Comments? Contributions? Write to Serchan.
It is all well and good to acknowledge both the multivariate character of social problems, and the myriad legal, political, administrative, financial and other difficulties of replicating what works. (John Dilulio, speaking to the Natl Dist Atty Assoc.)The peace movement is an ideal place for the application of Dial Ed -- just as arbitration/mediation and drug-alleviation and home- schooling concerns are. But we cannot rely on the results of the campaign any more than they can, because that reveals, in its own way, our dependency on the authority of reality to tell us What Works -- and Im sure, given all the other programs, schemes, projects, and facilities that are out there, there is precious little attention left for 'unproven' fields or sectors of What Works. Dial Ed cannot possibly compete in that battle for hearts and minds.
But doesnt the dialectic go the other way anyhow? Doesnt it appeal to the native instinct that Necessity is not the only thing in life? To the sense that despite all the rationalized and efficient designs, there is still a place left for Freedom? In the face of all the 'works' that the production/ consumption/ publicity packagers put on offer, isnt it simply the courage to explore ones 'own' notions -- specifically, the idea that speech, in itself, cannot be constrained to What Works without serious mental (and physical - think about it ;-)) consequences? (We may not be able to think each others' thoughts without the aid of ads, but we can tell each other stories!)
One fascinating implication of this idea is that those folks who are most devoted to their 'causes' are, at the same time, not only most deserving of the relief Dialectic can provide, but most incapapable of seeing its relevance to their working for their cause. That is, to be blunt, one persons devotion is another persons addiction. As a consequence, the dedicandum ('candy') tends always to increase: just one more petition or referendum or protest march and then we'll quit! Never look back, don't lose focus, keep the nose to the grindstone and let the chips fall where they may -- and if a well-meaning stranger suggests that the way back is to think both ways, stare darkly and mutter, "Man, cant you see Im strung out ('busy')?"
Prof Dilulio persuasively argues that at-risk kids in the inner city need "real, live, day-to-day connections with responsible adults" -- but how is this claim any different in its effect on oneself than any of the "calls for more grants, more basic research, more research symposia, more conferences" which he derides? Whether one is hooked on one idea or the other, I suggest it blocks out a whole spectrum of yet other ideas -- those for which we tend to use words like 'impractical,' 'unproven,' 'not my bag (specialty)' -- and to put at the basis of every evaluation of practicality or proof a single criterion: Does it Work? Does it Advance Project X? Or, in the argot, Can you get off on it?
To have only one standard in commerce is, of course, to have a monopoly. To cultivate only one crop is monoculture. Holding only one idea is monomania. Or, if you dont care for legal injunctions, environmental sensibility or psychological analysis, there are the folk adages to the same effect that mention putting all ones eggs in a handbasket, being out on a limb or up a creek on in a corner. All in all, leaving oneself no alternative -- no choice, no chance that one is wrong -- is not a smart thing to do, and yet a good bit of 'culture' goes towards one monopole, 'solution,' or 'cure' after another, each one more desperate and farfetched than the last.
====
Now I hope you dont imagine it takes one who is without addiction to cast the first image. On the contrary, we are all sinners here; we each have our little niche or blind spot where we 'get away with' our pet assumptions. The question one can nevertheless attend to (once past the monocular illusion of Does it Work) is, What Is to Be Done? That is, how does one bring perspective to the land of the one-eyed?I think (of course!) there is no single answer. Each 'case' must be treated on its merits; one can only encourage another to admit that all 'good works' have 'unforseen' or 'unexpected' consequences. What counts is that they recognize these 'side-effects' are not 'evil' to be abandoned or denied, but to be accepted and lived with; and that, not dumbly and after the fact as the 'beneficiaries' of the work must live with them, but in anticipation. Only if one expects to do at least as much harm as good can one gratefully accomplish anything.
For instance, I happen to share Dilulio's poison (I mean belief), "The key to preventing youth crime and substance abuse among our country's expanding juvenile population is to improve the real, live, day-to-day connections between responsible adults and young people -- period." But at the same time, I can see that the same abruption between responsible people and the rest of us is at the root of all our modern ailments, and that 'mobilizing' on behalf of one sector is futile if one does not see that the medicine is prescribed for all others -- including oneself -- as well.
For another example, the Beatles did not sing, "All we are saying is Be Peaceful!" Rather, one is to give peace a chance -- to hold it and live it as an alternative because in that alternativity is not only what works now, but also what does not work now, what will come together later, what will be needed in its turn, what we know we don't know. (As it tends to confuse the point to say that life in such alternativity happens to be very peaceful, I leave it to the reader to decide which end of the temporal stick she has hold of.)
In short, the more devoutly one tries to 'replicate' What Works (also known as La Balle Magique), the more determinedly one needs a shot of responsible adulthood to regain a sense of balance. It's a shame there isnt more of that stuff on the street... now, dont look at me like that, I'm not holding!