Because no one in the entire cast of characters has ever been allowed to protest its premises effectively! Long ago, they had each surrendered their own individual judgments to the requirements of the system! To call our culture "democratic" is a travesty in the face of such ruthless universal destruction of personal integrity over the generations of our history! Without anyone's having noticed it, we have gradually turned ourselves into a nation of "robots building robots." Tompkins expresses this paradox thus:
But Tompkins' education within the confines of our culture, inculcating, as it does, in its successful beneficiaries an array of characterological qualities it defines as excel-lences, also provided her with the skills she needed to "succeed" in her chosen career of teacher in the realm of "higher" education. And in this endeavor, she was aided and abetted by her parents, both of whom had themselves been defined as adults by their own childhoods within that system! Tompkins is eloquent about the role played in her own choices of a career within the system of her "love of Big Brother," to use the terminology of Orwell's poignant parable, 1984.
So in school, naturally, teachers were the prime object of my attention. That was where the power lay, so you had to keep up with what they were doing. Besides, they had knowledge - something I coveted - though like their power they kept it mainly to themselves. Perhaps it was simply because I had focused on them for so long that I learned to want to be like teachers. To be the one everybody looked at and had to obey, to be standing alone, up in front, performing while other people paid attention was the only thing I knew to aim for. When I attained this status, it took me a long time to realize its emptiness - unless you were already connected to yourself and to your audience by something we never learned about in school.
Still, it was here, in my concentration on teachers, that the love of school took root.
Also ... I found on the Web a couple of sites dedicated to Jane as the hub of a university-level controversy over what the role should be of a college professor - the issue Jane is addressing in this book. Click here to listen in on what they are saying. I think you'll like it! I did.