It's all about the middle path...
He was particularly concerned with how the tenants of modernism affected developing nations (where he lived for much of his life) by pushing traditional methods into forced obsolescence in favor of ever-increasing reliance on social institutions.
His views on policy may or may not be on point (he seems most comfortable in the area of principle and theory), but the conceptual core that relates his views on education to his views on cars and medicine merits consideration.
He similarly wasn't against scientific medicine, but he thought the medical bureaucracy had outgrown its utility: that advances in specialized medicine were too expensive and served to prop up artificially unhealthy lives.
A strong line of his argument is that past a tipping point of size/power, institutions will create the needs they serve. We create these artificial environments where it's hard for most people to thrive and then we create social institutions to compensate: a social prosthetic.
The result in Illich's view is increasing passivity and helplessness: a petulant society composed of a disempowered citizenry.
The argument no-doubt merits a balancing counter-argument, but I find it compelling and it goes deeper than a simplistic dismissal of school.
There's a recording of a teacher asking how to infuse lessons from deschooling into her classroom and his response is basically "you can't". He's actually a bit rude about it tbh.
Illich was opposed to schooling. He would have said he was in favor of "education". Nailing down what that would mean on the scale of a society, aside from learning webs, is a bit elusive.
I think Illich provided a fantastic prognosis of certain problems but didn't develop workable solutions.
Anyhow, the first step to a solving a problem is identifying it; they need not be atomic operations.
"...and their improvement is made to depend on allocating more resources to the management of hospitals, schools, and other agencies in question."
That's where he veers into making a policy recommendation (defunding social institutions), and where he is no longer engaging in critical theory but in pushing a particular policy agenda, therefore opening his critique (some of which I'd even agree with) to practical criticism from people with more skin in the game.
I agree if his long-form critique takes the structure you claim, it is of poor quality because claiming desires in not critical of anything.
However, I do disagree with your claim the critique alone is not helpful. A harsh, well formed critique is typically the very first pillar in driving change. Expecting identification and resolution in the same piece is asking too much.
I would argue to say that a critique being invalidated because it somehow must include both framing and describing a phenomenon as well as suggesting changes, each weighted by their feasibility in remedying the systemic woes, is much more fallacious.
But times are different.
1. Most adults are literate — When kids have questions about letters or words while they are teaching themselves to read they have a huge supply of adults and older children to get help from.
2. Books are so cheap to produce that we literally throw them away when we are done and the internet has provided the material for a lifetime of education for what is essentially free — And formats (like 3blue1brown animations that couldn't have been imagined a century ago).
3. We don't need to train the population to be obedient for factories or the military. Society can continue without so many people pretending to work. Let them continue to educated themselves until they discover something that benefits the rest of society.
I had first grader during corona lock down and I can tell you that ability to read/write does not imply ability to help the kid to learn to read and write. This part about kids learning to read by themselves and by asking question of adults around of, frankly, complete nonsense for wast majority of kids.
Is this a historical reality that schools are built for factory style education? Citation is needed.
This is not true. I dont hate schools. My kids dont hate schools. My friends did not hated schools and my kids friends dont hate schools. There are people, both adults and kids who hate school, of course. And then there are very crappy schools. Speaking to my collegues, they dont hate schools and only two hated school as a kid. And even these do like their kids schools, but they took more care about what is going on there (like they put more effort into selection of school).
But I think that people HN are heavily biased against the schools, the way no other forum or social group I encountered is.
That is much milder sentiment through and I think the difference matters. And significant chunk of people perceives school positively or neutrally.
> This makes it an easy target, and a useful hook to get support for any anti social institution criticism.
My problem is that while I see this a lot on HN, I don't see it anywhere else. Including in people who loudly criticize this or that aspect of education or school. The positive attitude toward school is unrepresented on HN, despite being present in real life and in studies that measure attitudes.
Similarly, the people on HN are way more pushing homeschooling then anyone else I know ... including people on forums for stay at home moms or general mom forums (who would be in position to do it and tend to be biased more toward family/children interests). Reading HN, one would believe that the only reason to not homeschool is that you cant afford one parent at home. And that those parents are unhappy for having kids in school and that those kids are unhappy. That sentiment is not present among people who are actually at home and could theoretically homeschool if they were inclined to.
The whole thing seems to me political ideological. Some people here want everyone to hate the school, but it does not make it so.
You can criticize a system while still participating in it; just because you think there should be a better system doesn't mean that the current system is worse than nothing.
I dislike the US health care system, and think we should move from private insurance to a single payer model. However, I still currently have private insurance and participate in the system, because I need healthcare and my only choice right now is private insurance.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, but Illich called for the abolishment of social institutions altogether, not the improvement of them.
I'm quite suspicious of such calls for abolishing institutions rather than reforming them - whether from the right or left - because they are often just cloaked attempts to replace those institutions with their own preferred "purer" institutions. In the case of Illich, his preferred institutions would seem to be somewhat connected to his religious work as a priest.
> dislike the US health care system, and think we should move from private insurance to a single payer model
Single-payer/Medicare-for-all is just advocating for reform of the health care system by removal of the pathologies of private insurance, not the abolishment of shared risk pools altogether. It's an evolution of the current system, not the destruction of it.
If memory serves Illich tolerated (and perhaps died from?) a prominent tumor on his face which he refused to have treated.
(That I would remember him as an exception in part makes your point.)
Apparent confirmation: "His charisma, brilliance and spirituality were clear to anyone who encountered him; these qualities sustained him in a heroic level of activity over the last 10 years in the context of terrible suffering caused by a disfiguring cancer." From the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2002/dec/09/guardianobituar...
Humans are not infinitely malleable, in fact, most are not malleable by much. To blame the shortcoming of biological human on institution that tries to correct them (but largely fails to achieve the high bar he's aiming for) is idiotic.
From one point of view, those reasonable anarchists and marxists are only seeking to "improve" the US. From the other point of view they are trying to abolish it. You're forced to pick a side. Jacobin calls for revolution demand binary outcomes. It's exactly analogous to Illych proposing that education can only be improved by abolishing educational institutions. There's no middle ground.
You're shifting your argument. Both AOC and Omar are Democratic Socialists (in same vein as the traditionally dominant parties of Northern Europe), not anarchists or marxists. Neither is calling for the abolishment of the US or its governmental institutions, but rather for its growing wealth and income inequality to be addressed. If anything, the loudest voices for abolishment of state institutions today are coming from the right.
It's not inconsistent of Illych to try to dismantle a system that (you claim) he benefited from. The Jacobin progressives in the US are not inconsistent to try to dismantle the foundations of their host system through the procedures of that system. You would have to limit your observations to prima facie statements to argue that they are not intellectually dishonest crypto-marxists (BLM excluded). Illych and BLM are perhaps more intellectually honest than AOC and Omar. ++good for them.
and Northern European Democratic socialist parties are neither traditional or dominant unless you only look at the very immediate past and future.
I would hope that for consistency, Illich on principle refused to take treatment from Germany's health care system, populated by medical professionals who are the product of the education system he so detested.
There is a lot to be critiqued with the way that medicine and education are practiced and paid for, but to enjoy the benefits of both, while laying fault at the feet of institutionalized medicine and education while ignoring the context both operate borders on hypocrisy.