Gazette asked:

Has anyone ever attempted to use educationalism as the main vehicle of society (like capitalism,
industrialism, religion)? Isn't one of our root problems in society the fact that people's lives are
dictated more by their finances, then their education/ skill level?

============

The only two philosophers I know of who really focused on this (and I know that there are other
philosophers of education, it's just not my area) are Socrates and John Dewey. You might read the
latter.

Studies have found (remember, these are only averages, there are always exceptions): a)
educational level in our society is correlated with income, b) in other societies, educational levels are
also correlated with income, c) educational levels of women are inverselycorrelated with number of
children (i.e., as women in third-world — and other — cultures learn about birth control, they use it),
d) general level of health is correlated with education, e) longevity is correlated with education. I don't
know whether mental health, happiness, etc., is correlated with education. I don't know whether social
status is correlated with education, but I would think so.

Umm... yes, why doesn'tsomeone use education as a main structural parameter of sociological
analysis? I guess because it is seen as secondary, i.e., the result of other factors. But I actually don't
know what those might be. I mean, there doesn't seem to me to be a necessaryrelationship between
economic factors, say, and education. A Marxian analysis in terms of how communistic a society is
would not, insofar as I am aware, really pay much attention to educational level. A classical capitalist
analysis, like Adam Smith, wouldn't either. Those people were concerned with what they saw as
fundamental: everyone getting food, shelter... that sort of thing. But given the above correlations,
perhaps they had it backwards. Religious analyses? No, unless you count being familiar with the
precepts of some particular religion as education... there's no denying that it is, in a very narrow
sense. Reading any particular book, bible or whatever, is that much more education. But I am taking
"education" in a much broader sense than that of being very familiar with one book and its
commentators.

And in fact, if one is only familiar with one book or author, then one's conceptual set, i.e., the tools
with which one thinks, are mainly limited to the ideas of that book, aren't they? And one of the primary
goals of education is to enlarge that conceptual set. So there is a sense in which the reading of one
book and no other, especially if a great deal of time is spent on that one book, may be worse than
reading none at all; at least in that latter state one may possibly be broadened by experience.

Steven Ravett Brown