Those who can't do, teach. Isn't that what they say?
It's a cutting taunt that highlights a dichotomy between the doers and the thinkers — a chasm between two attitudes toward life. Advocates of this idea suggest that theory-based learning has little value in the practical, hands-on, day-to-day doing of work. It says that those pursuing a teaching career are somehow inept in the real-world matters of everyday living. They have things that dangle from their sides, which they use to tap keyboards, turn pages in books, and flick through slide decks. They'll tell you all you want to know about a thing in theoretical terms, but they fall short in applying those ideas. Their bodies and minds are useless in real terms…so they teach. I'm a teacher, and to me, it's an insult.
Nonetheless, in some instances, it is true. I have met these people, teachers who have little or no practical experience with the things they teach. To them, the institution of teaching and examination is more important than actual learning. They are dogmatic, and their work is very important. It seems to me that they have chosen the organised structure and relative safety of the classroom over the messiness of the real world.
As an aside, I was discussing this with my colleague in teaching, Bernie Goldbach (we write courses and workshops on digital transformation). He recounted the teaching style of the gym instructor who was brought in to cover the 8th-grade history class. WWI on Monday, pages 30 to 36. WWII on Tuesday, pages 40 to 46. Apparently, for some, it is merely a matter of covering the material. It matters little who covers it or to what depth. James Flynn addresses this issue in his TED Talk on the development of IQ. He says;
I should say one thing that's very disheartening. We haven't made progress on all fronts. One of the ways in which we would like to deal with the sophistication of the modern world is through politics, and sadly you can have humane moral principles, you can classify, you can use logic on abstractions, and if you're ignorant of history and of other countries, you can't do politics. We've noticed, in a trend among young Americans, that they read less history and less literature and less material about foreign lands, and they're essentially ahistorical.
Subscribe to Sunday Letters
I write about life, work, and the pursuit of happiness. Join the growing Sunday Letters readership and receive a new article just like this one every Sunday morning.
In other words, history is playing a decreasing role in our conception of the world. Of course, history has no direct practical value, but the attitudes and understanding of behaviour we develop does. This phenomenon Flynn speaks of may not be restricted to young people in the US either, I suspect. As younger generations turn to the internet as their primary source of information, and increasingly force-fed AI-generated responses, less informed opinions can be taken as truth and knowledge is degraded. The art and skill of teaching, of imparting actual knowledge and experience, is an entirely different animal. There is more to it than merely transferring data from a source to an audience. Human beings are not depositories, and brains are not storage cabinets. As any good teacher knows, when real teaching occurs, minds merge and information flows in both directions. In my view, there must be a real-world-based conception on the part of the teacher for them to cover the topic effectively. They also have to care about the students on the receiving end.
So back to my point…
Those who claim, flippantly as it often seems, that those who can't do, teach, are of a mindset or worldview I refer to as the ceramic mindset. They are materialist, they believe in stuff, and stuff is all there is. If you can't through aptitude manipulate this stuff, move it around and do what has to be done in the practical chores of the day, then you are less than useless. These men (because it's usually men) are of the hardline behaviourist view. Their minds are narrow; they see only push-pull, cause and effect. They are of the hydraulic order. According to this mindset, we can meaure the world and everything in it, put it in boxes with labels. Human beings are merely mindless organisms in a mindless universe of shit-happens.
What a put-down.
When they say those who can't do, teach, they belittle intellectual pursuits as if they have no relevance. They are right to some extent, but it's a convenient oversimplification of the truth. What these people are reaslly saying is;
“I cannot think, rationalise, meditate on this idea, or entertain the hypothetical. That is to say, I cannot relate to other human beings or imagine what life must be like for them. I have only my narcissistic perspective from which to consider the world. I am juvenile and overly simplistic. Imagining how life must be for others escapes me, so I'll get things done, keep myself busy and insist that others do the same. As far as teaching others goes, just do as I do, follow instructions, and don't ask any questions because I lack the mental and emotional capacity to help you understand. You're a robot, and so am I. You work from the neck down, so just do as I say.”
In the 1960s, Douglas McGregor explored these contrasting worldviews about leadership. His Theory X and Y describe how leaders and managers engage with others. Theory X minds primarily view people as objects which they can manipulate. They must coerce, control, or threaten people with punishment to achieve their goals. This view suggests that people need direction from more responsible others because they are incapable of making decisions beyond what's automatic and inherently selfish. Which is strange, really, because the opposing view suggests that those imposing their needs and demands are not selfishly motivated. Most people, according to Theory X, want to avoid responsibility, have little ambition, and primarily seek security.
In contrast, people who adopt the Theory Y approach view work and learning as natural, just as are play and rest. According to this idea, people are capable of self-direction and self-control. They can find satisfaction in their work and seek responsibility and control wherever possible. People are creative and have the potential for problem-solving. If we micro-manage them and treat them like machines, they may perform in the short term, but will inevitably let us down. Instead, if we engage with them, consider their needs, and give them the space and opportunity, people will more often than not create innovative solutions to problems. And importantly, when the enviroment challenges them, they will respond in a growth oriented manner.
So learning is a process of empathy and connection. It's an exchange of information, yes, and although the practical is important, the theoretical is equally important. We achieve little with a blinkers-on, head-down approach. The world needs thinkers and those who can interpret and convey complex things in a simple form. We need people who can imagine and hypothesise, just as we need people who can do. It's a perfect balance.
Leave a Reply