With gadget fans across the country talking about the new 3G iPhone, it’s hard to argue about the innovative spirit of the American people. It’s a fact. We love our machines whether they’re speeding down the highways or probing the surface of Mars.
I wonder, however, if there’s more to this particular characteristic of the American people. Imagine you have just encountered the world’s greatest invention, what do you want to know about it?
What does it do?
How does it work?
Perhaps, where did the idea came from?
Now imagine the world’s greatest invention is the federal constitution proposed by James Madison. It may have looked like a Rube Goldberg machine to the AntiFederalists, unnecessarily complicated with too many opportunities for something to go wrong. As they review the many components of the system, the answer to “what does it do?” seems more and more obscure. The banner at the top of the Rube Goldberg page might even serve as a powerful AntiFederalist argument:
Imagine an AntiFederalist staring at this contraption. We know what we want it to do. We want it to protect our independence and protect our liberty. We know how to do this. We have several simple machines in our state constitutions doing exactly this. Why make it so complicated? It’s too much work and leaves the whole endeavor vulnerable with each new level of detail. It doesn’t have to be this hard!
Now, back to imagining the greatest invention in the world, would you be satisfied in simply knowing what it does? What almost always happens next? Someone makes a newer and better version. It is, after all, the iPhone 2.0 we’re all talking about and tech news regularly celebrates the next “iPhone killer.”
When acquainting ourselves with a new machine, few of us are ever satisfied with simply knowing what it does. We start there but next ask how it works and often inquire about the origin of the idea itself. We seek the “maker’s knowledge” Will referred to as he opened this week’s NEH seminar at Montpelier. The operating instructions often aren’t enough to satisfy our American ingenuity.
I’m thinking of a friend’s son who “pimped” his ride. An owner’s manual illustrating how to shift gears, turn dials, and light signals wasn’t useful for long. The Ford Explorer his parents had given him needed several improvements before he was willing to park it in the high school parking lot! He soon spent countless hours entangled in the car’s wiring, digging through the components of the engine, and super-sizing its performance in every way imaginable. If we know how an invention works and how it is constructed to do what it does, we have a system for evaluating its performance as well as a platform to improve upon it.
The American people aren’t simply interested in the invention. They’re a people interested in the ongoing progress of innovation and a people who believe we can all be a part of designing the next big thing.
Another wonderful reflection! I absolutely concur with your analysis.
Let me go further, from a teacher’s perspective, upon your words: “If we know how an invention works and how it is constructed to do what it does, we have a system for evaluating its performance as well as a platform to improve upon it.”
When I first began teaching, I taught as I was taught. Afterall, I was an exceptional student, well-versed in the ways of the classroom; it was comfortable, and it worked for me, so, you-know. However, I wasn’t long in the trenches before realizing that not all learners are the same. Over time, I added an a second can of worms: it was impossible for me to pass on the accumlation of all knowledge.
Now, this latter fact may seem funny, but I’d argue that there are many who still teach as if this was possible. And, therein, lies my connection to your words. There exists an underlying HOW for any subject matter. Some remain quite constant: mathematics, the scientific method; others contain a more complex lineage: languages, for instance, are famously quirky.
I now teach methods of construction. For geography, weather and earth science provide a foundation for a vocabulary. From there, biomes can be added. And, then (and only then!), can we move into the FIVE THEMES, culture, politics, and so forth. Once the student owns the construction, s/he can indeed evaluate its performance and inprove upon it! The reward: Jerod Diamond connections without having ever read his work. Why? They got there themselves.
I see where you’re both coming from and where you’re headed, and generally concur. But so many, myself included at times, find change and newness overwhelming, and even intimidating. I think that’s why so many people voted for Clinton (and why both gentlemen are courting her constituency): McCain is not enough change, but Obama is too much. It’s just as true in education as in politics–most of us don’t work in Montessori or similar environments supporting free inquiry.
I love hypothesizing, but I live and work in a nuts-and-bolts milieu. I need talking points and an action plan, ready to implement, then I can modify it myself as I get into it. I’m just not ready to take the initiaive.
[...] Politicolor was talking about Rube Goldberg machines before an OK-Go video challenged all the cool kids to make their own. It was a question about the American People and an Incredible Machine. [...]