Leon Wieseltier is one of our most brilliant intellectuals. He was the literary editor of “The Néw Republic” for many years, where he wrote essays on culture, politics, and foreign affairs. He quit recently as part of a mass exodus by the magazine’s staff in response to changes made by the new publisher, who was one of the founders of Facebook. This essay is a protest against the changes wrought by disruption. He begins by lamenting the disappearance of small bookstores and record stores and goes from there to a broader critique of technology and culture.
He opens thus:
“Amid the bacchanal of disruption, let us pause to honor the disrupted. The streets of American cities are haunted by the ghosts of bookstores and record stores, which have been destroyed by the greatest thugs in the history of the culture industry. Writers hover between a decent poverty and an indecent one; they are expected to render the fruits of their labors for little and even for nothing, and all the miracles of electronic dissemination somehow do not suffice for compensation, either of the fiscal or the spiritual kind. Everybody talks frantically about media, a second-order subject if ever there was one, as content disappears into “content.” What does the understanding of media contribute to the understanding of life? Journalistic institutions slowly transform themselves into silent sweatshops in which words cannot wait for thoughts, and first responses are promoted into best responses, and patience is a professional liability. As the frequency of expression grows, the force of expression diminishes: Digital expectations of alacrity and terseness confer the highest prestige upon the twittering cacophony of one-liners and promotional announcements. It was always the case that all things must pass, but this is ridiculous.
“Meanwhile the discussion of culture is being steadily absorbed into the discussion of business. There are “metrics” for phenomena that cannot be metrically measured. Numerical values are assigned to things that cannot be captured by numbers. Economic concepts go rampaging through noneconomic realms: Economists are our experts on happiness! Where wisdom once was, quantification will now be. Quantification is the most overwhelming influence upon the contemporary American understanding of, well, everything. It is enabled by the idolatry of data, which has itself been enabled by the almost unimaginable data-generating capabilities of the new technology. The distinction between knowledge and information is a thing of the past, and there is no greater disgrace than to be a thing of the past. Beyond its impact upon culture, the new technology penetrates even deeper levels of identity and experience, to cognition and to consciousness. Such transformations embolden certain high priests in the church of tech to espouse the doctrine of “transhumanism” and to suggest, without any recollection of the bankruptcy of utopia, without any consideration of the cost to human dignity, that our computational ability will carry us magnificently beyond our humanity and “allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains. . . . There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine.” (The author of that updated mechanistic nonsense is a director of engineering at Google.)”

“Economists are our experts on happiness! “
LikeLike
“Meanwhile the discussion of culture is being steadily absorbed into the discussion of business.
“There are “metrics” for phenomena that cannot be metrically measured. Numerical values are assigned to things that cannot be captured by numbers.
“Economic concepts go rampaging through noneconomic realms: Economists are our experts on happiness!
“Where wisdom once was, quantification will now be. Quantification is the most overwhelming influence upon the contemporary American understanding of, well, everything.
“It is enabled by the idolatry of data, which has itself been enabled by the almost unimaginable data-generating capabilities of the new technology.
It sounds as if as Wieseltier has distilled out the essence of what is currently happening in and to education!
LikeLike
And I’m glad he is bold enough to say it. I can’t account for the fear that seems to dominate these days. . .it’s like people are afraid to rise up and say, “OK, now. . .data and technology are interesting, but let’s keep them in perspective.” There seems to be a resignation of reason. Thank goodness for articulate people like him.
LikeLike
I wonder sometimes is this devotion to data isn’t driven by the NSA.
LikeLike
Economists seem to be self-appointed experts on everything. Statistics are not the answer to life. Not everything is quantifiable, nor should it be. As we have seen, data can been based on erroneous assumptions leading to false conclusions. That is how VAM can be used as a weapon against teachers. The assertion that “even though the formula is wrong, it is the law so we have to enforce it,” explains how Nazis could murder six million people, African Americans could be enslaved, and how honest, hard working teachers can be fired.
LikeLike
In his book The Signal and the Noise, Nate Silver, who is undoubtedly a fan of computer models, explains two big problems with data analysis:
First, when people don’t get the results they anticipated they blame the model instead of their thinking. They then change the model to provide the results that fit their pre-conceived notion. Examples include Cuomo’s proposals and nearly every study in education research.
Second, when a bad decision results from data anlysis, it is several times worse than prior mistakes because the access to information is so vast. So faulty decisions have the potential to be significantly more costly.
Silver approaches his predictive capabilities with humility and admits that not every prediction or assumption he has is correct. That’s why he gets respect. He does not pretend to have omniscience.
LikeLike
By en large, economists simply provide the “seal of approval “(the [supposedly] “scientific” rationale for doing certain things) that is expected/demanded of them (eg, by Wall Street). For this, they are paid (often handsomely)
If certain economists disagree (and there are good economists out there who don’t go along with the crowd), they are simply ignored. To see this one need only look at the total governmental non-response to bank fraud expert William Black’s writing and speeches about the pervasive fraud that brought on the financial meltdown of 2008.
Though basically junk, the economic models and the data that many economists produce are often just a “cover”.
VAM is a perfect example of this. That it has no validity as a method for ranking individual teachers is irrelevant to those pushing it’s use because It’s a stick with which they can beat teachers over the head in order to keep them in line on standardized testing.
Derivatives are another example. The purpose is actually to hide the risk so junk can be rated AAA and then passed off to some poor unsuspecting sap (who may be overseeing a billion dollar pension plan.)
LikeLike
We have a cancelled bad weather day today, so I am enjoying reading Diane’s blog.
I can’t hardly stand to hear the word “data” anymore. It makes me cringe. Students waste hours and hours on taking endless pretests now, miserable PARCC practice testing…..to the point that the art of teaching has been drastically reduced in the classroom. It is ridiculous. With the new PARCC this year, I have taught less than I have ever taught in my teaching career. It really bothers me, and I can’t do anything about it. It is out of my control.
Teachers know the levels of their kids in their classroom. It is so silly to test our kids over and over and over again. We are wasting such valuable classroom time. I know my students are exhausted with it. I am exhausted with it. We will get the same results over and over again. We go through this endless misery just to make testing companies rich and to demoralize our teachers with ratings to make them feel like they are worthless. Like the author said, these evil people want to “quantify” things that cannot be quantified. They want to “quantify” a teacher like me who spends hours and hours overtime in her classroom, who buys materials out of her own money, and who hugs a crying child because she just learned her parents are divorcing. The sad thing is that we will lose so many wonderful people from the teaching profession. No one will be able to invest a lifetime in a career controlled by so many variables out of their control. It is so sad what has happened to our profession…..so sad.
LikeLike
What we need to keep reminding ourselves and our neighbors and everyone we know is that what is currently going on is motivated and directed by an exceedingly small number of people (just 85 people now control half the world’s wealth), many of whom have no concept of ‘humanity”, indeed no concept of anything other than themselves.
They have no respect for (or even knowledge of) the institutions they are running roughshod over, believing that mountains of money (and it is billionaires we are talking about) gives them something akin to a “Divine Right” to subvert or just do an end run around normal societal processes (as Bill Gates did with Common Core)
It’s not important or even desirable for these folks to follow the democratic process because it is “messy”, time consuming and may actually thwart their plans.
But let’s not ever forget: we have science and reason on our side — and most important of all, we have them vastly outnumbered. 🙂
LikeLike
Your blog was so beautifully stated. It is unbelievable that 85 people control the world’s wealth….so, like Bill Gates…these people are thinking they have the power to change laws, policies, government…..it is scary…..
It is a tragedy what Bill Gates has done with the common core….it is way too hard for my students, and I am teaching so much less with the silly demands of the developmentally inappropriate PARCC. Bill Gates does not even have a college degree, so why in the world does he think he can reshape education? I’m thankful to be almost done with my career, because it bothers me to see my students suffer like this. They put their heads down on their desk as I pass out the 1000th pretest or practice test that I am required to give. It is beyond horrible. P.S. Keep your poems coming! I love them!
LikeLike
For an interesting look at the difficulties involved with research, the following articles appeared in the 1/24/15 print issue of Science News. They do not deal with education. However, they do discuss the difficulty of replicating results in scientific research.
If it is difficult to reproduce results in the “hard sciences” and even harder in medical fields, there is good reason to be skeptical of the results of studies in education touting breakthroughs in teaching and learning. There are also probably good reasons that they all too often turn out to be “too good to be true.”
Bad or inappropriate statistics earn special mention in the article.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/redoing-scientific-research-best-way-find-truth
The following link identifies “12 Reasons Research Goes Wrong”.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/12-reasons-research-goes-wrong
LikeLike
This only got attention because this very exclusive group of people were (finally) exposed to “disruption”.
Tens of millions of working people have been dealing with this for a decade now. Their work has been devalued, they’re treated as interchangeable and easily replaceable parts, and they have absolutely no security-not even enough to keep their family and home lives somewhat orderly.
I’m pleased they noticed at the New Republic, but I have to ask- what took them so long?
I hope they weren’t cheering this on when it was only applied to working class and middle class jobs and quality of life, because a lot of very important people were, and are.
LikeLike
I wonder if this trend ultimately fails because it’s so joyless and grim, and it makes so many assumptions about what people value.
All of “the data” said that parents in Chicago and New Orleans would choose the schools with the highest test scores. That’s what ed reformers value, so the assumption was that’s all anyone values. But the parents didn’t just rely on test scores. Parents used a whole set of factors and one of the really important factors seemed to be “proximity to the parent”- neighborhood schools- which shouldn’t surprise anyone who has children, but apparently surprised ed reformers 🙂
LikeLike
The more things change, the more they stay the same…
2008? Invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? “Education reform”?
These are all examples of predictable and avoidable world-class disasters brought to us by folks that not only “don’t know what they don’t know” but “don’t know that they don’t know what they don’t know.”
The old adage that “when you’re a hammer, everything else looks like a nail” helps in part to understand their ‘thinking.’
Rather than grow up to the challenges they see around them, they shrink [in their minds and imaginations] those challenges to fit their own feeble and tiny capacities.
For example, genuine teaching and learning is literally not just terra incognito but it doesn’t even occur to them to question whether or not there are places and peoples and things beyond their understanding.
So they take the little they know, apply it with huge expenditure of time, effort and money to such vast “domains of interest” as education and come up with the answers that make sense to them—not just regardless of whether or not those answers truly, er, answer anything, but without even asking something as simple as—
“Can we reduce something as complex and constantly changing as the interaction between teachers and students to a set of numbers?”
But, but, but, some of them proclaim with the most sincere protestations, look at all the numbers!
So let’s take one cue [from many possible ones] suggested by W. Edwards Deming:
[start quote]
Managers are not faced with a deluge of information; they are faced with a deluge of figures. The challenge is to know when it is appropriate to respond to certain figures and when not to. Management must understand the theory of variation. If you don’t understand variation and how it comes from the system itself, you can only react to every figure. The result is you often overcompensate, when would have been better to just leave things alone.
[end quote]
(THE ESSENTIAL DEMING, Joyce Orsini, ed., 2013, p. 170)
Telling case in point: the very same stack ranking system that Bill Gates backed to the hilt at Microsoft and which did such incredible damage to the company he founded, he is now trying to foist off on the vast majority of OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN (and their schools and teachers) because he didn’t, and apparently can’t, fathom what Deming was driving at.
And if you don’t believe me, trust the numbers: there is a 98% “satisfactory” [thank you, Bill Gates!] chance of certainty that I am right.
😎
LikeLike
Bill Gates is certainly no dummy and that he has been trying fo several years now to foist on children and teachers something very similar to what he tried — and failed miserably — at his own company tells you that he is veryaware that ranking individual teachers with VAMs has no validity and no real “value”.
Of course, Gates has also been “informed of” this basic fact by the American Statistical Association and many education researchers.
Claiming that he was “naiive” might hold (a little) water with regard to his health “efforts” (screwups) in the developing world, but when it comes to VAM, that bucket has no bottom — and Gates knows this because he punched the hole himself years ago.
Bill Gates is certainly not ignorant on this matter — which leaves only one possibility.
LikeLike
Below is a good summary of no friend of journalism should ever knowingly click on a Huffington Post link. And Diane, you might also reconsider whether you should be blogging for them.
LikeLike
FLERP, I am well aware that many writers are upset that Huffington Post doesn’t pay. People who write for a living get nothing, but Arianna Huffington sold her interest in the blog for about $350 million. The writers create the value, she didn’t. For myself, I write wherever I want. I have written many times for Valerie Strauss’s Answer Sheet (she doesn’t pay). I get paid nothing for writing every day for this blog. I write because I must. It is what I do. I double-post in Huffington Post–both here and there, and am paid for neither. My goal is to reach as many readers as possible. In one of George Orwell’s essays, I think it was called “Why I Write,” he said that one reason was to influence people. That’s one of my goals, and I do it best by writing to as many people as possible. I would write for The NY Times, which has the biggest audience, but they reject me so often that I have given up trying. On the few occasions when they have accepted my submissions, they edit them heavily. With this blog, I can write as I wish. That’s better than pay for me. And if HuffPost is willing to run my work–cross-posting from this blog, without editing–it is fine with me.
LikeLike
dianeravitch: so the NYTimes edits you heavily?
Perhaps we all need to look at this differently. They “creatively reinterpret” your submissions so that when their periodic “informational texts” spelling out “profit and loss” from selling space on their pages appear, there is less of an “achievement gap” between what they wanted to make and what they actually ended up with because “shrill” and “strident” writers on their pages disturbed the peace and mind of some of their biggest advertisers.
Truth be told, it’s probably benign. Rheeally, in the most Johnsonally sort of ways if you look at it through the right metric$…
But, me being so old-fashioned, I guess I don’t think that’s ethically or morally fair.
Really!
In the interests of being “fair and balanced” I bring forth an unformed, er, informed opinion by someone who has lots of them and feels that the NYTimes is getting a bad rap here. For those that think the NYTimes should mend their evil ways:
“I reject that mind-set.” [Michelle Rhee(-Johnson)]
When all is said and done, though, I admit I probably can’t grasp the true whys and wherefores of the NYTimes. I mean, how much space did and do they give the likes of Michael Bloomberg and Joel Klein and John King and Merryl Tisch and Eva Moskowitz and the rest of that media-starved bunch that can’t hardly get anyone to publicize what they say and do?
For example, Montessori and Common Core share five letters yet John King can barely get a hearing from the NYTimes so as to let people know how alike, practically the same, they are.
😳
I give up. I guess I just don’t know what I don’t know…
😎
LikeLike
Wieseltier’s essay is brilliant. It restores my faith that our culture really can (and does) advance, reading such a thoughtful and illuminating piece, and seeing the NYT (in whom I’ve so often been disappointed in recent years) give it wider readership. Wiki should modify Wieseltier’s bio (among other things he’s listed as an “amateur” philosopher). The essay is a clarion call. I have copied the whole thing & saved it [judiciously using digital tools in service of humanistic principles 😉 ] Thank you very much Diane Ravitch for bringing it to our attention.
LikeLike
Speaking of devaluing work, someone should clue in the Department of Education that the only people who can take unpaid internships are the people who have parents who can support them while they work for free.
If they GENUINELY want to have a workforce that is diverse as far as social class, they might want to stop giving an exclusive leg-up to people with X amount of income.
“While ED cannot provide compensation or housing for the internship program, all interns are eligible for Metro Transit benefits to cover transportation to and from work. Students receiving outside funding (such as a grant) or school credit for the internship are encouraged to apply.”
http://www2.ed.gov/students/prep/job/intern/index.html
LikeLike
The whole conversation about how to “reward” people for their online “contributions” is one that needs to be had.
It’s not just writing, but such contribution comes in many other forms as well: photography, art work, scientific work, software, etc.
Up until now, there has been a pretty uniform presumption (by those like Google, Huffington Post who run online sites) that people should just “contribute” for free, but while some can afford this luxury, many can not.
And the idea that everyone should just fork over (free of charge) contributions that can take a significant amount of time and effort is actually just absurd — especially when someone else stands to make a killing off their efforts (essentially for doing nothing at all)
Some of the best “journalism” is actually being done by bloggers, but ironically, some of these people receive little to nothing in the way of ‘compensation”.
Ideally, there should also be some way of figuring all these “free’ contributions into GDP, but as it stands now, they only enter GDP indirectly in the way of increased value for the sites that host them.
LikeLike
PS I know Google offers ads a way to generate money, but some view that as simple prostitution.
LikeLike
I’m so glad you posted this, Diane. I revere Leon Wieseltier. I grew up with The New Republic and its demise has left a big hole in my life.
LikeLike
The New Republic shouldn’t have supported the neo-cons who brought about this mess through NAFTA and deregulation.
LikeLike
For me, the ‘money idea’, the central flaw we live with today is that information has replaced actual knowledge.
LikeLike
Excellent post! Thanks!
LikeLike
A little late commenting here but I’ve been under the weather.
If a computer can’t replicate a human job (teaching seventh graders, for example) then humans will be pushed to replicate computers. In fact, we’re all being pushed to replicate computers every day. It’s almost inevitable given how technology is advancing.
Of course, I don’t like being made to act like a machine…..but it is what we’re dealing with. And, the more people talk about the ethical implications of what is occurring , the better.
As Wieseltier writes, “Aside from issues of life and death, there is no more urgent task for American intellectuals and writers than to think critically about the salience, even the tyranny, of technology in individual and collective life.”
Some of the technology is great …..some is terrible. When do we get time to think about it….to talk about it?
LikeLike
Technology is a tool and it is only as effective as the person wielding it. A carpenter is more than a hammer, a car mechanic is more than a wrench, and I like to think I am more than the technology I use to reach students and help them learn to think deeply and critically. Thought needs facts and information with which to work its magic, but it is more than sum of its data, or ought to be. I have revered Leon Wieseltier for a long time and also Joseph Epstein. I think it worth noting that where Wieseltier writes for liberal publications, Epstein writes for conservative ones, but when they write about literature, culture, and ideas they share a lot of common ground and make similar arguments about the trivializing of American culture.
I write a blog that, as near as I can tell, no one reads, but I do it because it gives me pleasure to do it on the one hand, but on the other, it forces me to focus my thinking, beliefs, and, as an educator, my practice. For this reason I see it as a part of my own professional development and it contributes to the growth of my mind and the clarity of my thought. That said though, it is important for writers to be paid, at least those like Wieseltier and Epstein, who make the argument against the direction our culture is currently taking, who make the case for accumulating wisdom and not mere facts. If they are not paid that voice dies out, writers do after all need to put food on the table and provide for their own sustenance. Wieseltier wrote a couple of other articles recently about the importance of argument and debate (which depends on their being more than one side to things); “Reason and the Republic of Opinion” (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120197/defense-reason-new-republics-100-year-anniversary) and “The Argumentative Jew” (http://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/1491/the-argumentative-jew/). I like these articles because they suggest that the debate is as important as the winning and the losing; that both sides to the argument depend on the other side to keep each other humble on the one hand and intellectually sharp on the other. Lionel Trilling made a similar argument in the “The Liberal Imagination” (a book from the 50’s which suggests these arguments are not new).
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
LikeLike
Mr. Wilson,
If no one reads your blog, as you mention, then that’s a real shame.
I checked out the blog. It’s really interesting. I especially like how you weave the artwork into our comments.
I don’t have time to read more now….. but I’ll have to come back again.
The website for your school is nice, too. My son loves English and I think he’d really be into your courses.
So….keep going.
BTW I’d written a comment similar to the one above then tried to post it prior to dinner just now. Maybe I hit the wrong spot? It seemed to get lost. So, it you find it floating around somewhere else on this blog….well, that’s it.
LikeLike
Thanks. I did not know you could get to the blog from here. But I am concerned that writers whose commentary is important are having a more difficult time doing what was difficult to begin with. I think for democracy to work a broad spectrum of ideas need to find voice and expression. They also need the platforms that broadcast their views to more than just “the converted” so to speak. Thanks again, encouragement is always nice.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
LikeLike
So much information, so much ignorance…
LikeLike
Robots are already working as financial journalists. Here’s an AI’s coverage of Apple’s earnings release.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-tops-street-1q-forecasts-213944804.html
LikeLike