apcampbell

The less you are and the less you express your life, the more you have and the greater is your alienated life. - Karl Marx

In To Have or To Be?, Fromm defines two different human modes of existence: having and being. In the having mode, life is seen as a substance and the self is seen as a separate, permanent entity. The result is a mindset that equates the pursuit of happiness and self-affirmation with having more, giving rise to aggressiveness, materialsm, selfishness, yearning for power, envy, war in Iraq, etc. In the being mode, nothing is real except processes, including the self. A conscious mind centered in being is an open mind, a listening mind, attune to reality as it unfolds; one that is able to love and to know. These two modes do not exist in society as mutally exclusive domains, but rather as a continuum. Very few people exist entirely in a having mode, while equally few exist completely in being mode.

Fromm rightly argues that there is an integral relationship between social character and social structure; a change in one will affect the other. This does not mean, however, that we can bring about positive change in the individual by merely changing the social structure; the historical failure of revolutions can attest for that. Nor does this mean that we can change society simply by changing our consciousness, for the change either remains in the private sphere of the individual or the attempt to preach its values fails in a social climate in which practice is of the opposite nature. However, social structure determines which aspects of the social character are dominant. So in a technocratic, industrial society, the having mode is fed. If a being mode is desired, we must replace the values and practices of society from profit, power, and intellect to being, sharing, and understanding; thus tipping the scales of society from one mode of existence to the other.

Traditionally in education, we have practiced acquiring knowledge as a possession, as if it were a commodity, convincing people that having more knowledge is optimal, thus strengthing the having mode. There have, though, been movements to overcome the having mentality, especially from constructivists and practicioners involved in alternative and holistic education.

I believe that personal publishing via weblogs and wikis on the growing social semantic web can be an excellent educational practice for feeding the being mode in young minds. The medium emphasizes process over goal, collectivity over individuality, decentralization over centralization, humanity over automation, authenticity over simulation, freedom over control, self-directed over teacher-directed, and the dynamic over the static. Furthermore, it can be self-reflective, potentially giving rise to insights into the socially constructed nature of self-identity.

Since schooling plays such an important role in social conditioning, it would seem urgent for educators to realize the truly educative and liberating potential of this technology and to start putting it to use. When learners are given the chance to join in the authentic and cooperative social practice of constructing knowledge in society, we are providing a new educational arena which encourages a participatory and potentially political orientation toward the ‘world out there’ - necessary for a healthy democracy. I can’t help but wonder though, whether our institutions of “learning” are commited to helping young people ‘know themselves’ or to merely condition them for a status quo existence, currently a predominant having mentality. What other ways might blogging in education contribute to shaping the person of tomorrow?