Customer Reviews

The Death of "Why?": The Decline of Questioning and the Future of Democracy (BK Currents (Paperback))

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Andrea Batista Schlesinger's new book is one that really makes you think. Though its focus is primarily on the habits and miseducation of young people, the issues raised have broad applicability to all segments of society. (Before you read on, please note that I may be somewhat biased, as I helped the author early on in the writing process by responding to several surveys she conducted as part of her research.)

The main question is: Have we forgotten how to ask questions and is this leaching the life and vitality out of our society? In particular, are we so used to getting easy answers through modern conveniences like internet search engines that we don't even bother to think deeply about anything anymore? Are we really becoming a society of "headline skimmers" who are too impatient to read whole newspaper stories (let alone whole books)?

From beginning to end, this book got me thinking. The author has many theories and ideas you'll have to ponder. She suggests we need to institute "slow democracy," where we all take more time to think about, and debate, policy issues; she believes schools need to teach young people how to participate in their communities rather than training them to balance their checkbooks; she thinks the current way we do presidential debates is a sham where the candidates get to yammer on about whatever they want without actually answering the questions that were posed to them; she posits the proposition that our country was founded on a single question: "Why can't I be free?" and that, therefore, the need to question things is at the very root of our democracy.

She will get you thinking about, and questioning, everything you've done, are doing, and may or may not want to do.

The author makes a compelling argument for the importance of analytical thinking in today's society and convincingly examines the impediments raised by educational institutions as well as information technology to exercising critical judgment: this is an important book for policy makers and educators as well as for anyone who is concerned about the failure of government and private enterprise to address the needs of contemporary American society. Pastora San Juan Cafferty, Professor emerita, University of Chicago

Every era has at least a few serious voices who openly question the new ways, the settled conventional wisdom around innovations in style, technology and social habits that change - at least on the surface - how society operates. As everybody else is celebrating the greatness of, well, themselves, these idoloclasts happily throw poison-tipped darts in a cultural clash with the totems of perceived progress.

Such a counter-programmer is my friend Andrea Batista Schlesinger, the 32-year-old New Yorker and progressive activist whose first book The Death of Why holds up a big, fat stop sign to those who would celebrate under the banner "all that is modern is good."

[Note: Andrea is the longtime executive director of the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, a progressive think tank on whose board of directors I've served since 2002. She's on leave from that position while working as a policy adviser to the reelection campaign of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.]

The Death of Why goes against the grain. It stands opposed to any triumphalist viewpoints regarding digital communications. You can easily read it as the diametric opposite of Jeff Jarvis's somewhat hagiographic What Would Google Do?, for example. Andrea doesn't believe the Internet in general - and Google specifically - has necessarily made us any smarter or more democratic as a society. While she praises the innovation of always-available information and the worldwide networked conversation made possible by the network of networks, she also strikes out at the idea of searching as knowledge, of linking as journalism or education.

And she uses one particular commentator's voice as a stalking horse for her arguments against the Internet-as-knowledge: mine. In the fourth chapter - In Google We Trust - Andrea posits that the "Internet responds to curiosity as much as it creates it" but argues that "searching for answers" isn't the same thing as answering questions. Then she quotes me: "Certainly we're in far better shape, in terms of tools and ability, for deep inquiry than we used to be."

Not so fast, argues Andrea. "When I survey the search engine landscape, I see conditions that are less than inspiring of 'deep inquiry' especially for our youngest. I see the formation of habits of mind characterized by a dangerous lack of discernment." And young people, she says, bounce around as guileless link and search-box addicts, mistaking the search-cut-paste process for deep inquiry.

This is undoubtedly true in many instances. I've seen it. But I'm not sure it's a bigger problem than the use of Cliff Notes or the Xerox machine by earlier generations. In the end, I'm not sure young Americans really are less inquisitive. That may be because of the field I've worked in for the last decade - progressive causes and philanthropy - tends to attract young, enthusiastic professionals who won't take no for an answer and seem to question everything. Then too, the social entrepreneurs I profiled in my book CauseWired: Plugging In, Getting Involved, Changing the World were similarly driven to challenge every status quo they found - and to use digital technology to do so. Finally, my own three children are constantly questioning things that I tend to think of as settled subject matter, with no hesitation to challenge and probe and looks things up. They don't necessarily follow the leader.

Nonetheless, The Death of Why is an important book - and I think it's particularly timely, given the challenges that major American institutions (like big newspapers and Federal agencies) are facing in an increasingly crowd-sourced era. It's a great book for journalists concerned that the so-called "link economy" leaves serious inquiry out in the cold - and for e-government types who seek to go beyond merely making information available in vast databases but to actually encourage citizen involvement in our republic.

And this goes for newspapers, whose approaching demise the author mourns loudly. Currying no favor with the digerati, Andrea argues (and I agree) that the decline of news organizations is bad for democracy and that it's unlikely that blogs and online specialty sites will rise to replace the full gamut of professional journalism. "When you start the day with the newspaper," she writes, " you start with the recognition that you are a person in the world, with a need and responsibility to engage."

Throughout the book, Andrea decries the echo chamber of modern information and communications - the trend toward finding what you want (the viewpoint you already support) rather than coming across something you didn't know. That "self-segregation" does indeed permeate much of what we take as political dialogue for instance. Andrea decries the national political process in the modern age, panning the 2008 Presidential debates between Senators Obama and McCain as flimsy and personality-driven, and slyly pointing out that Hillary Clinton's campaign was rejuvenated when she came out of the bubble and started taking tough, unscripted questions. "The irony is that the candidates need not fear questioning," she says.

Perhaps the best quality of The Death of Why lies in its inherent skepticism toward what we've come to accept as the right way to approach learning, particularly public education. Andrea's a bit young for curmudgeon status, but her gruff and skeptical take on so-called "financial literacy" is welcome. So much of this kind of education is really marketing, priming the sales pump for future consumers. And if that passes for inquiry, we're in serious trouble. Writes Andrea: "Our democracy will suffer if the youngest among us grow up thinking that today's society and the economy that sustains it are working just as they should."

Every so often, a book presents itself that, after you have read it, makes you realize that it was the book you should have read before you read all of those other books in the pile on your desk. This book is that volume.
Ms. Schlesinger begins the book with the statement, "Why is the first question most children ask", but I wonder how many of us even bother to ask why that is the case? I fear that I may scarcely do this work justice (I have resisted just putting the entire text in quotation marks) in a short review, but I will try. While ostensibly about a philosophical issue (Socrates comes immediately to mind, and she does well with him later chapters), it is essentially about the health, well-being being and future of democracy. And not any democracy, but our democracy.
The treatise is divided into three distinct parts: our culture, our schools and, finally, our politics. They are carefully and cleverly interwoven so that any one never loses sight of the other two. In the style of any good essayist, the introduction sets out clearly what we might expect from the remainder of the book, and offers an ominous clue as to where she thinks we should focus our attention: "Are we teaching our children to inquire as much as the times demand?"
We get dropped into the cultural milieu driving the "why" when she asks, "When was the last time you changed your mind on something important?", and then answers this way: "I've changed my mind a few times. One thing I can say for sure is that I've never changed it while surrounded by people who agree with me. " This sets the tone for some interesting insights that she cleverly exposes with plays on words and phrases, like , "Don't Know, Don't Ask", which goes on to decry our lack of essential curiosity and our unwillingness to bravely venture into the seemingly unknown of the reasoning behind the basic question of why we think anything. The book continues to offer wonderful, often terse, one-liners that speak plainly: "But we are bigger than our online communities and our towns, and democracy depends on us having a shared understanding of what is happening in the world around us." Or, as regards part of the media, "Today, political capital is a lot less important than the bottom line", and when it comes to Google and Yahoo, "...just when we have acquired all this knowledge at our fingertips we have lost the interest and capacity to truly engage with it.", noting that "This belief in the objectivity of search engines is both inaccurate and dangerous. "
This work really begins to come a head when she tackles education: "Schools: Citizens or Consumers?" and devotes a section to "Financial Literacy in Schools". You will be rolling on the floor, with tears of laughter and sorrow after you read about bank-funded school programs that "teach" children how to open savings accounts and put more money in banker's pockets, without ever learning anything about the financial system, per se. One of her best summaries goes like this: "My argument, however, is that young people who know how to question, think about the world around them, and ask why are those most likely to succeed in this new world. It is up to our public schools to prepare them to do so. Our democracy depends on it."
Perhaps the most chilling statement, near the end of the section on politics, is that, "There are few opportunities to question our leaders as they run for office and even fewer after they win". Ouch. (Prior to that she skewers the Presidential debate formats and the resultant emptiness of them).
As in any good college-level essay format, Ms. Schlesinger waits until the last two pages to tell you what she just told you, and why it is important: "We need a slow democracy to counteract this tendency toward superficial engagement."; " If this book can accomplish anything, I hope it is that we will begin to think more about the asking of questions as a necessary component of a healthy democracy".; "We need deliberation where we have been seduced by false wisdom."; "We need a little bit more Socratic wisdom in our lives and a little les faux certainty. We need a little more why."
So if you want to know what this book says, in brief, read the last two or three pages first, but then that would take all the fun out of it. Because, despite the sometimes dreary subject matter, there is subdued wit and useful sarcasm here, and you will find yourself asking, "Why didn't I read this book first?"

I work with college activists and gained a lot of insight on how to instill good habits of mind around questioning in my students from this book. The exploration of trends in education, popular culture, on the Internet, and in politics are actually relevant to many fields...and while I enjoyed Batista-Schlesinger's colorful anecdotes about her life-long journey of questioning (from when she was a teen representative on the NYC Board of Education to when she battled Lou Dobbs on immigration reform), I also reflected on how society has inspired me to question.

Andrea Batista Schlesinger's THE DEATH OF WHY? THE DECLINE OF QUESTIONING AND THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY profiles individuals and businesses that support the practice of inquiry in society. Questions have power and value, and debates won't conclude with successful answers - but society has been geared to expect this. THE DEATH OF WHY considers alternatives and analyzes the underlying importance of the practice of inquiry.

Fantastic book which raised a lot of questions (as one would hope), and has got me thinking a lot about the importance of inquiry in life in general. One especially good quote was "For the vast majority of people's time they are spending their lives and experiences in structures and processes that are not carefully designed to help them inquire and think and discuss; they are sitting in structures and processes that are intentionally designed to get them to think in a way that someone wants them to think."

In general, I am interested in topics such as Creativity and Education, but this book was an extremely welcome different perspective on what amounts to the same topic. Much better and more to the point than most of the literature on "fostering creativity, etc etc."

Got it originally from the library but ordered another copy to make other people read.

Democracy depends on debate, on questions, on asking why, and the book's title hits paydirt. Author Andrea Schlesinger rightly decries the death of debate in America, rightly sees this as dangerous, and is bold enough to speak up about it. We're obsessed with answers but forget to ask good questions. We need questioning to stimulate thinking, and this one excellent point resonates throughout her book.

Her criticisms of America, in my view, are smart and right -- the shallowness of public discourse, failing schools, a media-driven culture, people addicted to inane self-help books, polarized politics, the death of newspapers, "push polls" in which partisans pretend to be impartial pollsters while asking leading questions. She picks up on excellent thinking by Bill Bishop about how people are "clustering in communities of sameness" so people not only tend to have neighbors with similar incomes, but with similar ideologiies too, and this leads to fewer opportunities for constructive debate as well as ideologically-charged politicians. Sharp non-partisan thinkers like Dana D. Nelson with her brilliant "Bad for Democracy" make a similar point how all Americans seem to do politically is vote for president every four years -- that's it -- and thinks the presidency is an undemocratic institution; Dana Nelson similarly decries the lack of political discourse and questioning. Ms. Schlesinger thinks it's unhealthy when most television and radio and publishing channels are owned by a mere six corporate entities, and I agree. She thinks the Internet encourages rapid superficial reading without taking time to think about what we're exposed to.

Schools discourage thinking; most classroom tests ask students to recall factoids from a textbook rather than to think through problems actively. Civics, as a subject, is neglected. At one point, she immerses herself in a debate about whether schools should teach a left-leaning or right-leaning agenda. Since she hopes teachers will teach social justice, she leaned a little bit to the left in this debate, but this doesn't invalidate her criticisms. She asks whether people are citizens or consumers? Good question, in my view; my thinking is people are consumers. She worries young people lack the necessary skills to be capable citizens.

She's right, right, right, right, right. But her book is long and somewhat wordy. Her point about how the lack of questioning hurts America, while correct, was repeated in different forms, and my sense was a tough editor could nuke perhaps half of the text and still have it say the same thing. Ideally there's material here for an excellent, compact essay. Was it drawn out to make it publishable as a book?

Further, I think Ms. Schlesinger misses the extent of the underlying problem with America and, as a result, some of her solutions (for example, "go slow", meaning don't rush through information) are well-meaning but somewhat naive. If Americans are clueless out-to-lunch consumers who avoid politics, then why does she think she can change behavior by writing this book? Most people don't read. I don't think asking schools or teachers to change their focus will help much. Teaching civics is a good idea, but won't help much if there's no forum where such arts can be practiced regularly.

Still, I don't blame her for failing to provide a workable solution. It may be that no real solution is possible (and this may be one area which I, myself, have to come to terms with.) My current thinking is that America has a BIG THORNY set of problems with cause-and-effect relations dating back centuries, and I have my own model explaining these relationships (detailed in my book if interested) but I continue to explore whether I'm right. My hunch is the answer comes from delving deeply into political philosophy with particular focus on Tocqueville, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Locke, Mill and Habermas, but I challenge Ms. Schlesinger to keep exploring.

My guess is that the American political process is broken. It can't fix itself. The ONLY possible solution, in my view, is repairing the Constitution.

Therefore, as a private citizen, I am summoning a Second Constitutional Convention to meet in Independence Hall in Philadelphia, beginning July 4th, 2010, to craft a revised Constitution, based on the old one, which (1) restores citizenship as a meaningful relation between people and the state, and between people, with specific responsibilities and privileges spelled out by the new Constitution (2) prevents tyranny, terrorism, and crime using a general principle of exposure (explained in my book) (3) restores the federal structure so states can regulate their respective economies (4) reduces partisanship (5) fixes the flawed foreign policy architecture (currently too much power is invested with one overburdened official, the president; I propose an alternative) (6) restores a balance of power between branches of government (currently the executive has too much power) (7) de-politicizes the judiciary (8) explores whether a parliamentary system might be better for America and (9) restores democracy. Further, there is a long list of problems with the current Constitution cited by scholars such as Sanford Levinson (e.g. small states are over-represented in the Senate.) Amendments won't suffice. I don't think we can count on an enlightened president to solve the problem, because part of the problem is excessive presidential power. I do not see Americans as citizens with sufficient awareness or power to act, but my calls to enlightened elites have been ignored, so I see a Convention as highly unlikely. Therefore, my unfortunate prediction is that America is sinking into second-rate weirdness, unable to protect itself against serious terrorism, financial meltdowns, gridlock, partisanship, apathy, government corruption, tyranny, needless war, and the best that we can hope for is that the deterioration happens gradually rather than suddenly.

Thomas W. Sulcer
Author of "The Second Constitution of the United States"
(free on web; google title + Sulcer)