This post was written by Mark Hansard on April 10, 2007
What are the implications of Huxley’s Brave New World for academia, as we see aspects of his utopian (actually dystopian) society sprouting in our culture? In Part 2, I mentioned that our increasingly private virtual worlds are separating us from the real world and each other, as well as exacerbating the idea that one cannot know truth. In Part 1, I mentioned that the free market is pushing genetic engineering into the forefront.
In a post this short, all I can do is briefly suggest areas for further thought in which teaching and research might have an impact on these ideas currently germinating in the culture.
First, it seems to me that there are several things Christian professors might do to stem the tide of virtual worlds and confusion about truth. One is that we ought to demonstrate by our words and actions in the classroom that we believe truth exists and is knowable. Here I am speaking not simply of Christian truth, although that would be included, but the idea that truth in general is knowable and worth pursuing. Students should pick up from the way we teach and our assignments, that we believe most of our positions, whatever they are, constitute knowledge (not simply mere opinion). For example, when considering the question of whether Shakespeare actually wrote Shakespeare, we assume that there is an actual answer to this question, even if we are not sure what that answer is, and students would pick up on this.
In addition, it seems to me that the use of media in the classroom ought to be used thoughtfully and sparingly. For example, assuming that truth does exist and is knowable, we would want our students to be forced to think logically and critically during the semester, which requires time for reflection that is far away from media distractions. If we rely too heavily on Hollywood media in the classroom or in assignments, they will think emotively, not linearly in a way that is necessary for critical thinking and logical reflection (They would think emotively because most of the information they absorb from media is image based, not linearly or logically derived. It seems to me emotive thinking encouraged by image-based media is part of the “dumbing-down” of the culture). For example, we might be able to get students more interested course material if we made it available as MP3 files for their ipods (Princeton has recently experimented with this). If students listen to lectures or audiobooks, they are forced to think linearly as they process the information, just as they are when they read.
Finally, regarding genetic engineering, it seems clear that in many areas, the market is not going regulate itself regarding what is ethically desirable. Careful thought ought to be given to how much babies should be “designed,” if at all, given God’s personal creation of each individual in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16. See more of our bioethics posts). It seems to me that, in our classroom teaching in genetics and bioengineering, the ethical issues ought to be raised and perhaps discussed and debated among students, at the very least. Perhaps we could carefully and thoughtfully interject our own thoughts on the ethics of such practices for the students’ benefit, once we have thought them through.
No doubt there are many more implications of Huxley’s book for academia than are mentioned here. What are other ways that a “Brave New World” could be avoided?
Part 1 Part 2
|
