The narrator describes a mule who ‘flunks himself’ out of the system and ends up being able to get an education. How does that work? He says that on the basis of ‘one man one vote, the system was very unpopular.’ Do you think it was a failure? Explain.
Conformity, obedience, and extrinsic drive are all psychological concepts that carry a connotation more negative than positive. Conformity negates individuality, obedience removes the ability to think for oneself, and extrinsic motivation breeds a person unable to do anything for the sake of the task itself, but only at the request or bribery of another human. We learn these concepts and debate their applicability to our own lives in classes such as this, all failing to confront the unifying way in which we have conformed and obeyed for the majority of our lives—as students of the modern day education system. In “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” Robert M. Pirsig criticizes the educational system in the United States, arguing that it is a failure. He points to the system as bureaucratic, dehumanizing, and lacking in creativity. Rather than producing the critical thinking and creative mind that one might hope for, the design of the system inevitably produces conformity and obedience. To better understand the extent at which the system enslaves and disservices students, he presents an extended metaphor.
The narrator describes a pack mule—one of many in a society driven by mules—with a working attitude akin to a slave mentality. With no extrinsic motivators such as the fear of a whip, the mule refuses to trudge along and pull the cart (which can be assumed to be representative of society) and abandons the load which he was supposed to be carrying. Without an obligation or incentive to pull the cart of society, the mule is left to drift. Pirsig denotes the transformation from “a high-status mule,” as a student to “a low-status mule, maybe as a mechanic,” (Pirsig, 196). However, such a transformation proves to be the pinnacle point for the mule in question and is where the need for optimal arousal comes to light.
Discussed but not explicitly named is the theory of optimal arousal. The metaphorical mule simply cannot thrive in his mule mentality and struggles while too far to either side of his ideal level of mental stimulation. The theory postulates that performance and motivation will excel when a person is optimally aroused—that is, in the perfect balance between boredom and anxiety over a task. Sitting too far towards boredom or anxiety is counterproductive and will inevitably hinder progress. Mechanic mule found himself bored and unsatisfied as a result of the work he was doing and the shop life. Increasingly perplexed by the mechanical problems he faced in the shop, the mule began a trial-and-error path that led him to realize the necessity of certain theoretical information, such as physics and mechanical engineering. Imbued with a newfound intrinsic need to understand these concepts, he returned to school seeking only to understand. Degrees and grades were of no use to him, and as a result he was reborn “a free man,” (Pirsig, 197).
This easy-to-imagine story of mules and carts draws parallels to our education system in the United States. The mule abandoning the cart after refusing to pull it is comparable to a student ‘flunking himself’ out of school. When the mule was not whipped, he had no reason to do the work. The same concept applies in schools today, with grades and degrees equivalating to the whip. An ironic setup, most schools are attended by students with the primary goals of degree achievement while maintaining satisfactory grades and few consider the deeper, richer intent of school—to receive a critically thought out, curious education. This paradox of learning persists throughout most levels of education and most breeds of students, pushed through generations in a never-ending cycle. Like the mule, students are bound to their ‘learning’ only by the whip that is the grading system. Take this away and students flounder, unmotivated. In the story, the mule-student eventually made his way back into education—and a more meaningful one at that—but only after being struck with intense boredom whilst working in the mechanic shop. Only then did a curiosity imbed itself in him so strongly that he pursued education with a novel goal; he sought knowledge for the sake of knowledge, rather than for a secondary motivator such as a degree.
Phaedrus, an educator in the book who denies the integrity of University education, tests the idea of a gradeless classroom on his own students. Withholding assignment grades initially puzzled students, then worried them. After an entire quarter of withholding grades, Phaedrus found that students were participating more than ever and turning in increasingly unique and inspired work. Upon requesting an evaluation of the system from his students, he found that “fifty-four percent opposed it. Thirty-seven percent favored it. Nine percent were neutral,” (Pirsig, 199). He says that “on the basis of one man, one vote, the system was very unpopular,” (Pirsig, 199) referring to the fact that the majority vote from the class disfavored the gradeless system. This may suggest that the system is flawed because it does not work in the best interests of all individuals, however, that implication changes when looking at the breakdown of the grades Phaedrus assigned to those votes. He found that those he deemed ‘A’ students generally favored the lack of grades, whereas those he assigned ‘D’s and ‘F’s cohesively disagreed with the system. Thus, his conclusion was that the higher-achieving students were often the ones who least desired grades, whereas the lower-performing students hoped for grades for the sake of confirmation that they were doing the bare necessity to pass.
His approach showed the possibility for critical thinking among those who were able to apply themselves when given the opportunity. Removing the fear of failure by removing grades allowed many students to flourish and search for validation and affirmation within themselves, as opposed to within a letter grade assigned by their instructor. For these students, the lack of grades provided an innovative outlet that could be maximized. Phaedrus’s experiment demonstrated the way that modern day education fails these students by stifling their creativity in favor of encouraging ‘good grades.’ On the other side of the coin, though, are the students who ended up failing or barely passing by letter grade standards. These students are failed by the modern day education system not because they are suppressed by the structure, but because the structure allows them to pass by doing the bare minimum to achieve a certain grade. In this way, the students who seem to have an inability to creatively express and push themselves without a minimum expectation attached likely act as such because that expectation has always been the sole driver of their work.
The story of the mule and Phaedrus’s experiment ultimately serves to show how the education system can both limit and liberate us. When it fails to adjust to meet the needs of individuals, it is downright oppressive and restrictive. However, growth can be seen in the ability of students to think critically for themselves without the fear of a failing grade or the need for a passing one, supporting the idea that when the system does adapt and grow in spite of the rules initially set in place, it can engender significant growth in both students and educators alike.
