- by Paul Conway

When I wrote a month ago, at the end of the first month of the 2019 Leacock Anniversaries celebration, I parted with the following suggestion:

Both new wine in the old bottles, and new bottles for the old wine.

What on Earth did I mean by that? I meant it, of course, in the context of the Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice, because I am preoccupied that way this year. But specifically?

The most venerable “old bottle” in our Social Justice cellar is, I suppose, our system of Education, consisting of somewhat regimented schools, with teachers on the one hand and students on the other, toiling their way through an authorized curriculum. To the extent they are regimented and use the same curriculum for everyone, our schools are institutions. To the extent they adapt to the varying needs and progress of students and the gifts of particular teachers, they transcend that label. Most probably do some of both, and thus belong in the “Both-And” realm so dear to advocates of Social Justice in a pluralistic world.

Stephen Leacock wrote a great deal on a great many topics. First on his list was Education, which he valued for many reasons, the least being its contribution to “The Economy”, as we like to call it these days. The Economy occupies much the same place in our pantheon as did The Lord for the Ancient Hebrews, as an awe-inspiring Power who tells us who we are, what to think, and what to do. To the extent that Education serves The Economy, it holds the same ambition. Reading Stephen Leacock’s thoughts on the subject, I conclude that he was much more interested in Human Creativity than in Wealth, not that he scorned the latter.

He believed that Education would best serve Human Creativity, and any other values that would enhance the American ideal (which he adopted) of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, if it cultivated four habits of mind: Knowledge, Imagination, Compassion, and Humour. Probably our present educational authorities would not argue much with the first three, although I expect the formal curriculum puts extra weight on the first. I have no evidence they have much use for the last, except as a diversion from learning, not the essence of a balanced mind, which is what Leacock meant.

If we examine our present systems of Education through the lens of Social Justice, then I think we are entitled to ask four questions:

Are our students, young or old, being exposed to the kinds of Knowledge they will need to become intelligently aware of the Social Justice realm and all its needs?

Are the minds of our students being developed so that they can imagine a world more socially just than the one we have now, and are encouraged to do so?

Are the spirits of our students being developed so that they can feel compassion for the people around them who are in distress? That’s a tall order these days, because “around” is a big place, and distress takes a bewildering plethora of forms.

When “humour” shows up in our schools, does it take a form that will balance young minds and enable the kind of perspective that will serve Social Justice?

I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I doubt that a resounding either “Yes” or “No” would be fair. My own tentative hypothesis would be “Maybe, to some extent, but not nearly enough.” I might come up with a resounding “No” for the last one.

Both new wine for the old bottles, and new bottles for the old wine. It’s a tall order, against which are arrayed all the forces that don’t believe Social Justice is important, or attainable (which judge was it who called it a “mirage”?), and all those who believe we should simply go on trying to pour more old wine into the same old bottles. Knowledge, Imagination, Compassion, Humour: that’s a tall order too, but not out of reach.