The Surface / Substance Schism

“We know that people generally don’t want something that’s otherwise worthless just because it comes in a pretty package and, conversely, that valuable goods and services are worth even more in attractive wrappings” (Postrel, 2003: 66)

This quote spawned a flood of thoughts… the first of which took me to a series of Ally Bank commercials. In these commercials for a new online bank, kids are presented with something snazzy but end up with something that stinks. What appears “luxurious” on the surface ends up being a “lemon” when the substance (the “fine print”) is revealed. This begs the question, as raised in Postrel’s writing, can the two (surface and substance) coexist?

Ally. (2009). Ally bank bike commercial. YouTube. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suBGbef5p3g&NR=1

Ally. (2009). Ally bank pony commercial. YouTube. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qb0vquRcys&NR=1

Ally. (2009). Ally bank truck commercial. YouTube. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKdIKP1arF0&feature=related

Ally. (2010). Ally bank “automated”. YouTube. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1caAJ5CfU2g&NR=1

Ally. (2010). Ally bank “eggs”. YouTube. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgdTymCZowU&NR=1

ICONIQtv. (2009). Ally – “Hide”. YouTube. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHBRGOScyZY&NR=1

The aforementioned quote also took me to a very different place… back to Unit 4 of my ED 800 class in which the writings of E. D. Hirsch and Howard Gardner were juxtaposed.

In his article entitled, “Breadth Versus Depth: A Premature Polarity,” Hirsch writes,

“In the education wars we encounter a lot of ‘premature polarities.’… I would define ‘premature polarities’ in education as the habitual, almost automatic taking of sides on education issues based on whether one considers oneself to be a liberal or a conservative in politics. Unfortunately, such ideological stand-taking not only brings investigation to an end, it tends to replace thought.

For example, in the reading wars, premature ideological polarization has caused phonics to be viewed as an agency of right-wing suppression that deprives reading of naturalness and impairs love of literature. ‘Whole language’ on the other hand, is attacked as a left-wing abandonment of adult responsibility. Similarly, in the math wars, memorization of the multiplication table is viewed as a ‘conservative’ principle of teaching, whereas the use of calculators is viewed as a pernicious ‘liberal’ pedagogical policy” (Hirsch, 2001).

Hirsch, E. D. (2001). Breadth versus depth: A premature polarity.” Common Knowledge, 14 (4).

Gardner, in his book, The Disciplined Mind, also alludes to the surface / substance schism. He writes,

“And I am equally weary of debates that array one educational philosophy against another – traditionalists versus progressives, proponents of phonics versus advocates of ‘whole language.’

These discussions, while not unimportant, skirt the most fundamental question. They avoid consideration of the purposes of education – the reasons why every society should devote monetary and human resources to the education of its young persons…

I want everyone to focus on the content of an education – the meat and potatoes: on how that content should be presented, mastered, put to use, and passed along to others. Specifically, I believe that three very important concerns should animate education; these concerns have names and histories that extend far back into the past. There is the realm of truth – and its underside, what is false or indeterminable. There is the realm of beauty – and its absence in experience or objects that are ugly or kitchy. And there is the realm of morality – what we consider to be good, and what we consider to be evil” (Gardner, 2000: 15)

Gardner, H. (2000). The disciplined mind. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

For some, the writings of Hirsch might be boiled down to “surface,” while the writings of Gardner might be considered “substance.” My question is, must there be such a schism?

Certainly, other institutions struggle with this schism. Postrel’s reference to churches was especially illustrative of this challenge. As I read the description, there were many parallels to education.

“Today's services feature giant video screens [educational equivalent – Smart boards, Powerpoint presentations], professionally lit stages, and high-energy rock bands. ‘The worship of God is increasingly presented as a spectator event of visual and sensory power [educational equivalent – manipulatives, total physical response] rather than a verbal event in which we engage in a deep soul dialogue [educational equivalent – Socratic questioning, reflective discussions] with the Triune God,’ he writes, adding that ‘Aesthetics, be they artistic or musical [educational equivalent – multiple intelligences], are given a priority over holiness [educational equivalent – depth & complexity]. More and more is seen, less and less is heard. There is a sensory feast but a famine of hearing.... Now there must be color, movement, audiovisual effects, [educational equivalent – fun and games] or God cannot be known, loved, praised and trusted for his own sake [educational equivalent – love of learning for learning’s sake].'

Here, the ‘sensory feast’ is less a lie than a distraction, diverting worshipers' [educational equivalent - students’] attention and ministers' [educational equivalent - teachers’] efforts from more important matters. As aesthetic expectations rise, in this view, congregants [educational equivalent – students] too easily forget the purpose of the spectacle. They become addicted to sensory stimulus, losing the ability to worship [educational equivalent – learn] without it. They come to expect an experience of ‘color, movement, [and] audiovisual effects,’ an immersive environment rather than a cognitive exchange. As the aesthetic overrides the verbal, the feeling [educational equivalent – surface] of worship overwhelms the message [educational equivalent – substance]” (Postrel, 2003: 70).

While these experiences are "fun," Ally Bank says it best, "Even kids know it's wrong..." Pretty packaging doesn't make it profound. At the same time, profound doesn't need to be unpalatable.

For educational experiences to truly be compelling, I think surface and substance must somehow be fused. The critical question, though, is... how?? This is where design dominates the discussion.