Risto

It's an interesting comment, to be told that it's unhealthy to say "I love you" to your girlfriend, beyond some apparently critical threshold. I often ask people, be they long time friends or someone I've just met, how often they say "I love you" to their partner. My intent is not to judge, but unfortunately I find myself saying "my intent is not to judge" because many react to this inquiry with suspicion. Certainly, it's not a common question, as I find that I've never been asked this question by anyone else, and I eventually ask it of everyone I talk to. I'm curious in general, and it's certainly a mark of health to be curious about relationships. I find it an interesting comment on society that I've repeatedly been told that the frequency with which I tell my girlfriend that I love her is unhealthy.

I tell her all the time. All day, every day. Multiple times, every time that I talk to her. Before I wake up, and after I go to bed (thank you cron). When I email her, during meals, and in the middle of a sentence. I have been known to tackle her while she is talking and to yell it, perhaps following the tackle with a little number, for example "4". Often, rather than saying "Hello" when I phone her, I open with "Love you!" If you have happened upon a better method for setting up inter-relational success, please do let me know. Having discussed this with hundreds of people, from many walks of life, my (completely nonprofessional) survey has yielded the overwhelming result that most people find themselves saying "I love you" rather infrequently, and view my use of the term as 1) "abnormal", 2) "loose", 3) "unhealthy", and 4) indicative of a need for "constant validation". I choose these criticisms because they are the most common.

1) To the criticism that I am "abnormal". Without a doubt, the regularity with which I repeat the phrase "I love you" is not that of the average person. It is not the "norm", and thus it is not "normal", and it is but a short step for the cynic to recast "not normal" as "abnormal". This is hardly a damning critique, to which I respond "if the norm were to keep slaves and subjugate women, would you say that it is imperative for us all to follow the norm, and that those who do otherwise are out of line?" Nuclear weapons anyone? Shall I get a knife for you, governor?

2) To the criticism that I am "loose" in my application of the phrase. To this idea, that my use of the maxim "I love you" is "loose", what usage would be "tight"? Which accepted policies of linguistic administration and verbal dispensation is it that I am in violation of? What restrictions on the expression of affection should I adhere to? Many years ago a friend of mine held "all public displays of affection" in contempt of social propriety. I responded in defense of affection, and asked: "what could be wrong with a kiss and a hug?" She answered that there was no need for her to "see that", and I suggested that perhaps she - perhaps every person - stood in great need of seeing precisely that. In my experience, a strong aversion to affection is best understood as methinks-they-doth-protest-too-much. Undoubtedly, there is little need for heavy petting in a public setting, but a kiss and a hug? A smile and some happiness? A number of years later this friend recanted her criticism of public affection, and has come to support what it is that she did not have. Painfully (not for me, but for those in emotional pain), I've encountered this scenario many times. Here I must also note: the idea that repeating "I love you" might cause the phrase to lose meaning uncovers only the apathy and corruption of the complainant. When I declare "I love you" to my girlfriend, I say it with conscious and deliberate intent, every time.

3) and 4) To the criticisms that my girlfriend and/or I are "unhealthy", and in need of "constant validation". These two criticisms may be grouped together, as they both speak to the power of impatience and amateur psychology. There is no question that the need for constant validation is unhealthy, but before pronouncing that something is unhealthy, it often makes sense for the questioner to actually ask some questions (as it turns out, there are few insights that arise in the absence of knowledge). It is a rare person indeed that has inquired about my relationship before concluding that it is unhealthy based solely upon the information that I tell my girlfriend "I love you" one hundred times per day. It is understandable that people generalize over their past experiences, and infer that society at large suffers acutely from low self-esteem, and that couples should be fighting about ... whatever it is that "normal" couples fight about, and that I am not introspective or realistic about myself or my relationship. If my girlfriend or I make a mistake then we tell each other, calmly and respectfully. The recognition of a mistake is precisely that which enables us to improve our condition. Why would we fight about improvement? An odd concept that, once you've reasoned it out. "Why will you take by force what you may have quietly by love?"¹ It's not that I don't understand why people fight, but instead that I explicitly renounce fighting as a way of life. Please do not make the mistake of believing that fighting provides healthy resolutions, or that it is not a way of life - to advocate fighting is to support a deeply pessimistic view of humanity. To live with secrets and quiet rage is a choice. We have chosen otherwise. The fact that my girlfriend and I do not fight has been interpreted in many ways, most centering on the theory that we internalize our thoughts rather than expressing them freely, which is a most interesting theory for one to put forth after having spoken with me in person. I do not claim to be subtle or learned; but if there is one thing I claim it is candor. Oh yes, I nearly forgot, the perennial "constant validation". Here, my response is twofold: first, "Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion. What a man thinks of himself, that is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate"², and second, "I can't stand people who need me"³ (and I am happy to report neither can my girlfriend).

We are humans, and as such we possess the ability to regulate our emotions and our emotional responses. No other animal possesses this ability, and so this capability must not be taken lightly. Emotional parsimony is a bad choice not a social necessity, no matter how it might be rationalized.

P.S., I love you.

Introduction

How is citizenship best defined? Should schools teach children to become good citizens? As with any topic in the study of political science, we must proceed thoughtfully; these are not straightforward questions with simple answers. To find answers we must deconstruct the questions into their component parts, and give consideration to their foundations and assumptions.

Prior to addressing the normative question of citizenship education, it is necessary to discuss the nature and effects of citizenship itself. I will first outline a descriptive definition of the concept 'citizen', and use this to develop a normative definition. This definition will then be applied to the central question: should schools teach children to become good citizens?

I will argue that the idea of the good citizen, as it is currently aspired towards, places deleterious boundaries on human interactions, and ignores the shared fate of humanity. Schools must teach children to become agents of the public good, but not in a relativistic national sense. The contemporary approach to citizenship education is limiting, and permits - even produces - destructive impulses such as materialism and jingoism. Accepting that our epistemic state is dynamic, schools should seek not merely to transmit some maximal amount of state approved information, but should instead aim to develop a capacity for critical thought, and thus a foundation for objectivity. The term 'public' must be updated to connote an international sensibility, and education must be updated to reflect our global circumstance.

Citizenship : A Descriptive Definition

What is the descriptive content of the word 'citizen'? Citizenship theory defines a citizen as a constituent of a particular political body, allotted the basic rights and duties thereof.¹ In contemporary democracies, rights are meant to safeguard the citizen, and are commonly divided into three categories: civil, political, and social.² Basic rights include the privileges of free thought, free speech, free association, and inclusion in the process of electing representatives. In an effort to better protect the liberty of minorities, rights are studied and designed from the perspective of both individual and group interests.³ The distribution of individual and group rights confers duties on the citizen, including the obligation to maintain justice in legal and social dimensions, by obeying laws and tolerating others. As regards rights and duties, a citizen must be familiar with the structure of the political body to which they are attached. This requires political education, the establishment of civic virtue⁴, and thus the construction of a political identity.

What is the basis for civic virtue and the political identity of a citizen? The word 'citizen' is an abstract construct with no natural counterpart. When one refers to a person, they can point to an example in the physical world. When one refers to a citizen they can not simply point to an example in the physical world, but must appeal to additional information about the person in question. A person may only be a citizen with respect to a particular nation. Thus, the conception of a citizen rests on the concept of a nation, and the political identity of a citizen may be considered as the citizen's nationalistic consciousness. Hence, to define the 'citizen', we must understand the 'nation'.

What is the descriptive content of the concept 'nation'? At the highest level, a nation is a collection of people federated into a political body, bound within a specific physical territory. What is the origin of this definition? History reveals that "the borders of modern nations have not been established through some morally innocent process, but are, to a significant extent, the upshot of war and negotiation among unaccountable elites".⁵ A nation then is a morally arbitrary construct.⁶

Because a nation is a morally arbitrary construct, and the concept of the citizen is based on the concept of nation, is it a necessary consequence that the concept of citizen should also be morally arbitrary? Might the concept of citizen act as a corrective for the moral laxity of the foundation of the concept of nation? Should we be concerned by these questions? Because the "arbitrary boundaries of nation states distribute various important goods radically unequally"⁷, we must be deeply concerned with these questions. Nationhood and citizenship are not universally beneficent structures. History is replete with examples of nationalistic self-determination motivating the violent subjugation of foreign nations.⁸ In addition to fomenting externally facing violence, citizenship does not protect against internally facing violence. For example, citizens in the Darfur region of Sudan find themselves trapped by national borders and subject to one of the most extensive democides in history - the duty of state sponsored soldiers is to breach the rights of Sudanese citizens.⁹ While nationhood and citizenship are not solely responsible for such problems, they are dominant factors.

Descriptively then, citizenship is best defined as a status applied to the constituents of a national political body, conferring a basic set of rights and duties, where the rights and duties need not have been developed democratically, and do not guarantee the humane treatment of citizens (or foreigners). Citizenship, in its current form, is both shield and shackle, protecting the citizens of democratic nations, and binding the citizens of authoritarian nations. The success of citizenship in liberal democratic nations shows only that it is not the worst possible arrangement, while the failure of citizenship in illiberal nations shows that it is certainly not the best possible arrangement. Accepting that the current conception of citizenship is untenable, what is to be done?

Citizenship : A Normative Definition

As I see it, the central problem of politics is coordinating group activity and regulating the effects of the natural world and human nature¹⁰ on humanity, in such a way that every human enjoys sustainable food, shelter, and happiness. Accepting this, the goal of a nation should be to provide an enduring quality of life for all citizens; accordingly, for any idea of citizenship to be defensible, it must work towards this ambition in all situations. A description of the ideal nation¹¹ is beyond the scope of this paper, however, because one of the highest qualities of life can be found in liberal democracies¹², for the purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the role of citizenship should be to produce and maintain a political environment based on liberal and democratic values.¹³ With this in mind, I will build on the descriptive definition of citizenship, and establish a normative definition: normatively speaking, citizenship is best defined as a status applied to the constituents of a national political body, conferring a basic set of rights and duties that support and defend liberal and democratic values, where the rights and duties have been developed democratically, and guarantee the humane treatment of citizens.

This definition provides a compelling foundation, but it is incomplete. We are left with a pressing question for all supporters of liberal and democratic values: what position does citizenship take with respect to foreigners? As discussed above, the concept 'citizen' is bound to the concept 'nation', so what is to be done for citizens not living in liberal democracies? This question has two parts. Firstly, should all non-liberal non-democracies be transformed into liberal democracies? Secondly, what regard should the citizens of one nation have for the citizens of another nation? The answer to the first question is no. While a liberal democracy appears to be one of the best available political configurations, it is unreasonable to presume that a better option will not present itself, or that liberal democracy is the "end of history".¹⁴ The second question requires us to consider the international dependencies brought about as a result of globalization.¹⁵ To highlight the issue, let us consider a contemporary political problem: natural resource consumption. As of 2004, "if everyone on Earth lived like the average Canadian or American, we would need at least three such planets to live sustainably".¹⁶ Put plainly, this means that Canadians and Americans are overwhelming the entire planet. Thus, the lifestyle of Canadians and Americans negatively affects all nations. Canada and America consider themselves to be models of inspiration for other nations, but can people who are destroying the planet rightfully consider themselves to be model citizens? Shouldn't all North Americans live with consideration for all residents of the planet, regardless of nationality?¹⁷ What does this mean for the normative definition of citizenship given above ("the purpose of citizenship should be to produce and maintain a political environment based on liberal and democratic values")? Along with other global issues, such as financial crisis and global warming, the issue of resource consumption obviates the fact that nations do not exist in isolation. Consequently, nations must expand their understanding of civic virtue and the public good to consider the welfare of all inhabitants who share the planet.

The purpose of citizenship, at this time¹⁸, should be to produce and maintain a global political environment based on liberal and democratic values.

The Role of Schools in Citizenship Education

How should liberal and democratic values be established, protected, and enhanced? Should schools teach children to become good citizens? While any "curriculum inculcating the virtues of citizenship should be approached cautiously, because there is a reasonable fear of indoctrination"¹⁹, this should not prevent the use of public education to promote civic virtues. Knowledge of propaganda and indoctrination is precisely the means to reverse it, and it is possible to militate against indoctrination by teaching students and educators to be conscious of it.²⁰ Schools should teach children to become good citizens, however; not all forms of indoctrination seek overtly illiberal ends, and the modern educational curriculum in liberal democracies does not actively militate against all forms of indoctrination.

Within the United States, for example, much of "the talk is about global competitiveness, and the public discourse ... is on how to improve national educational performance in science and engineering".²¹ Students are explicitly taught skills that will enhance the national economy, and implicitly indoctrinated in the ideology of capitalism. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle, continually narrowing in its focus. As noted in the discussion of resource consumption, the United States is among the most materialistic nations in the world. The level of material comfort in the United States creates a rich private life²², and because the quality of private life is so high, citizens do not perceive a need to participate in public life. The result is passive citizenship, voter apathy, and the impoverishment of public debate.²³ If citizens have little regard for national issues, it is unlikely that they will concern themselves with global issues. Because the lifestyle of Americans is unsustainable, the situation regarding education is unacceptable.

The desire to construct a group identity was one of the motivations in establishing the American schooling system²⁴, however the limits of the group that Americans identify with requires extension, and must include the inhabitants of other nations. While students should be educated in the ideals and ambitions of their nation, they must also be empowered with a highly developed aptitude for critical thinking that transcends national limits.

Conclusion

Citizenship as it is currently understood and implemented restricts the spectrum of thought, placing the limits of political awareness at the borders of the nation. Global problems however do not respect national boundaries. Normatively, citizenship is best defined as a status aimed at: i) producing and maintaining a global political environment based on liberal and democratic values, ii) granting a basic set of rights and duties that support and defend liberal and democratic values, iii) where these rights and duties have been developed democratically, iv) guaranteeing the humane treatment of national citizens, v) and recognizing the rights and interests of non-nationals.²⁵ Citizenship must concern itself with the issue of living in a manner that is equitable and sustainable not only with respect to a particular nation, but with respect to everyone on the planet.

Public education plays a key role in developing an understanding and appreciation for civic virtue, and schools must teach children to become good citizens. While it is of exceptional importance that education is broad, including ideas from all disciplines, it is more important that education is expansive, and not limited to - or by - any single mode of thought. The goal of education must be to establish a critical faculty of reasoning. It is just as important for citizens to know what they do not think, as it is for them to know what they do think, and to understand the reasons for both. Only then can a globally informed civic virtue develop.

Observation is not passive. It is an activity¹; the way we see things is a combination of what is there and of what we expected to find². For the most part we do not first see, and then define, we define first and then see.³

Observation is a matter of training, it is a matter of recognizing what one is looking at.⁴ The more untrained a mind, the more readily it works out a theory that two things which catch its attention at the same time are causally connected ... we readily accept sequence or parallelism as equivalent to cause and effect.⁵ The observer needs to be able reliably to recognize the facts being observed. If the observer is not reliable then neither will his reports be reliable.⁶

When men act on the principle of intelligence they go out to find the facts and to make their wisdom. When they ignore it, they go inside themselves and find only what is there.⁷ Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts.⁸ The analysis is "locked"; the range of judgment is confined within a context of facts which excludes judging the context in which the facts are made, man-made, and in which their meaning, function, and development are determined.⁹ Customs, manners, and morality become established as the truth, or as what may be expected, and are then represented without question.¹⁰

It is therefore not just an idle game to exercise our ability to analyze familiar concepts, and to demonstrate the conditions on which this justification of their usefulness depend.¹¹

I would like essays. Preferably more than a rant. Any topic, any length, your choice. Please don't give me anything else, as I will have no choice but to dispose of it while driving on the highway late at night, and I hate littering.

This past September I returned to University to pursue an undergraduate degree in History, Political Science, and Philosophy (I haven't decided which to focus on as yet - and, if possible, I'd like to fit in some sociology, psychology, and anthropology), and the problem I'm finding in the Humanities and Social Sciences is the same as that in the Physical and Mathematical Sciences; that of attempting to transmit some maximal amount of information to the student within a limited time frame, and consequently disabling the student from further exploration of subjects that naturally interest them, precisely at the moment when the interest develops¹.

Just as high-level training requires time, so too does the broader process of liberal education. In addition, it requires unallocated time; time for reflection and re-evalation, for raising questions instead of seeking answers, for shopping around intellectually.²

This is not to say that students should explore subjects in an unstructured or ad hoc manner. We must establish broad disciplinary foundations, proceeding logically and cumulatively, and building towards a higher understanding. A first year Political Science student should not be permitted to jump into a fourth year Psychology course, because they could not fully appreciate the content, and their overall comprehension and productivity would suffer. However, when a student connects with material, the connection should not be forcibly severed by railroading the student into studying the next topic in the logical sequence of their primary discipline. It may indeed be the case that the best course path for the student to follow is the one they are on, however this should be discussed on a case by case basis, as initiated by the student. Different people learn in different ways, and compelling all students to submit to a single monolithic framework teaches those who do not operate using the mechanisms of the framework that they are inadequate.

When someone doesn't "fit in," we must always remember to consider the possibility that there is something wrong with what he is being asked to fit into.³

That a common foundation is required, and that the current system fosters progress can not be denied, but not all education is of equal merit, and not all progress is of humanitarian value. The effect of forced instruction is adjustment to externally imposed regimentation, the progressive decay of creativity, and an amorphous graduating class.

The lesson the child learns, from father to teacher to boss to god, is to obey the great anonymous voice of Authority. To graduate from childhood to adulthood is to become a full-fledged automaton, incapable of questioning or even of thinking clearly.⁴

Returning to the previous example: the first year Political Science student should be permitted to study Psychology as befits the material at hand, and when complete, continue forth in the Political Science curriculum, if they so choose⁵.

How would such a curriculum be organized? What is to protect the student against aimlessness and apathy? At what point do we require that the student return to the primary curriculum? The standard set of answers to these questions is self-justifiying, supporting the commodification of labour and the application of efficiency metrics. A better response might be to ask: what is the nature of these questions? Such questions presume that our particular socioeconomic arrangements are infallible, and that humans are intellectually bankrupt to begin with, and must be coerced into all things at all times. Procrastination is not so much a character deficit as it is a search for meaning.

My own feeling is that we ought to take the present university structure ... and just let it fall apart into its simple communities of professors, etc., who know something and are interested in teaching it, and students, who want to find out something. Or if the students don't know what they want, let them be allowed to shop around, with no sanctions, no penalties. Just let the whole fall apart and be reconstituted into its proper communities according to immediate functioning, and intrinsic motivation for all the people involved.⁶

Belief in the unfailing primacy of received wisdom betrays fear of the unknown, and thus fear of interdisciplinary synthesis. Some students will adhere to the standard course path, and some will deviate. Perhaps the student may never return to their initial program. Having personally surveyed hundreds of working professionals over the last few years, my suspicion is that a significant proportion of students would deviate, and discover not only new connections but the absence of previously perceived divisions, and this is something that goes beyond individual benefit. Prior to contributing one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time, Darwin was a student of religion, and poised to become an Anglican parson. His later interest in entomology was linked in no small way to his affection for natural theology. An uncommon example to be sure, but what better way to explicate the problem than by examining the extreme potentialities.

Today I wear these chains, and am here! Tomorrow I shall be fetterless! - but where?⁷

One can not understand how to live until they understand how humanity developed, how society developed, and why civilization exists as it does. But what is the background of such a statement? Do I push history because I am a history student? Categorically, emphatically: no. I suggest the critical study and evaluation of all scholarly disciplines. To investigate how humanity developed, how society developed, and why civilization exists as it does is to investigate the themes that undercut all branches of knowledge - the laws of nature. But instead of this, instead of fusing knowledge, our educational system divides it. That the principles of scholarly disciplines naturally arrange themselves hierarchically is not to be doubted⁸, but to circumscribe one's personal program of academic development according to natural separations is to ignore natural patterns of growth. Biology is not independent of chemistry, it is the natural consequent of chemical interactions. To ignore such relationships is to confine inquiry and destroy imagination, and thus to submit to the destructive institution of the expert. Experts, by definition, possess the definitive and unquestionable answer for any subject falling within their domain of expertise. This is intellectual isolationism. Isolation of the expert from interdisciplinarity thought, and isolation of the questioner from any thought at all. Evolution does not occur in isolation from its environment, it is the reflection and result of its environment. But, what would we do if such and such expert did not exist? What would be the fate of that particular expertise and that field of knowledge? Does the existence of expertise imply necessity or even utility? I do not say that all branches of knowledge are worthless, but that their worth must be proven. In response to what need did the field of missile expertise develop? The maturity of weapons technology can in no reasonable way be construed as necessary or utile; it is a comment on the particular way that humanity has progressed, and is a refutation of both nature and reason.

The point is not that we should never defer to experts, but that giving unchecked powers to experts is to invite catastrophe.⁹

The pursuit of expertise is not in itself inherently deficient, but becomes deficient when knowledge eschews wisdom¹⁰. Much expertise in the West is commensurate with acquisition, an acquisition that does not concern itself with morality or justice, but with aggrandizement; the accumulation - but not combination - of technical skills and answers, with an eye towards material accretion; collection veiled as scholarship.

There is a pathos in our technological advancement, well exemplified by programmed instruction. A large part of it consists in erroneously reducing the concept of animals and human beings in order to make them machine-operable.¹¹

Technological advancement on its own does not imply progress, and expertise on its own does not imply enlightenment. In forms that are dominant in the first world, expertise is disconnection from reality - an organized and formally induced psychosis. This is not education. Education is unification. To educate is to empower with an inexhaustible ability to ask intelligent questions. See how few students venture boldly to ask a topical question of their professor - any question at all! Content be damned, see how many students ask how they might advance their public image and avoid pedantic punishment: "Will this affect my mark?"

The professed intent of our schooling system is to develop a comprehensive theoretical and functional understanding of our operational environment, but the design of the system largely ignores the former and emphasizes the latter. Non-functional consociation is discounted, and neurosis is heaped upon neurosis, confusing students, and completely negating the opportunity for - and even the possibility of - introspective thought. In reflection on our own daily activities, what is it that we spend the most time thinking about? Are we able to consider what we like, when we like? Do we choose the content of our thoughts? What do we think about on the way to school or work? Do we think, or are the signals of our brain replaced by the signals of our iPod? Upon arriving at work, to what important and meaningful subjects do our thoughts turn? Client satisfaction perhaps? Considering, for example, the proliferation of weaponry in the United States, why do we care if an ill-tempered and affluent client dislikes some aspect of the frivolous service we provide? The day labourer spends so much time attending to administrative problems that little time is left for personal and interpersonal - let alone international - problems. "I must expand market capitalization"; "I must meet this deadline"; "I've had a hard week at work, and I must be entertained"; "I not only deserve to, but simply must redecorate." It's not that entertainment or aesthetic considerations should be held in contempt, but that they must exist in balance. How is it that an entire industry has developed in response to the problem of effecting the perfect wedding, when the problem of providing clean water for all persists? That the two can coexist is no small footnote on human nature.

Liberal politics has focused on freeing the individual from government interference and external restraint, but overlooked the fact that wealth inequality trumps civil status¹². Free action in a predatory and deregulated capitalist society has been conflated with free action in the wild, opportunity has been conflated with resources, and circumstance has been conflated with choice. The consideration of others is a factor only in so far as favouring those we know and not causing immediate physical harm to those we do not know.

American citizens tend to assume that the common good is transparently clear, so that inclusive deliberation is unnecessary to discern its requirements¹³

Of course we must work to maintain the order of our own house, but where is the line that divides order from disorder? Clean water? Enough food to eat? Heat? Job security? Health benefits? What happens once we are safely past the line? One car? Two cars? A three bedroom house? A four bedroom house? A summer cottage? A boat? Utilitarianism is too demanding; Liberalism is not demanding enough.

"Look out for number one" is a prescription for demoralization, corruption, and ultimately general catastrophe¹⁴

Though education must militate against productive instability, it must also militate against intellectual attrition. To do this, we must recognize that the two goals are not mutually exclusive. The purpose of education should be to teach how to think, rather than what to think. Once someone has learned how to think, the discovery of what to think will follow. Education in the West is more aptly described as training, and the character of thought that results is largely unconscious, and thus unsafe.

[W]e're very fortunate to enjoy unusual, probably unique, freedom and privilege, and these benefits offer opportunity, and opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the opportunities that one enjoys wisely, honestly, and humanely.¹⁵

What the students must do is ask themselves with regard to these beautiful professions and arts and sciences that are around: What is the world I want to live in? What kind of community do I want? What is life about? What does this profession which I think I'm interested in add to that? What can it give to society, and to a good society? What skills and knowledge do I need to learn in order to play my part in that profession for that purpose?¹⁶

We do not need any of your titles ... We want none of them. What we do want is knowledge and education and liberty.¹⁷