Whiplash: Dilemmas in Harsh Teaching
I recently watched the movie Whiplash, and was immediately confronted with
some interesting questions– namely what makes a teacher good? Is a teacher good
because they instill passion amongst their students or is the quality of a teacher
determined solely by the performance of their students? For those of you who have not
seen the movie, this is your “spoiler alert” before I dive into details– the movie is
certainly worth a watch.
Whiplash tells the story of a young drummer, Andrew, as he begins his jazz
career at the fictional ‘Shaffer Conservatory’ in New York City. He begins his time there
motivated and passionate with the goal of reaching the top jazz band (of which there
were several) at the conservatory. Relatively early on, he is able to set himself apart and
move into the top ensemble, eventually becoming ‘core’ drummer (that is to say he was
no longer an alternate but the “starter,” to borrow a term from sports). It seems here that
he has achieved his goal, but Fletcher (his teacher/director) seeks more out of him,
pushing him to his absolute limit. His time at Shaffer ends when he gets into a serious
car accident speeding to make it to a concert on time and although he still made it to the
concert he was unable to perform. He quits drumming and gets Fletcher fired from
Shaffer Conservatory via legal action surrounding his abusive teaching methods. Some
time later Andrew runs into Fletcher performing in a bar and is casually convinced to
join a new ensemble Fletcher formed after being dismissed. Suspecting Andrew of
ending his career at Shaffer, Fletcher surprises Andrew with a new piece of music at
their first concert that the ensemble had practiced without him. His goal was to
embarrass Andrew and end his music career. After an embarrassing performance,
Andrew storms off-stage in embarrassment, only to return moments later and produce a
masterful performance of Caravan– a piece highlighting the drums. Over the course of
the performance, Andrew wins over the band, the audience, and finally even Fletcher.
Andrew proves himself the superstar he always wanted to be.
Fletcher may be the reason Andrew mastered his craft, but at what cost? Each of
the other drummers from Shaffer had quit in response to the harsh conditions and even
Andrew was forced to take a break from the craft before considering a return to the
stage. Could Fletcher’s abusive teaching methods really be considered ethical or
productive?
Fletcher would argue that teachers do the world a disservice when they fail to
push their students to their limits– they deprive the world of the best the musician can
produce. In his eyes, the benefits of creating a true master in their craft outweigh the
costs of necessarily harsh teaching practices. Fletcher would likely agree with the idea
that the music of a legend lives on past their death, inspiring present and future
generations alike. Perhaps it is the case that some students will quit, but if the result is
mastery from just a few students it is worth it.
Fletcher’s opposition, however, may refute this in a few ways. They may first
attempt to argue that the joy in playing music is what inspires greatness in the first
place– perhaps legends only get so far because of their passion for their craft (without
joy or passion, talent cannot blossom). This is entirely prospective, however, and it
could be easily argued that while joy inspires greatness, harsh teaching and hard
practice actively cultivate it. His critics may also attempt to argue that his harsh teaching
style is simply unnecessary and that greatness will come to pass regardless of the
method of teaching. To this Fletcher would simply disagree, and perhaps offer the
argument that there is no real way to determine truth in this statement, so why risk it?
These arguments may or may not have merit, but a much more interesting
argument (in my mind) is one that separates the ethical implications from the moral
implications.
Ethics and morality are closely linked, but not inseparable, and I believe
this case illustrates it quite well. Fletcher’s argument is of a moral nature. His argument
is, in many ways, utilitarian; the benefits of the many outweigh the costs of the few. That
is to say, the benefits that millions of people would get from listening to a recording of a
master outweigh the physical and emotional costs that a handful of musicians would be
forced to endure. One could separate this moral idea from the ethical one, however,
arguing that while Fletcher’s harsh teaching may be accepted as morally permissible, it
is not ethical. We could pinpoint this difference with another example. Imagine a small
town that sits atop a highly valuable oil supply. If the government forces people to
migrate to open a new state-operated oil well, it will substantially help the rest of the
country. The profits will be used to open schools and generate new infrastructure for
thousands, if not millions to use. Now, one may argue here that it is morally permissible
for the government to make this decision (i.e. the greatest number of people benefit
from this), but it remains unethical to force people to relocate for financial reasons
outside of their control– in many ways it just feels wrong.
This idea seems relatively intuitive in the context of the latter example, and thus
seems to apply in Fletcher’s case. It appears that while his abusive teaching style is
unethical, examining it from a much wider lens may actually deem it morally
permissible.
What do you think?