Damned if things aren't always the same.

From the 1962 report Education and the Disadvantaged American, published by the National Education Association:

"The problem of the the disadvantaged arises because their cultures are not compatible with modern life."

This has been boilerplate for progressives since at least the 1890s, and the underlying premise-- that the "poor did not need money but changes in their values and lifestyle" (Jeffrey 1972, p.10)--is what you get when you combine the comforting rational that the poor are poor because that is their lot in life (see human history, from the beginnings of agriculture to sometime around 1800) with the discovery of culture in the early colonial period. That is to say, it is an argument with a long pedigree. It is embraced by progressives because it allows both an opportunity for improvement (as opposed to mudsill economics theories), and because it excuses all sorts of busy-bodying and dramatic moralizing on their part.

Julie Jeffrey nicely summarizes the mid-century progressive stance on the poor and education:

"Educators delighted in describing this environment of poor children. Brought up in broken families, deprived of normal family communication, attention and all the toys and physical objects found in any middle class household, the deprived child was damaged by the time he reached school." (Jeffrey 1972, p.10).

I particularly like the use of the word "delighted."

Anyway, I've always found efforts at flipping this script to be appealing, and when well done, highly satisfying. Hardcore and punk rock were very good at this, and I think this helps explain their enduring appeal, why, despite being a tired, tired man, I still love Suicidal Tendencies.

There were at least two ways to flip the script. The first, much more common in British punk, was to point out that forcing children to attend schools designed in accordance with the beliefs held by progressives[1] as to what made for a productive worker also imposed an obligation upon the state once the inevitable happened and yesterday's vision of a productive worker turned out to be a 'structurally' unemployed adult with non-transferable skills in a boss' labor market. Which is really the basis for the classic, "Do They Owe Us a Living? (Of Course They Fucking Do").

The other way, more common in American punk, was to point out that the ideals and values that were being taught in these institutions were deeply incapacitating. We were their John Stuarts to their James Mill and Jeremy Bentham, guinea pigs in the creation of their particular vision of the productive and upstanding citizen. And that brings us to today's classic, "Institutionalized."

In both versions, the message is pretty clear: Run Rabbit Run.




[1] Not just progressive, but really the UK conservatives have generally tended to believe that most social problems could be solved with more spanking. This could be done in school, at home, or by any decent person on the street who felt that an uppity child needed a good thrashing.

Jeffrey, Julie 1972. "Education for Children of the Poor: A Study of the Origins and Implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965." PhD Thesis, Rice University.