In sober truth, whatever homage may be professed, or even paid, to real or supposed mental superiority, the general tendency of things throughout the world is to render mediocrity the ascendant power among mankind. In ancient history, in the Middle Ages, and in a diminishing degree through the long transition from feudality to the present time, the individual was a power in himself; and If he had either great talents or a high social position, he was a considerable power. At present individuals are lost in the crowd. In politics it is almost a triviality to say that public opinion now rules the world. The only power deserving the name is that of masses, and of governments while they make themselves the organ of the tendencies and instincts of masses. This is as true in the moral and social relations of private life as in public transactions. Those whose opinions go by the name of public opinion, are not always the same sort of public: in America, they are the whole white population; in England, chiefly the middle class. But they are always a mass, that is to say, collective mediocrity. And what is still greater novelty, the mass do not now take their opinions from dignitaries in Church or State, from ostensible leaders, or from books. Their thinking is done for them by men much like themselves, addressing them or speaking in their name, on the spur of the moment, through the newspapers. I am not complaining of all this. I do not assert that anything better is compatible, as a general rule, with the present low state of the human mind. But that does not hinder the government of mediocrity from being mediocre government. No government by a democracy or a numerous aristocracy, either in its political acts or in the opinions, qualities, and tone of mind which it fosters, ever did or could rise above mediocrity, except in so far as the sovereign Many have let themselves be guided (which in their best times they always have done) by the counsels and influence of a more highly gifted and instructed One or Few. The initiation of all wise or noble things, comes and must come from individuals; generally at first from some one individual. The honor and glory of the average man is that he is capable of following that initiative; that he can respond internally to wise and noble things, and be led to them with his eyes open. I am not countenancing the sort of "hero-worship" which applauds the strong man of genius for forcibly seizing on the government of the world and making it do his bidding in spite of itself. All he can claim is, freedom to point out the way. The power of compelling others into it, is not only inconsistent with the freedom and development of all the rest, but corrupting to the strong man himself. It does seem, however, that when the opinions of masses of merely average men are everywhere become or becoming the dominant power, the counterpoise and corrective to that tendency would be, the more and more pronounced individuality of those who stand on the higher eminences of thought. It Is in these circumstances most especially, that exceptional individuals, instead of being deterred, should be encouraged in acting differently from the mass. In other times there was no advantage in their doing so, unless they acted not only differently, but better. In this age the mere example of non-conformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time.
So, to the extent that we are all forced to be equal we have a problem because equal is mediocre.

6 comments:
My facetious comments about the Golden Mean below aside, I should think forcing everyone to be equal would really create significant problems only in an individualistic society. E.g., the citizens of ancient Sparta were Homoioi, "Equals," raised the same way, expected not to stand out from the crowd, etc., etc. But since the ultimate goal of that was to make Spartan society function as a single, excellent, effective unit, the fact that equality might promote or condone mediocrity didn't really matter.
And of course Sparta went into decline when individualism began to surface.
Sparta was a martial society. Constantly preparing for war tends to focus the mind toward shared responsibilities.
Furthermore, Sparta was an excellent at one thing -- war. And that excellence came with tremendous costs. Abnormal babies were exposed. The helots had a shit life, but that might be irrelevant because lots of slaves had shit lives. On the other hand, I think women had it relatively good in Sparta.
So, I guess my point is that it's not just an individualistic versus communitarian focus it is also all the accompanying bellicosity and violence that made Sparta excellent at war. I'm no classicist, but I don't think the Lacedaemonians created much art or culture.
It's Mister Stevens (at least get my gender right - Mrs. Stevens is my wife). I wasn't actually arguing for equal education for everybody (which I don't think is even possible, nevertheless desirable), simply objecting to the idea that equal education to excellent education is an oxymoron. I don't think it is.
Actually, up until the time when the Lycurgan constitution was passed, Sparta was known for her art and culture, and even afterward Sparta remained the place in ancient Greece for music and dancing schools. The sources generally don't emphasize these aspects of Spartan culture, of course, but they were there.
As for the rest, your point and mine aren't incompatible: of course a society functioning as a unit usually has a goal, hence the interest in insisting on total equality. (Although in Sparta's case this goal was not "war" but "defense" - the Spartans were not aggressive imperialists, generally speaking.)
Now that I know I am eccentric...yeah! eccentric!...I absolutely do not want everyone to be my equal. (I will allow that my being eccentric is a danger in itself.)
Equal outcomes is neither achievable nor desirable from any point of view that I can imagine. The quest for equal opportunity, on the other hand, is the lifeblood of our Democracy. That we must always be reaching for, and the evolution of our Democracy shows that, in fits and starts, we have been. We have a long way to go.
Some years ago, I was taken by a news story about Jesse Jackson taking inner-city kids to visit a suburban school and kids from the latter school on the same trip in reverse. Of course, seeing athletic fields and computer labs impressed the kids who had none. (Both schools were public, so we might ask why one did not.) But the advantaged kids were even more affected by what they saw. How can a student learn science without a lab, how when they are required to imagine (!) the experiments rather than conduct them?
We shortchange ourselves when we fail to give all kids equal access to excellent educations. I know that sound poofy, but it is true nonetheless. We must not balance assets and provide a mediocre education equally to all. We should be using our best schools as models for all other schools. Our current best should be the only acceptable level.
The stimulus bill apparently brings the federal government into building and maintaining school facilities for the first time. Not sure that is a good precedent, but it may help poorer schools to catch up, and spending is good right now.
Seriously, FLG, your first post on this was a trick. Equal opportunity isn't the same thing as equal outcomes, as Andrew and Alan have noted. Equal opportunity and excellence aren't mutually exclusive---you randomly conflated the two. Not very honest of you.
Post a Comment