the knower makes some sort of judgmentnof the relation between thenwords of assertion and the part of thenuniverse about which the assertion isnmade.nCurrent literacy education, Pattisonnmaintains, risks severing this vital relationnbetween assertion and universe.nUnfortunately, his proposals to avoidnthat risk and much of his historical analysisnare unpalatable because he advocatesncultural relativism. He attacks the notionnof literacy determinism: “Writing didnnot make the Greek mind skeptical, logical,nhistorical, or democratic. Instead itnfurnished an opportunity for these predispositionsnto flourish. Well beforenPericles or even Homer, the Greekspeakingnpeoples had developed a consciousnessnof language peculiar to themselves.”nPattison would have us see thatnthe real issues regarding literacy andnconsequently education have to do withnhabits of mind, not reflex responses.nPattison’s outrageous proposal tonlegitimize the vernacular needs someninterpretation, since it appears to opennthe floodgates and thus loose upon us aUnthe horrors of unthinking illiteracy. Thenproposal is ofiered, however, in the bestnof conservative traditions. Currently,nthe standard dialect of English regulatesnour thinking about form to such an extentnthat messages get homogenized,nsanitized, and bureaucratized accordingnto the latest lib-cultural guidelines. Whatnstudents learn, provided they learn anythingnat aU, is the supremacy of form—^fitnin, don’t have ideas or originate thought.nOur concern with grammar, then, manifestsnour preoccupation with surfacenthings while substantive meanings slipnfurther from our grasp. Pattison’s hyperbolensometimes deflects his message,nbut his real efforts are directed at recoveringnthe integrity of our individualnhuman voices, identities we have lost innthe midst of all those pressures to removenirony and pave over the discrepancies ofnour imperfect human condition:nAeschylus or Shakespeare or the stu­ndent who reads them each has hisnown language. Why must they aU benreduced to the common banality ofncorrect usage? The liberation of thenvernacular would also be the liberationnof the classics, as it was in thenRenaissance. I am suggesting a worldnwhere ordinary students learn Greeknand Latin, read Shakespeare in hisnown words, and still keep their newnliteracy. The su^estion is only fantasticnbecause we have become so mirednin trivial questions of form and mechanicalnproficiency that we have forgottennwhere the strength of our culturenlies.nPattison, of course, acknowledges thenneed for linguistic standards, as does anynsane man of letters. Without them thencommunicative center will not hold.nYet he does want us to be aware of hown”standards of correctness” can creatensignificant linguistic and educationalntyrannies, tyrannies which for many ofnus have become almost invisible.nIn Compelling Belief, Stephen Aronsndoes not specifically deal with linguisticnissues, but in many ways his analysis isnthe most helpful in getting to the heartnof the breakdown of our agreed-uponnsocial meanings, where form often winsnout over essence. Setting out to examinenthree recent incidents of “corrosive,nirreconcilable, and proliferating conflictnbetween government and family”—ncensorship and curriculum control, parentsneducating their children at home,nand government regulation of recentlynopened private schools—Arons ends upnuncovering the more general strugglenfor meaning in our culture “between thenforces of private dissent and the agentsnof public orthodoxy.” At stake here arennothing less than our rights under thenFirst Amendment, our rights to decidenmatters of belief as they relate to educationnor, more appropriately, “schoolnsocialization.” What makes Arons’s studynsignificant is his sensitive analysis ofnevents that are simply condemned bynknee-jerk civil-libertarians. For instance,nwe would expect the censorship of thennnschool libraries in Warsaw, Indiana, innthe late 70’s to be an occasion for aU thenhigh-sounding rhetoric surroundingnfreedom of ideas and expression. Butnwhat Arons demonstrates is how manynschools have lost touch with their constituencies,nestablishing environmentsnwhich parents feel alienate their childrennfrom dominant cotnmunity values.nSlogans attacking censorship ignorenthese deeper dislocations which resultnfrom the fact that schools, while fosteringnthe iUusion of neutrality, covertlynteach an identifiable stance towardnhuman experience. Arons elaborates:n[T]he prevailing orthodoxy in mostnpublic schools is a negative one. Therenis order, but there is no community.nMany schools are not simply moralnvacuums, they are culturally confusingnand devoid of significant sharednvalues. Superficial parameters ofnbehavior are imposed by the schoolnbureaucracy in an effort to maintainncontrol, while the possibility of generatingnreal cohesion and meaning fornfemilies and teachers is systematicallyneliminated; For many students, acculmrationnin public schools is learningnto abandon home or subculture values;nto relate to others through roles andnrules rather than as whole personsnand community members; and tondeny meanings, feelings, and intellect.n. . . The essence of this chaotic andncontradictory context for acculturationnis negativism. This is among thenmost corrosive of all orthodoxies; butnthe law has yet to recognize its power.nThe nightmarish ordeal of an Amherst,nMassachusetts couple who planned anhome-instruction curriculum for thefrneight-year-old son should also give pause.nThe parents won their legal battle in thencourts, but not without stfrring up muchnpublic controversy and greatly disruptingntheir family life. Arons asks: “Why isnit that millions of chfldren who are pushoutsnor dropouts amount to business asnusual in the public schools, while onenfemily educating a child at home becomesna major threat to universal public educationnand the survival of democracy?” InnH ^ ^ mnAugust 1983n