Summary Of Preface To Cultural Literacy

E.D. Hirsch Jr‘s “Preface to Cultural Literacy” stresses the importance of facing the dilemma of cultural illiteracy of mostly underprivileged children and everyone in our society (33). He urges the educational and literate community to comprehend the natural laws that deem it necessary for society’s underprivileged youth to “remain in the same social and educational condition as their parents” (33). Hirsch asserts, “Cultural literacy constitutes the only sure avenue of opportunity for disadvantaged children” (33). He calls on the educational and literate community to propose a change to the fifty year old “fragmented curriculum based on faulty educational theories” (33). Because Hirsch highlights the strengths and weaknesses in the pedagogic
philosophies of Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Dewey, and Plato in contrast with the proposed “anthropological theory of education”, his argument in Cultural Literacy is ultimately persuasive (36).
Hirsch begins by defining cultural literacy as fundamental knowledge crucial to society’s present-day prosperity (33).
He expresses a disappointment in youth educational institutions by criticizing the schools for the unchanged “social and educational conditions” of children that come out of the educational system (33). Hirsch declares that underprivileged children should be able to break the cycle of deprivation and illiteracy as long as the schools are willing to break from a half a century inflexible and flawed program of study (33). He mentions the instructional principles of Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Dewey, and Plato and reveals the inadequacies that still control the educational system in the Unites States (34). Hirsch recommends a change to the educational philosophies that govern our schools and proposes an alternative to ensure an effective method to the “mature literacy” of all members of society
(33).
The plausibility of Hirsch’s argument strengthened with the dissection of the instructional models of influential educational philosophers in contrast with his own principles. He discusses the “natural development theory” of Jean Jacques Rousseau which states that children should be raised in their purest state without the influence of “adult ideas” that they could not comprehend (34). According to Hirsch, Rousseau’s theory placed children in a universal context without regard for future generational differences; however, this concept has dictated elementary level instruction for decades (34). Additionally, Rousseau’s principles influenced the concepts of John Dewey who supplemented Rousseau’s criticism on the “mere accumulation of information” (Hirsch, 34). According to Hirsch, Dewey proposed an elementary-level schooling based on a limited set of conditions for critical thinking skills that should not include detailed subject matter (35). Hirsch responds with an opposing model of education, which emphasizes the significance of detailed material in all levels of instruction (35).
He recommends a reformative alternative called the “anthropological theory of education” which is based on “acculturation, the transmission to children of the specific information shared by the adults of the group or polis” (35). In relation to Hirsch, Plato expressed a similar view on the transfer of detail-rich material in the early stages of education however; he disclosed reservations on the level of detail distributed to the youth (35). Hirsch links the mindset of the theorists with current world situations. He exposes the mortal flaw of intellectuals to oversimplify and their inability to be clairvoyant (35). In addition, he urges his audience to understand that during the formulation of these philosophies, the theorists did not consider the future applications of their concepts in society
(35).
Hirsch’s proposition of the counter-theory provides a definite solution to the problem of cultural illiteracy. In his anthropological theory of education”, he enlightens his audience about the ability of his theory to take into account the norms and the unforeseen events of society (36). Furthermore, Hirsch solidifies his argument by creating a connection between the essentials needed in order for society to achieve cultural literacy. He elucidates the requisites needed for the successful exchange of information in society. He explains that humanity needs common values for the successful exchange of information and these common values involve the distribution of distinctive knowledge to children (36).
Hirsch reinforces his main claim through meticulous exploration of past educational theories. He delves into the principles of Jean Jacques Rousseau “natural developmental” theory and links his principles to the concepts of his disciple, John Dewey’s opposition to “information accumulation”, to unearth the backbone of the current educational system (34-35). Additionally, Hirsch acquiesces with Plato’s ideals of specified information sharing to emphasize the importance of content-rich information distribution to the youth; conversely, he clarifies his disagreement on Plato’s approach to the type of information to disclose to the youth. Hirsch sheds light on his “anthropological theory of education” as the solution to provide a change to the educational philosophies of modern society (35). He presents his claim, provides possible solution, and addresses contrasting views towards his solution. Hirsch’s dissection of archaic educational philosophies in contrast to his contemporary theory produced a firm stand on the content-specific literary inclusion in society’s educational reform.