Drivers ed initiative
Payton Lara
The Drivers ed Initiative
The importance of drivers ed in the reduction of deaths as a result of a vehicular mishap lies within its ability to thin the unfortunate statistic we measure. Foucault, to say the least, may be a controversial post-structuralist, but it is hard to deny the general argument that knowledge represents power. Greater hermeneutical mental structures of driving an individual ascertains will certainly yield a reduction in vehicular misfortunes. The real discourse revolves around the question of how to properly distribute an education on the topic to the general American public; since I myself am an American it is the only cultural understanding I can properly speak for. Could it be surmised that the average American gives little care to the education in general and the one provided to them for driving? My proclivity to deny the metanarrative tells me that we shall never objectively have answer to those questions; however, if I were to assume the mentality of an embodiment of objective Western reason, like Voltaire, then I would say “yes.” Looking at this from a French Philosophe position we come to a roadblock; how can we educate those who don’t want to learn? Perhaps conformity to the hegemonic concept of safe driving through Foucauldian disciplinary methods such as larger fines is the only option. Most-certainly no historical materialists-would not disagree to the notion that the subject of the imagined political community of Nationalism is rather economically motivated. The fines cannot exist as a flat fee; doing so would certainly not produce emotional equity in individuals. The fines must be “smart” meaning scaled regarding the perpetrators net worth. It should be discussed further the approximate emotional distressed caused by a percent loss of one’s ownings, and the proper percentage amount for an act committed. Of course, those “truths” should be created via discourse in the public sphere. Participation to the masses in particular the subalterns should be on equal grounds; this should not be a one group decision or else we risk the possibility of oppression. All voices should be heard and accounted for. My answer can be summarized by the following: If we threaten the economic base of an individual’s existence, then we can in a Foucauldian sense force conformity to the hegemonic “truth” of safe driving. This form of education must be done as a result of the general Western Metaphysical understanding that most individuals do not wish to learn. If individuals at all cared or ever would care about safe driving education, then there would not be such a high death statistic in the first place. I do carry a personal example of this working: A friend of mine my freshman year of college liked to drive well over the speed limit in his Mustang; one night he got a fine so heavy he had to sell his car. Needless to say, he was absolutely devasted and does not speed anymore. Economics motivated that decision, just as it motivates mine and conforms me to the discipline of safe driving.