1. Did one culture, shown in the film, have a better way of parenting than the others?
Of all the babies, Ponijao (Namibia) seemed to turn out the best. But of course, that is based on a scale that measures how social the baby is, or how interactive he/she is with his/her surroundings. And it seemed that the movie was trying to highlight that particular aspect about the development of a baby. With that being said, and assuming that Ponijao was one of the better-raised children, it seems that the better way of parenting would be to allow the child to explore while providing the guidance and resources that they need. In Ponijao's case, his mother was constantly breast feeding him, and eating while he ate- she was not only providing for him his necessities, but she was also there to experience those necessities alongside with him. Meanwhile, some of the other parents, particularly Hattie (America), gave them what they needed and just left them there. But it wasn't that the other parents left their baby alone at all times, and played no role in their development. It was just that they had bursts of conscious efforts. Hattie's and Mari's (Japan)parents went to those group classes, and imitating whatever the stranger (or as they call her, the instructor) was doing. Whenever the schedule was, or whenever the parents had free time, there were these sudden bursts of efforts from the other parents, while the Ponijao's mother was more passive. But then again, it seemed that the mothers in Namibia only had the responsibility of taking care the child and the nest. So their main focus was on the child, while the other mothers had to worry about their career and making a living as well, which I would assume is the main focus of the males in Namibia, based on their appearance (or rather their lack of appearance) in the movie.
Aside from the consistency of the parental guidance, it also seems that parenting closely with other parents helped the child develop a sense of comfort with people outside their family. Ponijao was surrounded by other babies and other children, and thus he was more sociable and was less shy, compared to Hattie, who would want to leave if she was in a circle filled with other parents and children. Babies with more interaction with other children were also more comfortable with animals as well. Bayar (Mongolia) and Ponijao were constantly interacting with the animals (cats, dogs, goats, cows, other children, etc.). Even Mari had her moments where she was playing with the cat. However, Hattie, an only child who was rarely playing with other children, left the cat alone even when she was within two feet from the cat. Based on all this, it seems that parenting in a close community is also another aspect of "better parenting."
3. What looked universal - common to all humans - from the film - at least as edited? Why is this universality significant?
One of the most important universal thing about developing as child, and even as a human was portrayed in the very first scene. It was the motion of interacting with other people, but more importantly the motion of imitating another person. In the first scene, we see that Ponijao was doing what he saw from the baby, which was hitting a small rock against a bigger one. Throughout our lives, particularly the earlier stages, we learn through imitation. We even see this later on in the movie, when the children begin to speak, and when they begin to imitate the sounds and the music that they hear from their parents and their community. Regardless of where the baby is from, we can see the role of imitation in their behaviors. It's a monkey-see-monkey-do world.
Another universal aspect portrayed in this movie is the rise or the fall of going between an animal and a human. Based on the Thomas Balmès's choice of camera angles and music, he would probably say it's a rise. We all start off as animals (and remain as animals throughout our lives, but with more humanistic behaviors). Similar to most other mammals, we start off moving by crawling, on our four limbs. As we develop more and more, we first learn to stand- getting on our two lower limbs, and eventually moving on those two limbs. And at that point, Balmès would say that we have triumphed as babies, given his choice of what the last scene was- Bayar, alone on a hill rising up on his feet, as the sun begins to set, and as the music shifts from the instrumental percussion portion of the song, to the lyrical portion.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Parenting 102 [HW #58- Draft]
[Part 3]
Similar to Margarrete, my parents seem to be settling for mediocrity. While Margarrete’s goal was to raise kids that were “honest, humble, and hardworking” my mom just wishes that I’m respectful of my elders, and don’t cause any trouble for anybody. But then again, they are constantly telling me about their grand retirement plans and grand houses, sponsed by me, of course. But it seems that parents lowered their standard, possibly to set a wall for themselves in case their child fails to exceed all others. So wanting their children to be honest, humble, hardworking or respectful is just the minimal- the very basic construct of the child. Meanwhile, wanting the nice house with the koi ponds is their hope. It’s not that parents do not want their children to achieve excellence, and reap their childrens excellence, it’s that they’d rather not be disappointed when it does not actually happen.
Similar to Margarrete, my parents seem to be settling for mediocrity. While Margarrete’s goal was to raise kids that were “honest, humble, and hardworking” my mom just wishes that I’m respectful of my elders, and don’t cause any trouble for anybody. But then again, they are constantly telling me about their grand retirement plans and grand houses, sponsed by me, of course. But it seems that parents lowered their standard, possibly to set a wall for themselves in case their child fails to exceed all others. So wanting their children to be honest, humble, hardworking or respectful is just the minimal- the very basic construct of the child. Meanwhile, wanting the nice house with the koi ponds is their hope. It’s not that parents do not want their children to achieve excellence, and reap their childrens excellence, it’s that they’d rather not be disappointed when it does not actually happen.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Parenting 101 [HW #57]
[Part I]
What were the best parts of how you were parented (since the worst parts don't really belong in a public class blog)
I think the best parts of how I was parented was the fact that my parents treated me as an (at least, when it came to intellectual discussions- not so much about me taking care of myself and cooking for myself). They would usually want to talk to me about their ideas, but usually those talks turn into arguments, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We would talk about our interpretation of the people we know or people we see. And despite knowing that I know very little about artifacts and jade, my parents would always give me something and tell me what I feel about it, or determine whether or not it’s fake. I think that the gesture of starting a discussion with me about a topic that is not: what did you do in school today, allow me to develop some sort of intellect in subjects that I normally wouldn’t learn about. It also gave me the sense that I was an equal with my parents- that despite our age difference, they would still want to hear about what I thought, and that I can still teach them something.
How should kids be parented?
This question actually ties to the other question about whether children should be treated like adults or like puppies. And I think that there needs to be a balance, just like most other things in life. As a child, we all need some sort of guidance; we all need to understand what's the before we develop our own way of playing it. And rather than having a child run in circles for the first however many odd years of his/her life, trying to figure out the basics, he/she could be learning it directly from his/her parents or guardians. However, it is still important to let the child learn on their own, because if everything was spoon-fed to them, it would hold no meaning to the child. And if we were taught everything, and were guided every step of the way, there would never be any advancements. It would just be a repetition of the same generation, with 1 or more different looking people replacing the people of the previous generation.
These two opposing methods remind me of quote from Bruce Lee, which may not be directly pertinent:"I mean here is natural instinct and here is control. You are to combine the two in harmony. Not--if you have one to the extreme, you'll be very unscientific. If you have another to the extreme, you become, all of a sudden, a mechanical man- no longer a human being. So it is a successful combination of both, so therefore, it's not pure naturalness, or unnaturalness. The ideal is unnatural naturalness, or natural unnaturalness." In terms of raising a child, the "natural instinct" would be the child's own ability to learn and figure stuff out, meanwhile "control" is strictly all-parenting. But as Bruce Lee says, if we were to rely on solely on our natural instincts to interpret the world, we would be unscientific- things would become more random, and less predictable. And if we were to rely on control, we would become a "mechanical man"- just robots whose output is the same as the input. So perhaps, it would be good to have a balance, to have some structure but still have for the child's own more-random development.
[Part II]
Re: When Parenting Theories Backfire
This story is the typical case where the parents spoil the child(ren), and empower them to the point that it takes away from their authority. This type of scenario also ties back to one of the questions in part one, asking whether kids should be treated as adults or as pets. Clearly, in this case treating a child too much like an has it's flaws. By giving children choices, the parents are treating them as an equal. And all of this makes me wonder why is it that age defines superiority and sub ordinance, because it does for many cases in our culture. It's interesting how my first reaction to when the mom said "You can have the red cup or the green cup. You choose." or "You can wear blue pants or tan pants to church. You choose." I thought that she was being considerate and was being a cool parent by not bossing the child around. But when the child said "MOM! CHOOSE ONE! WATCH TV OR STAY UP LATE! YOU CHOOOOOOSE!!!" I thought that the kid was a brat. I immediately sympathized with the parents, because they had the role to say what they did. Meanwhile, the child was thought to be "out of lines." Looking at this with a parenting aspect, I would say that children are expected to subordinate to the parents, and grateful if they come anywhere close to equality. But if they get too close, they would be perceived as a spoiled brat, who was raised improperly.
I found a few of the comments to this post quite interesting. Most, if not all of the comments involved the person finding this type of situation funny and "LOL"-worthy (with the cap locks). It just seems like people see parenting as an extracurricular activity, and if a person fails at it, it's just something to find humor in. The comment that I found most interesting was: "Oh my! That just sounds like so much fun... I think I wanna try it!" Apparently, parenting is "fun" and is something to try. Not many people seem to take it seriously, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Another thing that I found interesting is the reason that the parent might want to publish this online for the world to read about. It may be that she wanted to share her experiences so that people won't make the same mistake, or rather follow the same path that would lead to similar results. But it seems to me that she is trying more to get sympathy for her, and have people tell her that her kids are wrong in doing what they're doing. "Jack: (quietly sneaks away without saying a , waits until I'm not looking, then gets milk whenever the heck he wants it)."- Just in this one sentence, it seems she's a victim in this relationship, being that she's portraying herself as being betrayed by her son ("waits until I'm not looking") and her son as the perpetrator ("whenever the heck he wants it"- emphasis on the heck). So one insight that I got from this is that: when the kids turn out well, the parents will glorify their kids, as it would glorify them as their parents and people playing their roles. But if the kids turn out spoiled, it is common that the parents would look for sympathy, and make themselves look like the victim of the situation- even though they're the creator (if not creator, then influence) of the situation.
Re: WHAT ATTACHMENT PARENTING IS- THE 7 B’S
It would make sense that each of these 7 B’s would promote a bond between a parent and a child. Each of these all go towards making the child seem like he/she is the most important person in the parent’s world. Many of us view a close child-parent relationship as something great or “beautiful.” But there is of course the argument that the child might get too attached, and thus unprepared for the outside world. In psychology, the liberation between a child from his/her parent is considered one of the most painful, but necessary phases in life. So although, it is good to be attached to our parents, being too attached may not be a good thing. This balance in a child-parent relationship is one example of autonomy versus fushion. Although we want to become one with our parents, as we once were with both of our parents, and connect with them, we don’t want to be dependent on them our whole lives. It is in our paths (our as in most Americans) to eventually branch away from our parents, but still remain connected.
What were the best parts of how you were parented (since the worst parts don't really belong in a public class blog)
I think the best parts of how I was parented was the fact that my parents treated me as an (at least, when it came to intellectual discussions- not so much about me taking care of myself and cooking for myself). They would usually want to talk to me about their ideas, but usually those talks turn into arguments, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We would talk about our interpretation of the people we know or people we see. And despite knowing that I know very little about artifacts and jade, my parents would always give me something and tell me what I feel about it, or determine whether or not it’s fake. I think that the gesture of starting a discussion with me about a topic that is not: what did you do in school today, allow me to develop some sort of intellect in subjects that I normally wouldn’t learn about. It also gave me the sense that I was an equal with my parents- that despite our age difference, they would still want to hear about what I thought, and that I can still teach them something.
How should kids be parented?
This question actually ties to the other question about whether children should be treated like adults or like puppies. And I think that there needs to be a balance, just like most other things in life. As a child, we all need some sort of guidance; we all need to understand what's the before we develop our own way of playing it. And rather than having a child run in circles for the first however many odd years of his/her life, trying to figure out the basics, he/she could be learning it directly from his/her parents or guardians. However, it is still important to let the child learn on their own, because if everything was spoon-fed to them, it would hold no meaning to the child. And if we were taught everything, and were guided every step of the way, there would never be any advancements. It would just be a repetition of the same generation, with 1 or more different looking people replacing the people of the previous generation.
These two opposing methods remind me of quote from Bruce Lee, which may not be directly pertinent:"I mean here is natural instinct and here is control. You are to combine the two in harmony. Not--if you have one to the extreme, you'll be very unscientific. If you have another to the extreme, you become, all of a sudden, a mechanical man- no longer a human being. So it is a successful combination of both, so therefore, it's not pure naturalness, or unnaturalness. The ideal is unnatural naturalness, or natural unnaturalness." In terms of raising a child, the "natural instinct" would be the child's own ability to learn and figure stuff out, meanwhile "control" is strictly all-parenting. But as Bruce Lee says, if we were to rely on solely on our natural instincts to interpret the world, we would be unscientific- things would become more random, and less predictable. And if we were to rely on control, we would become a "mechanical man"- just robots whose output is the same as the input. So perhaps, it would be good to have a balance, to have some structure but still have for the child's own more-random development.
[Part II]
Re: When Parenting Theories Backfire
This story is the typical case where the parents spoil the child(ren), and empower them to the point that it takes away from their authority. This type of scenario also ties back to one of the questions in part one, asking whether kids should be treated as adults or as pets. Clearly, in this case treating a child too much like an has it's flaws. By giving children choices, the parents are treating them as an equal. And all of this makes me wonder why is it that age defines superiority and sub ordinance, because it does for many cases in our culture. It's interesting how my first reaction to when the mom said "You can have the red cup or the green cup. You choose." or "You can wear blue pants or tan pants to church. You choose." I thought that she was being considerate and was being a cool parent by not bossing the child around. But when the child said "MOM! CHOOSE ONE! WATCH TV OR STAY UP LATE! YOU CHOOOOOOSE!!!" I thought that the kid was a brat. I immediately sympathized with the parents, because they had the role to say what they did. Meanwhile, the child was thought to be "out of lines." Looking at this with a parenting aspect, I would say that children are expected to subordinate to the parents, and grateful if they come anywhere close to equality. But if they get too close, they would be perceived as a spoiled brat, who was raised improperly.
I found a few of the comments to this post quite interesting. Most, if not all of the comments involved the person finding this type of situation funny and "LOL"-worthy (with the cap locks). It just seems like people see parenting as an extracurricular activity, and if a person fails at it, it's just something to find humor in. The comment that I found most interesting was: "Oh my! That just sounds like so much fun... I think I wanna try it!" Apparently, parenting is "fun" and is something to try. Not many people seem to take it seriously, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Another thing that I found interesting is the reason that the parent might want to publish this online for the world to read about. It may be that she wanted to share her experiences so that people won't make the same mistake, or rather follow the same path that would lead to similar results. But it seems to me that she is trying more to get sympathy for her, and have people tell her that her kids are wrong in doing what they're doing. "Jack: (quietly sneaks away without saying a , waits until I'm not looking, then gets milk whenever the heck he wants it)."- Just in this one sentence, it seems she's a victim in this relationship, being that she's portraying herself as being betrayed by her son ("waits until I'm not looking") and her son as the perpetrator ("whenever the heck he wants it"- emphasis on the heck). So one insight that I got from this is that: when the kids turn out well, the parents will glorify their kids, as it would glorify them as their parents and people playing their roles. But if the kids turn out spoiled, it is common that the parents would look for sympathy, and make themselves look like the victim of the situation- even though they're the creator (if not creator, then influence) of the situation.
Re: WHAT ATTACHMENT PARENTING IS- THE 7 B’S
It would make sense that each of these 7 B’s would promote a bond between a parent and a child. Each of these all go towards making the child seem like he/she is the most important person in the parent’s world. Many of us view a close child-parent relationship as something great or “beautiful.” But there is of course the argument that the child might get too attached, and thus unprepared for the outside world. In psychology, the liberation between a child from his/her parent is considered one of the most painful, but necessary phases in life. So although, it is good to be attached to our parents, being too attached may not be a good thing. This balance in a child-parent relationship is one example of autonomy versus fushion. Although we want to become one with our parents, as we once were with both of our parents, and connect with them, we don’t want to be dependent on them our whole lives. It is in our paths (our as in most Americans) to eventually branch away from our parents, but still remain connected.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Interviews & Survey Question [HW #56]
[Part I]
1. Do you have particular character(s) from TV/books/movies that you look up to? If so, who and why? [Ask for description of character]
2. How has that character affected you?
3. Describe your interaction/relationship [with a similar situation/person in life] Do you find it similar to your character's approach to them.
4. Do you frequently update your status (on AIM, Facebook, Twitter, etc.)? How often?
[Part II]
Interview #1
1. Yes, there are particular characters from TV/books that I look up to, generally the characters that are similar to myself, sort of the "nice and quiet" character. For example, in the movie, 27 dresses, she is the bridesmaid, the one most of her friends would turn to when they need help. I look up to her because she was able to help herself in the end instead of constantly putting others before herself.
2. This character affects me because it allows me to consider ways to overcome my own similar situation.
3. My interaction with a similar situation to the character in 27 dresses, is that I find a way to allow my helping others to help me as well. I take an optimist outlook on how being there for others is a benefit to me.
4. I update my statuses every couple days roughly.
Interview #2:
1. Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. She was very driven and stubborn and did everything her way without caring about right or wrong. She had a certain vibe to her that seemed so irresistible. I think she was the type of character that just like the river flow. She didn't really concern others in her impulsive actions she just got up and said "Lets go!" I liked her because she's not quite the character I am. I mean I try to be sometimes, I try not to care. But its not like I'm the where people don't actually care-- I have parents who do. So doing something impulsively is not something people look up at but look down upon.
2. I'm sure I've seen many actors play this character but this in particular caught my eye. They've affected me through my thoughts. Every once in a while I always think, "Hey, what would she do in this situation?" I often wish she were controlling my minds. I tend to care way to much than I need to.
3. She is the life of the party, what ever party it may be. I think we both share the same love for children. I believe we are both very loving people. She is just more charismatic than I will ever be.
4. Not so often. Tumblr. like 1 hour a day.
Interview #3:
1. Yea, of course I have people I admire. One person I admire is Kai Greene. I admire and respect them because they posses what I do not have, whether it be personality, physical appearance, money, etc. They are the people that I think if I became more like them I’d be closer to being a complete package. I see my own faults and these people that I admire are people with my faults as their strong point.
2. For the past year I’ve been striving to strengthening my faults by observing and “learning from” these characters I admire. I watch them, I try to act like them, fuse with them if you will on a non-face to face level. When I stop trying to be them maybe a part of them will un-fuse with me, I hope..
3. My day would sometimes be nothing but thinking about my meals and my work out. Kai Greene describes working out as a type of meditation, where all you concentrate on is the contraction of the muscle. During my workout or before I would try to clear my mind of all things and only focus on the contraction of the muscle. Granted I’ve been working out incorrectly for 11 months now, this one month where I’ve had time to research I’ve gained significantly more weight by following Kai Greene in terms of nutrition and working on clearing the mind before working out and before I go to sleep every night.
4. No, once a month maybe for Aim only.
Interview #4:
1. I look up to a character named Cloud Strife. His motivation to live on and fight is to find a meaning in life because his rival and coincidentally blood brother call him a puppet that is used by people. I want to find the meaning in my life as well so I look up to his way of approaching life and try to make the best out of it in any way possible.
2. Cloud has given me an alias for what I can be seen as in the virtual internet world. It allows me to say anything I want and be unaffected by what people think about me because no one would really know me. In reality I feel that my thoughts are overshadowed by his. But they do not change any of my actions.
3. With the same type of Cloud character people, they are quiet and don’t say much about themselves directly. Talking to them is very tedious but I think it’s worthwhile because I get to see what the person is really like through they’re few words better than someone who talks a lot.
4. I update my status depending on what I’m thinking about. Though sometimes I over look the fact that I even have a status, so I’d say I change around 3-4 times a week
[Part III]
It seems that of the people I interviewed, everyone has a fictional character that they look up to. And based on my own relationship with those people, and my knowledge of the characters that they said, it seems like each person is imitating that character quite well; at least, he/she is interpreting that character quite well. So with that, I think that we do create identities through the characters that we watch or read about. They give us a mold, which we use to determine how we act and interact. That is what question #3 is trying to reveal. For example, for interviewee #2, it seems that he/she loves to be with children, which is similar to his/her character. So based on his/her character, and the influence of his/her character, she chooses to interact with different people, in this case, children.
And for the last question about the status-updates, many people said it was irrelevant, but to me, status-updates are people’s ways of broadcasting themselves, in the same way that certain characters are projected through books/movies/TV. So by asking that, I could see how often people have the urge to put themselves out there. But being that I’m friends with all of these interviewees, and I have them as buddies on AIM/Facebook, I can tell that some/most of these interviewees understated the frequency of their status updates. And I’m not too certain about what this means, but I think it’s people’s denial of how hard they might try to create an identity. They want other people believe that they’re effortlessly “being themselves.” I’m still a bit unclear about how this might directly connect to my focus, but I thought that it would be interesting to see what people say, and how it compares to the actuality.
[Part IV]
I know the type of person that I want to become.
1. Do you have particular character(s) from TV/books/movies that you look up to? If so, who and why? [Ask for description of character]
2. How has that character affected you?
3. Describe your interaction/relationship [with a similar situation/person in life] Do you find it similar to your character's approach to them.
4. Do you frequently update your status (on AIM, Facebook, Twitter, etc.)? How often?
[Part II]
Interview #1
1. Yes, there are particular characters from TV/books that I look up to, generally the characters that are similar to myself, sort of the "nice and quiet" character. For example, in the movie, 27 dresses, she is the bridesmaid, the one most of her friends would turn to when they need help. I look up to her because she was able to help herself in the end instead of constantly putting others before herself.
2. This character affects me because it allows me to consider ways to overcome my own similar situation.
3. My interaction with a similar situation to the character in 27 dresses, is that I find a way to allow my helping others to help me as well. I take an optimist outlook on how being there for others is a benefit to me.
4. I update my statuses every couple days roughly.
Interview #2:
1. Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. She was very driven and stubborn and did everything her way without caring about right or wrong. She had a certain vibe to her that seemed so irresistible. I think she was the type of character that just like the river flow. She didn't really concern others in her impulsive actions she just got up and said "Lets go!" I liked her because she's not quite the character I am. I mean I try to be sometimes, I try not to care. But its not like I'm the where people don't actually care-- I have parents who do. So doing something impulsively is not something people look up at but look down upon.
2. I'm sure I've seen many actors play this character but this in particular caught my eye. They've affected me through my thoughts. Every once in a while I always think, "Hey, what would she do in this situation?" I often wish she were controlling my minds. I tend to care way to much than I need to.
3. She is the life of the party, what ever party it may be. I think we both share the same love for children. I believe we are both very loving people. She is just more charismatic than I will ever be.
4. Not so often. Tumblr. like 1 hour a day.
Interview #3:
1. Yea, of course I have people I admire. One person I admire is Kai Greene. I admire and respect them because they posses what I do not have, whether it be personality, physical appearance, money, etc. They are the people that I think if I became more like them I’d be closer to being a complete package. I see my own faults and these people that I admire are people with my faults as their strong point.
2. For the past year I’ve been striving to strengthening my faults by observing and “learning from” these characters I admire. I watch them, I try to act like them, fuse with them if you will on a non-face to face level. When I stop trying to be them maybe a part of them will un-fuse with me, I hope..
3. My day would sometimes be nothing but thinking about my meals and my work out. Kai Greene describes working out as a type of meditation, where all you concentrate on is the contraction of the muscle. During my workout or before I would try to clear my mind of all things and only focus on the contraction of the muscle. Granted I’ve been working out incorrectly for 11 months now, this one month where I’ve had time to research I’ve gained significantly more weight by following Kai Greene in terms of nutrition and working on clearing the mind before working out and before I go to sleep every night.
4. No, once a month maybe for Aim only.
Interview #4:
1. I look up to a character named Cloud Strife. His motivation to live on and fight is to find a meaning in life because his rival and coincidentally blood brother call him a puppet that is used by people. I want to find the meaning in my life as well so I look up to his way of approaching life and try to make the best out of it in any way possible.
2. Cloud has given me an alias for what I can be seen as in the virtual internet world. It allows me to say anything I want and be unaffected by what people think about me because no one would really know me. In reality I feel that my thoughts are overshadowed by his. But they do not change any of my actions.
3. With the same type of Cloud character people, they are quiet and don’t say much about themselves directly. Talking to them is very tedious but I think it’s worthwhile because I get to see what the person is really like through they’re few words better than someone who talks a lot.
4. I update my status depending on what I’m thinking about. Though sometimes I over look the fact that I even have a status, so I’d say I change around 3-4 times a week
[Part III]
It seems that of the people I interviewed, everyone has a fictional character that they look up to. And based on my own relationship with those people, and my knowledge of the characters that they said, it seems like each person is imitating that character quite well; at least, he/she is interpreting that character quite well. So with that, I think that we do create identities through the characters that we watch or read about. They give us a mold, which we use to determine how we act and interact. That is what question #3 is trying to reveal. For example, for interviewee #2, it seems that he/she loves to be with children, which is similar to his/her character. So based on his/her character, and the influence of his/her character, she chooses to interact with different people, in this case, children.
And for the last question about the status-updates, many people said it was irrelevant, but to me, status-updates are people’s ways of broadcasting themselves, in the same way that certain characters are projected through books/movies/TV. So by asking that, I could see how often people have the urge to put themselves out there. But being that I’m friends with all of these interviewees, and I have them as buddies on AIM/Facebook, I can tell that some/most of these interviewees understated the frequency of their status updates. And I’m not too certain about what this means, but I think it’s people’s denial of how hard they might try to create an identity. They want other people believe that they’re effortlessly “being themselves.” I’m still a bit unclear about how this might directly connect to my focus, but I thought that it would be interesting to see what people say, and how it compares to the actuality.
[Part IV]
I know the type of person that I want to become.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
[HW #55]
Part 1:
Do we play our roles in relationships according to what we see in the media? How or how not?
Part 2:
Comment for John's Question- What are the factors that can increase/decrease the intimacy of a friend relationship?:
Right now I think that your question would require a listing response. And I think that there are certainly many factors. So for you question, maybe focus on one or a few factors that you think may increase/decrease the intimacy of a friend relationship, and see whether or not those are true. So in other words? Does ______ change the relationship between two people? And if, how does it change the relationship- increase or decrease the relationship?
Comment for Esther's Question- Does Altruism occur or is everything a disguise to hide our selfishness?:
Hey, I think your question is certainly something worth evaluating. Often times, in conversations people would purposely and subconsciously divert the focus back to themselves. So we have this drive to get ourselves out there- let ourselves be known over the other people. So maybe you can focus on the conversations we have would support or go against your point.
But in terms of the question itself, I think it's very good, in the sense that it's something provable (at least, supportable) and something that plays a role in almost any relationship that we have.
Part 3:
"How Social Media Affects Relationships." ChaCha. Web. 18 May 2010. n style="">http://www.chacha.com/video/273555965/how-social-media-affects-relationships>.
This is a video, where Matt Titus tries to explain how the social media works, and the what-t0-do's and what-not-to-do's. For the most part, Titus is trying to give advice to people who does , or uses any sort of online social network. However, aside from all that, he says one interesting thing: "People sort of build themselves up on Facebook. They make themselves seem a lot more important and a lot more [is] happening than they actually might be. And this woman is buying the fantasy." Like he said, this particular women is "buying the fantasy," which most of us try to live by. We want to know that there's something better, and that there's this set expectation that we have of a good life, or a good social life. But going past the Facebook updates, where does the fantasy come from? People may be making up these ideal lives that they would have, but the ideal has to come from somewhere. My guess is that it comes from all the that we watch, the books that we see, the videos that we click on, etc.
Ong, Jessica. "Pornography and Internet Technologies - Effects on Relationships." MC Publication (2004): n. pag. Web. 18 May 2010. style="">http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Pornography_and_Internet_Technologies_-_Effects_on_Relationshipss>.
Jessica Ong briefly talks about the various ways that pornography is harmful and how it can affect any relationship. Of all the points that she made, she had one that pertained to my topic, which is that people go into relationships with the goal of making them sexual relationships. She says that the users' sexual appetites are higher compared to the non-users'. With that, I would assume people that people have different approaches in relationships, based- though not entirely- on their "sexual appetite," which according to Ong, is dependent on whether or not they use pornography.
Kay, David. "Archetypes: What Are They? Can They Be Trusted? Are They Useful?." Research Dimensions (2008): n. pag. Web. 18 May 2010. < http://www.researchdimensions.com/article_12.html >
As the title says, this article explains what archetypes are, and whether or not they're useful. For my focus, it's important to know the common archetypes found in movies, books, whatever. So rather than going through each movie, and identifying each character, we have a general idea of how a character with a certain archetype would most likely act. With that, we can draw a connection between those archetypes (with a few specific examples) to the people in our lives, if not, we can prove Andy L. wrong.
"Archetypes 101." Hero Within (2005): n. pag. Web. 18 May 2010. < http://www.herowithin.com/arch101.html >.
In addition to the previous article, this website goes deeper with archetypes, specifically listing out the typical characters found in movies, and how he/she might act. This site also explains what each character might represent. The author lists out some archetypes being: The innocent, the orphan, the warrior/hero, the altruist, the wanderer, the destroyer, the lover, the creator, the ruler, the magician, the sage and the jester. Yeah...
Do we play our roles in relationships according to what we see in the media? How or how not?
Part 2:
Comment for John's Question- What are the factors that can increase/decrease the intimacy of a friend relationship?:
Right now I think that your question would require a listing response. And I think that there are certainly many factors. So for you question, maybe focus on one or a few factors that you think may increase/decrease the intimacy of a friend relationship, and see whether or not those are true. So in other words? Does ______ change the relationship between two people? And if, how does it change the relationship- increase or decrease the relationship?
Comment for Esther's Question- Does Altruism occur or is everything a disguise to hide our selfishness?:
Hey, I think your question is certainly something worth evaluating. Often times, in conversations people would purposely and subconsciously divert the focus back to themselves. So we have this drive to get ourselves out there- let ourselves be known over the other people. So maybe you can focus on the conversations we have would support or go against your point.
But in terms of the question itself, I think it's very good, in the sense that it's something provable (at least, supportable) and something that plays a role in almost any relationship that we have.
Part 3:
"How Social Media Affects Relationships." ChaCha. Web. 18 May 2010. n style="">http://www.chacha.com/video/273555965/how-social-media-affects-relationships>.
This is a video, where Matt Titus tries to explain how the social media works, and the what-t0-do's and what-not-to-do's. For the most part, Titus is trying to give advice to people who does , or uses any sort of online social network. However, aside from all that, he says one interesting thing: "People sort of build themselves up on Facebook. They make themselves seem a lot more important and a lot more [is] happening than they actually might be. And this woman is buying the fantasy." Like he said, this particular women is "buying the fantasy," which most of us try to live by. We want to know that there's something better, and that there's this set expectation that we have of a good life, or a good social life. But going past the Facebook updates, where does the fantasy come from? People may be making up these ideal lives that they would have, but the ideal has to come from somewhere. My guess is that it comes from all the that we watch, the books that we see, the videos that we click on, etc.
Ong, Jessica. "Pornography and Internet Technologies - Effects on Relationships." MC Publication (2004): n. pag. Web. 18 May 2010. style="">http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Pornography_and_Internet_Technologies_-_Effects_on_Relationshipss>.
Jessica Ong briefly talks about the various ways that pornography is harmful and how it can affect any relationship. Of all the points that she made, she had one that pertained to my topic, which is that people go into relationships with the goal of making them sexual relationships. She says that the users' sexual appetites are higher compared to the non-users'. With that, I would assume people that people have different approaches in relationships, based- though not entirely- on their "sexual appetite," which according to Ong, is dependent on whether or not they use pornography.
Kay, David. "Archetypes: What Are They? Can They Be Trusted? Are They Useful?." Research Dimensions (2008): n. pag. Web. 18 May 2010. < http://www.researchdimensions.com/article_12.html >
As the title says, this article explains what archetypes are, and whether or not they're useful. For my focus, it's important to know the common archetypes found in movies, books, whatever. So rather than going through each movie, and identifying each character, we have a general idea of how a character with a certain archetype would most likely act. With that, we can draw a connection between those archetypes (with a few specific examples) to the people in our lives, if not, we can prove Andy L. wrong.
"Archetypes 101." Hero Within (2005): n. pag. Web. 18 May 2010. < http://www.herowithin.com/arch101.html >.
In addition to the previous article, this website goes deeper with archetypes, specifically listing out the typical characters found in movies, and how he/she might act. This site also explains what each character might represent. The author lists out some archetypes being: The innocent, the orphan, the warrior/hero, the altruist, the wanderer, the destroyer, the lover, the creator, the ruler, the magician, the sage and the jester. Yeah...
Thursday, May 13, 2010
"Your Type is: ISTP." Says You [HW #54]
Introverted (I) 66.67% Extroverted (E) 33.33%
Sensing (S) 62.16% Intuitive (N) 37.84%
Thinking (T) 51.43% Feeling (F) 48.57%
Perceiving (P) 59.46% Judging (J) 40.54%
ISTP - "Engineer". Values freedom of action and following interests and impulses. Independent, concise in speech, master of tools. 5.4% of total population.
Hearing and seeing all my classmates doing these personality tests, and getting overly excited (and loud) about them, I was very reluctant to taking the test myself. I was never appealed by the idea of being judged from some formulated program, and telling me who I was based on a few questions, restricted by five answer choices. Anyways, I did not find it to be accurate. The test labeled me as an ISTP, which is associated with “Engineer.” Based on their description of ISTP/Engineer, it seems like anybody is this type is some cold-hearted, indifferent, anti-social asshole who views everyone as somebody to use, as he/she is “master of tools” (what a nice way of calling somebody a user). It also said that these people dislike careers in either arts or teaching, but they are all jobs that I have considered in my life. And of the ones that they said ISTPs would favor, I have always said that they were jobs I would never get into, as they appeal to me as boring, and something that does not allow much expression. I think that it might partially be true for me, at least the anti-social part. But for the percentages, I can’t say much about them because I’m not sure what the number really means. Does it just mean that I spend more time doing one over the other? But I feel as though in each of the categories (i.e. Introverted vs Extroverted, Sensing vs. Intuitive, Thinking vs. Feeling, and Peceiving vs. Judging), both of the options are intertwined in each other. Introverted-Extroverted- your comfort with your outer, social environment depends on how comfortable with yourself, as the way you view yourself is dependent on how other people view you. Sensing-Intuitive- sensing is part of our instincts; it is in our nature to observe and to draw connections. Meanwhile our instincts develop base on what we sensed overtime. Thinking-Feeling- fink and theel, enough said. Perceiving-Judging- we judge base on what we perceive, and we perceive with the basis of previous judgments that were made, based on previous perceptions. With that being said, I’m not sure if this test has any accurate meaning to my life. It provides with the experience with taking one of these tests and getting inaccurate results. But I guess that I could be the one who is wrong here. Maybe I am just denying who I am, or that I haven’t introspect enough to know about my underlying personality, or my unconscious thoughts. Although I have to say- just to help out my case that I know more about myself than this test- at least, that the test is less accurate than I am- that during the test my initial response to a lot of the questions was 3. However, I felt a need to pick a side, and so I picked either 2’s or 4’s for a lot of them, keeping a few 3’s around. But I’m guessing that if I could even pick a 2 or a 4 for whatever question, it would show something about who I am.
Looking at all the labels given to my friends and my associates, it seems that I engage in relationships not because I want to “maximize compatibility” but more because I want to “appreciate difference.” Most of the people I hang out with have a good balance within each category, at least a better balance than mine. And for me, that is something I would want to achieve. In addition, one of my friends had the description of: “‘Architect’. Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population,” which is also something that I would want as my identity make-up. So with that, I guess I associate myself with certain people because I want to be like them. I want to adopt their personality, and their ways of doing things. And so by having a relationship with them (i.e. friendships, acquaintances, etc.) I can learn from them, and be influenced by them, as I work towards the type of person that I want to become.
Sensing (S) 62.16% Intuitive (N) 37.84%
Thinking (T) 51.43% Feeling (F) 48.57%
Perceiving (P) 59.46% Judging (J) 40.54%
ISTP - "Engineer". Values freedom of action and following interests and impulses. Independent, concise in speech, master of tools. 5.4% of total population.
Hearing and seeing all my classmates doing these personality tests, and getting overly excited (and loud) about them, I was very reluctant to taking the test myself. I was never appealed by the idea of being judged from some formulated program, and telling me who I was based on a few questions, restricted by five answer choices. Anyways, I did not find it to be accurate. The test labeled me as an ISTP, which is associated with “Engineer.” Based on their description of ISTP/Engineer, it seems like anybody is this type is some cold-hearted, indifferent, anti-social asshole who views everyone as somebody to use, as he/she is “master of tools” (what a nice way of calling somebody a user). It also said that these people dislike careers in either arts or teaching, but they are all jobs that I have considered in my life. And of the ones that they said ISTPs would favor, I have always said that they were jobs I would never get into, as they appeal to me as boring, and something that does not allow much expression. I think that it might partially be true for me, at least the anti-social part. But for the percentages, I can’t say much about them because I’m not sure what the number really means. Does it just mean that I spend more time doing one over the other? But I feel as though in each of the categories (i.e. Introverted vs Extroverted, Sensing vs. Intuitive, Thinking vs. Feeling, and Peceiving vs. Judging), both of the options are intertwined in each other. Introverted-Extroverted- your comfort with your outer, social environment depends on how comfortable with yourself, as the way you view yourself is dependent on how other people view you. Sensing-Intuitive- sensing is part of our instincts; it is in our nature to observe and to draw connections. Meanwhile our instincts develop base on what we sensed overtime. Thinking-Feeling- fink and theel, enough said. Perceiving-Judging- we judge base on what we perceive, and we perceive with the basis of previous judgments that were made, based on previous perceptions. With that being said, I’m not sure if this test has any accurate meaning to my life. It provides with the experience with taking one of these tests and getting inaccurate results. But I guess that I could be the one who is wrong here. Maybe I am just denying who I am, or that I haven’t introspect enough to know about my underlying personality, or my unconscious thoughts. Although I have to say- just to help out my case that I know more about myself than this test- at least, that the test is less accurate than I am- that during the test my initial response to a lot of the questions was 3. However, I felt a need to pick a side, and so I picked either 2’s or 4’s for a lot of them, keeping a few 3’s around. But I’m guessing that if I could even pick a 2 or a 4 for whatever question, it would show something about who I am.
Looking at all the labels given to my friends and my associates, it seems that I engage in relationships not because I want to “maximize compatibility” but more because I want to “appreciate difference.” Most of the people I hang out with have a good balance within each category, at least a better balance than mine. And for me, that is something I would want to achieve. In addition, one of my friends had the description of: “‘Architect’. Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population,” which is also something that I would want as my identity make-up. So with that, I guess I associate myself with certain people because I want to be like them. I want to adopt their personality, and their ways of doing things. And so by having a relationship with them (i.e. friendships, acquaintances, etc.) I can learn from them, and be influenced by them, as I work towards the type of person that I want to become.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Initial Theories of Human Relationships [HW #52]
In terms of human relationships, they can broken down into two main categories: familiar relationships, and estranged relationships. Depending on what our relations are with whoever, we can act completely different. When we're at a comfort level with other people, we tend to seek for certain things:
Reassurance- We're constantly looking for people to tell us that we are right- that our sense of the world is correct. Of course, it would be seen as obvious and therefore desperate if we directly ask people, "Hey do you think I'm right when I say____?" for every single thought that we have. We, although not many, like to keep people guessing, and reserve some sort of mystique, and like people to believe that we have a trump card left to reveal, and so we don't do that. Instead, we go to the extreme opposite. We exaggerate in saying all the stuff that we don't believe in, and constantly repeat that opposing view, so that you can lure others into saying our actual thoughts. (e.g. grandparents constantly saying that they're going to die). And it is not only that we're looking for reassurance for our ideas and thoughts, but also we're looking for reassurance for our identities- that there are other people who are similar to us, and are experiencing the same thoughts.
Recognition- This is a fairly common idea: that all people seek for attention. In fact, we touched on this idea during the cool unit. On a day-to-day basis, we live our livings, acting a specific way in order to draw attention from others. By doing so, we have are in other people's lives, and therefore have a place in the world, and sense of importance- a sense that we matter in life. But of course, there are different levels for this desire. There are people who are content with the attention they get from their families and friends. Meanwhile, there are even more people who feel as though they need to broadcast themselves, so that even the strangers in their lives know who they are, and so that the strangers can possibly become a friend and/or more. The typical approach to attaining such attention is to be as loud as possible, and as obvious as possible. There are people who constantly shouts out the words "I" or "me" in attempt for others to know about them. And for some people, they would view this as "cute" or "funny," while others view it as annoying. But regardless, such attempts will certainly give them a slot in people's lives, whether that people one of "the person who are filled with joy" or "the person who is loud and obnoxious."
Empowerment through Familiarity- This is the type of feeling that we get/have gotten as a child when people say something that we can connect to/relate to. This connects to the first point about reassurance. We look for people who agrees with us, not only because we want to know that we're right but also because this common ground would create this family outside our biological family. It creates this clan for us, that would possibly back us up whenever it's needed. Because if someone were to attack you, it would be attacking the whole clan, being that it is one consisted of people with similar views.
Blame Game- Sometimes when we get too familiar with people, we tend to take advantage of them. We use them as a ventilation system for whenever something goes wrong. If anything, involving 2 or more people including yourself, were to go wrong, we often point fingers as a response. By placing the blame on other people, we distract ourselves from the failure that we're all part of. We can momentarily play the game of who's fault it is. And rather than persisting to solve the issue, we divert ourselves to this new issue of who's to blame. By doing so, we are able to place the spotlight of this horrible act onto someone that is not you. But also, we do this as a way to create this fantasy that we have this card in our back pockets. We blame others so that we can lie to ourselves, that we could do better if not for this burden.
For those we do not interact with on a daily basis or know well, we interact with them in a completely different manner.
Enhanced versions who we want to be and not who we are- In a world where there are no ties and nobody to know you well enough to blow off your cover, we can act however we want. The subways, the streets, the restaurants, wherever are the the perfect stage for us to be what we could never people with the people that we know now.
Minimal Interaction- Aside from putting on this (cool) pose, we try to interact with strangers as little as possible. We have a fear of being judged or criticized. We already have to deal with enough people as it is, with our lives and the people in it currently, we wouldn't want to have more people judging us. (Although that does contradict with our desire for attention, but I guess we're always filtering out the people, usually determined by looks, who are worth the risk and who aren't). This fear is one of the reasons why we, at least most of us, need some sort of distractions when we're outside, on the trains or whatever (e.g. iPods, newspaper, books, DRDs, company of an associate). We don't want to risk meeting eyes with someone on the train, and then awkwardly divert them and pretend to be watching something else. However, we are more likely to interact with other people if we are with those we are familiar with, for that there's a sense of backup if anything goes wrong.
Reassurance- We're constantly looking for people to tell us that we are right- that our sense of the world is correct. Of course, it would be seen as obvious and therefore desperate if we directly ask people, "Hey do you think I'm right when I say____?" for every single thought that we have. We, although not many, like to keep people guessing, and reserve some sort of mystique, and like people to believe that we have a trump card left to reveal, and so we don't do that. Instead, we go to the extreme opposite. We exaggerate in saying all the stuff that we don't believe in, and constantly repeat that opposing view, so that you can lure others into saying our actual thoughts. (e.g. grandparents constantly saying that they're going to die). And it is not only that we're looking for reassurance for our ideas and thoughts, but also we're looking for reassurance for our identities- that there are other people who are similar to us, and are experiencing the same thoughts.
Recognition- This is a fairly common idea: that all people seek for attention. In fact, we touched on this idea during the cool unit. On a day-to-day basis, we live our livings, acting a specific way in order to draw attention from others. By doing so, we have are in other people's lives, and therefore have a place in the world, and sense of importance- a sense that we matter in life. But of course, there are different levels for this desire. There are people who are content with the attention they get from their families and friends. Meanwhile, there are even more people who feel as though they need to broadcast themselves, so that even the strangers in their lives know who they are, and so that the strangers can possibly become a friend and/or more. The typical approach to attaining such attention is to be as loud as possible, and as obvious as possible. There are people who constantly shouts out the words "I" or "me" in attempt for others to know about them. And for some people, they would view this as "cute" or "funny," while others view it as annoying. But regardless, such attempts will certainly give them a slot in people's lives, whether that people one of "the person who are filled with joy" or "the person who is loud and obnoxious."
Empowerment through Familiarity- This is the type of feeling that we get/have gotten as a child when people say something that we can connect to/relate to. This connects to the first point about reassurance. We look for people who agrees with us, not only because we want to know that we're right but also because this common ground would create this family outside our biological family. It creates this clan for us, that would possibly back us up whenever it's needed. Because if someone were to attack you, it would be attacking the whole clan, being that it is one consisted of people with similar views.
Blame Game- Sometimes when we get too familiar with people, we tend to take advantage of them. We use them as a ventilation system for whenever something goes wrong. If anything, involving 2 or more people including yourself, were to go wrong, we often point fingers as a response. By placing the blame on other people, we distract ourselves from the failure that we're all part of. We can momentarily play the game of who's fault it is. And rather than persisting to solve the issue, we divert ourselves to this new issue of who's to blame. By doing so, we are able to place the spotlight of this horrible act onto someone that is not you. But also, we do this as a way to create this fantasy that we have this card in our back pockets. We blame others so that we can lie to ourselves, that we could do better if not for this burden.
For those we do not interact with on a daily basis or know well, we interact with them in a completely different manner.
Enhanced versions who we want to be and not who we are- In a world where there are no ties and nobody to know you well enough to blow off your cover, we can act however we want. The subways, the streets, the restaurants, wherever are the the perfect stage for us to be what we could never people with the people that we know now.
Minimal Interaction- Aside from putting on this (cool) pose, we try to interact with strangers as little as possible. We have a fear of being judged or criticized. We already have to deal with enough people as it is, with our lives and the people in it currently, we wouldn't want to have more people judging us. (Although that does contradict with our desire for attention, but I guess we're always filtering out the people, usually determined by looks, who are worth the risk and who aren't). This fear is one of the reasons why we, at least most of us, need some sort of distractions when we're outside, on the trains or whatever (e.g. iPods, newspaper, books, DRDs, company of an associate). We don't want to risk meeting eyes with someone on the train, and then awkwardly divert them and pretend to be watching something else. However, we are more likely to interact with other people if we are with those we are familiar with, for that there's a sense of backup if anything goes wrong.
Monday, May 3, 2010
[HW #51- Draft]
Introduction:
In the Cool unit, one of the conclusions that we made was that we all conform in one way or another. Although, we may not follow the dominant American Way of Life, we all live in our own subcategories that we share with other people. We all conform in our own cliques. But regardless of what clique we are part of, a vast majority of us follow one path- the path that leads us from infantry to school to career to retirement to death. Being that many of us live this life, it would important to understand why we live this life. Magnifying onto the school aspect, we see that there are many options given to us, even though they are there. We have the mentality that institutional schooling is the only way that we can succeed, because that is the only option that others provide for us. However, evaluating our current schooling situation and really looking into our experience in school, as opposed to passive acceptance, causes for some reconsideration of this path. And perhaps school is something that we should escape, as we approach other sources of education.
Unschooling is another alternative to education; one that centers around "allowing children to learn through their natural life experiences, including child directed play, play, household responsibilities, and social interaction, rather than through the confines of a conventional school." The whole idea of unschooling is that the traditional schools with teachers and professors do not work because of mainly three reasons:
Amongst the alternatives mentioned thus far, youth work is the most similar to our educational system now. Rather than changing the learning process as a whole, youth work just changes the focal point. This method would still take place in a school with an authority figure, but rather than concentrating on letting the students know what they need to know for the next level, youth work tries to emphasize "focusing on young people," "volunteer participation and relationship," "committing to association," "being friendly and informal, and acting with integrity," and "being concerned with the education and more broadly, the welfare of young people."
Although there are all these options that are available, many of us follow the path in which school is involved- a path which we did not choose. I don’t remember ever given the choice; whether I wanted to go to school, or become and automath, or do unschooling . From my experience, schooling seems to be “the” path- the right path. It is a default in our society, but the default settings aren’t always the preferable setting. So why is that? Of the people I know, a great majority are unsatisfied with their school experience. But if schools are supposedly for the students, then why is it such a nuisance in our eyes?
Argument #1: Breeding Robot Sheep
Following the same routine over and over, our lives have become countless repetitions of the same day with occasional twists. We run through the same cycles on a daily basis, going through one rectangular hole to another to stare and fill blank stripped pieces of paper. School has become (or always was) this institution that goes through the same process everyday, similar to a factory. And as schools are the factories, we the students are the commodities.
“Using school as a sorting mechanism we appear to be on the way to creating a caste system, complete with untouchables who wander through subway trains begging and sleep on the streets.” Gatto’s point is that schooling and education are not the same. The whole point of schools, according to Gatto is that they convert humans into obedient robots that will follow the system, and the path that the system sets out for us. “The truth is that school don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders.” By going to school, we learn that we’re in a position where there are rankings, and that we are to be subordinate to those who are “higher” than us (e.g. teachers). This arrangement gives us the mentality that we are all followers, hardly ever the ones to lead. And to be a leader would a goal we all try to meet. Gatto also makes the point that school is reinforcing homogeneity. Schools conforms us, being that we are all fed the same thing. When we finally attain that conformity and the obedience, we truly become robots.
One very interesting thing, to me at least, is that we think schools are for our education and us. And to some extent it is as we believe because the fact is that we are learning something, regardless of how efficiently we do it or how arbitrary the materials. But I think that being fed those tiny bits, we have a reasoning to stay in school and to let the school do as they wish, which according to Gatto is transform us into these “formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled.” But it’s not that we just follow along, but we passively follow along. The most we do is complain about tiny aspects of the school (e.g. “I hate homework”), but that’s as far as we go in terms of “fighting” the system.” And meanwhile, we are just these tiny sheep that are being herded “from cell to cell at the sound of a gong,” until we just become autonomous sheep, who habitually do what we are told, and follow the same motion that we followed for the majority of our lives.
School is an institutional that dehumanizes us and sets out a path for us. With minimal input, we follow that path, as it is in our perception that it would be the path towards success. However, since it is our lives and our education, shouldn’t we decide on the approach of it? Instead, we are trapped in a routine that requires minimal thinking that prepares us as proletarians. We follow this way of life, created by others. Meanwhile, we could be getting our education through autodidacticism or unschooling, where we would choose our own ways. Rather than being self-directed people, we living a life where we’re sheep being herded, going in whichever direction someone else chooses at whichever pace.
Argument #2: False Sense of Accomplishment
Any student would know that grades is a huge component of schools. We all strive to earn the highest grade we can. The qualification of an elite, or a person who plays his/her role as a student, is that A+ or that 90+ grade on his/her progress report, as they are the indications of somoene being “smart.” So in school, we the students are constantly striving to to get those grades, rather than acquiring knowledge, as those grades have become our definition of success.
In my interviews of family and friends about school, there was an overall motif. Everybody appears to have submitted to our current education system. Not only has everybody accepted it for what it is, but also they're arguing for it. Everyone said something along the lines of: school preparing us for the outside world, and although it may not be completely relevant, the stuff taught in school will create a foundation for us.
Similar to the , “The Class” or “Entre Les Murs,” our situation is one without any resolution. Due to the contradictions in the teacher role, which demands fomality and respect, and the student roles, which often is associated with chaos and attention, it seems like the students and teachers, at least in the films we watched, cannot live in perfect harmony. Being that there are such contradictions, if not for some sort of spark, the students and teachers would continue on playing their roles. And meanwhile, both sides think that they are succeeding, because the job of the teacher is to just go through the material, while the students’ is to listen, or pretend to listen. But just as it is portrayed in “Entre Les Murs,” those issues cannot be ignored. In fact, the whole film is about how the students and the teacher are in a constant brawl to get what they want. And just as it is portrayed in that film, nothing gets solved at the end, and there really are no success stories. Both the teacher and students just go through everyday, pretending like that accomplished their goals, because they did what they had to, and wait until the year is over and can forget about everything.
As Freire says, “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hoping inquiry, human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.” However, he argues that schools aren’t like that at all. There is no “invention and re-invention,” just a lot of depositing. It’s just the teachers filling up students with the stuff that they learned as a student. Society is supposedly growing constantly, with humans becoming smarter and smarter everyday. But how much progress can a student make when they can only be as smart as the teacher that taught him or her on that subject, if that? Even so, how many of us are actually trained to transcend all others and invent/re-invent? It seems like we’re more trained to become proletarians. And rather than training us to expand the knowledge of the world, schools seem to be preparing us to expand the wealth of the wealthy. Meanwhile, the whole time we believe that we’re going to school, becoming smarter so that we can prepare for our future, and have our own success stories. For some, that might be true, but for the rest of us, we’re only enhancing another person’s success story.\ Although I am not sure, since I’ve never tried it, autodidacticism and unschooling may be a path that works towards your own success. There are no grades, so the automath’s perception of success may be the actual experience of learning the the knowledge that is gained. And since there are no binding institutions, the automath isn’t really appealing to anyone but himself/herself.
Argument #3: Hierarchy
Yes, school might be teaching us how to be book smart, and each unit it’s something different. But one skill that schools have us develop over the course of our entire schooling career is the ability to follow orders. Ever since we were three years old, going off to Pre-Kindergarten (and even before that, with our parents), we are taught to submit to authority. We learn to do what we are told, and thus we are prepared for the working class. In school, we are
In the Cool unit, one of the conclusions that we made was that we all conform in one way or another. Although, we may not follow the dominant American Way of Life, we all live in our own subcategories that we share with other people. We all conform in our own cliques. But regardless of what clique we are part of, a vast majority of us follow one path- the path that leads us from infantry to school to career to retirement to death. Being that many of us live this life, it would important to understand why we live this life. Magnifying onto the school aspect, we see that there are many options given to us, even though they are there. We have the mentality that institutional schooling is the only way that we can succeed, because that is the only option that others provide for us. However, evaluating our current schooling situation and really looking into our experience in school, as opposed to passive acceptance, causes for some reconsideration of this path. And perhaps school is something that we should escape, as we approach other sources of education.
Background Info:
As I mentioned before, although many of us follow the life of institutional schooling, there are many other paths that most of us are unaware of. Of the less famous options, some of the more famous options are: autodidacticism, unschooling, youth work, or dropping out/getting GEDs. By definition, autodidacticism is: "is self-education or self-directed learning. An autodidact is a mostly self-taught person, as opposed to learning in a school setting or from a full-time tutor or mentor." Automaths are typically more self-motivated. They learn things on their own and whichever pace they’re comfortable with. However, one of the aspects of autodidacticism, that may be perceived as a flaw, is that autodidacticism is often correlated with isolation. Since automaths learn on their own, using books and the internet as their sources, they would not have an education-based, or commitment-based relationships with people, which most of do. So if they were to eliminate school as their source of education, they would also eliminate a main component of their social network.Unschooling is another alternative to education; one that centers around "allowing children to learn through their natural life experiences, including child directed play, play, household responsibilities, and social interaction, rather than through the confines of a conventional school." The whole idea of unschooling is that the traditional schools with teachers and professors do not work because of mainly three reasons:
- "Children are natural learners."
- "Children do not all learn the same way (or at the same pace)."
- "It is possible to store the mind with a million facts and still be entirely uneducated"
Although there are all these options that are available, many of us follow the path in which school is involved- a path which we did not choose. I don’t remember ever given the choice; whether I wanted to go to school, or become and automath, or do unschooling . From my experience, schooling seems to be “the” path- the right path. It is a default in our society, but the default settings aren’t always the preferable setting. So why is that? Of the people I know, a great majority are unsatisfied with their school experience. But if schools are supposedly for the students, then why is it such a nuisance in our eyes?
Argument #1: Breeding Robot Sheep
Following the same routine over and over, our lives have become countless repetitions of the same day with occasional twists. We run through the same cycles on a daily basis, going through one rectangular hole to another to stare and fill blank stripped pieces of paper. School has become (or always was) this institution that goes through the same process everyday, similar to a factory. And as schools are the factories, we the students are the commodities.
“Using school as a sorting mechanism we appear to be on the way to creating a caste system, complete with untouchables who wander through subway trains begging and sleep on the streets.” Gatto’s point is that schooling and education are not the same. The whole point of schools, according to Gatto is that they convert humans into obedient robots that will follow the system, and the path that the system sets out for us. “The truth is that school don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders.” By going to school, we learn that we’re in a position where there are rankings, and that we are to be subordinate to those who are “higher” than us (e.g. teachers). This arrangement gives us the mentality that we are all followers, hardly ever the ones to lead. And to be a leader would a goal we all try to meet. Gatto also makes the point that school is reinforcing homogeneity. Schools conforms us, being that we are all fed the same thing. When we finally attain that conformity and the obedience, we truly become robots.
One very interesting thing, to me at least, is that we think schools are for our education and us. And to some extent it is as we believe because the fact is that we are learning something, regardless of how efficiently we do it or how arbitrary the materials. But I think that being fed those tiny bits, we have a reasoning to stay in school and to let the school do as they wish, which according to Gatto is transform us into these “formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled.” But it’s not that we just follow along, but we passively follow along. The most we do is complain about tiny aspects of the school (e.g. “I hate homework”), but that’s as far as we go in terms of “fighting” the system.” And meanwhile, we are just these tiny sheep that are being herded “from cell to cell at the sound of a gong,” until we just become autonomous sheep, who habitually do what we are told, and follow the same motion that we followed for the majority of our lives.
School is an institutional that dehumanizes us and sets out a path for us. With minimal input, we follow that path, as it is in our perception that it would be the path towards success. However, since it is our lives and our education, shouldn’t we decide on the approach of it? Instead, we are trapped in a routine that requires minimal thinking that prepares us as proletarians. We follow this way of life, created by others. Meanwhile, we could be getting our education through autodidacticism or unschooling, where we would choose our own ways. Rather than being self-directed people, we living a life where we’re sheep being herded, going in whichever direction someone else chooses at whichever pace.
Argument #2: False Sense of Accomplishment
Any student would know that grades is a huge component of schools. We all strive to earn the highest grade we can. The qualification of an elite, or a person who plays his/her role as a student, is that A+ or that 90+ grade on his/her progress report, as they are the indications of somoene being “smart.” So in school, we the students are constantly striving to to get those grades, rather than acquiring knowledge, as those grades have become our definition of success.
In my interviews of family and friends about school, there was an overall motif. Everybody appears to have submitted to our current education system. Not only has everybody accepted it for what it is, but also they're arguing for it. Everyone said something along the lines of: school preparing us for the outside world, and although it may not be completely relevant, the stuff taught in school will create a foundation for us.
“Who is to say that we most definitely will not need outside of school?... Things may come out in conversations amongst intellectuals... We are learning these things because the government or the school system does not know what paths we are going to take in the future, such as career or lifestyle. Therefore it is always better safe than sorry to learn extra things.” (Lily M.)Being that we are/were students, we want to know that by going to school, we were on the path towards success- that our many years spent in school wasn’t for naught. We’re in school, according to these people, because we’re trying to develop our minds and a sense of the world (in enclosed , with a person talking at us for 55 minutes at a time). “Of course not, because a person may have had a life experience but without thinking about it or knowing the significance behind it its useless.” It seems that we believe our success and our intelligence are dependent on school- that until we earn those A’s or that masters degree, we are simpletons we do not understand our surroundings- that we need this institution to affirm us of our intelligence. Without schools, we would not have grades, and without grades that would nothing for us to acquire- nothing to indicate that we’ve done something with our lives as students.
“We learn about things in order to have an understanding of them. We may not use it in our life directly, but the process of thinking that we gain from learning the stuff that we don't need for survival could help in another way.” (Adam W.)
“It helps us when we are in those certain situations. It sets up a certain standard.” (Amanda Y.)
Similar to the , “The Class” or “Entre Les Murs,” our situation is one without any resolution. Due to the contradictions in the teacher role, which demands fomality and respect, and the student roles, which often is associated with chaos and attention, it seems like the students and teachers, at least in the films we watched, cannot live in perfect harmony. Being that there are such contradictions, if not for some sort of spark, the students and teachers would continue on playing their roles. And meanwhile, both sides think that they are succeeding, because the job of the teacher is to just go through the material, while the students’ is to listen, or pretend to listen. But just as it is portrayed in “Entre Les Murs,” those issues cannot be ignored. In fact, the whole film is about how the students and the teacher are in a constant brawl to get what they want. And just as it is portrayed in that film, nothing gets solved at the end, and there really are no success stories. Both the teacher and students just go through everyday, pretending like that accomplished their goals, because they did what they had to, and wait until the year is over and can forget about everything.
As Freire says, “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hoping inquiry, human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.” However, he argues that schools aren’t like that at all. There is no “invention and re-invention,” just a lot of depositing. It’s just the teachers filling up students with the stuff that they learned as a student. Society is supposedly growing constantly, with humans becoming smarter and smarter everyday. But how much progress can a student make when they can only be as smart as the teacher that taught him or her on that subject, if that? Even so, how many of us are actually trained to transcend all others and invent/re-invent? It seems like we’re more trained to become proletarians. And rather than training us to expand the knowledge of the world, schools seem to be preparing us to expand the wealth of the wealthy. Meanwhile, the whole time we believe that we’re going to school, becoming smarter so that we can prepare for our future, and have our own success stories. For some, that might be true, but for the rest of us, we’re only enhancing another person’s success story.\ Although I am not sure, since I’ve never tried it, autodidacticism and unschooling may be a path that works towards your own success. There are no grades, so the automath’s perception of success may be the actual experience of learning the the knowledge that is gained. And since there are no binding institutions, the automath isn’t really appealing to anyone but himself/herself.
Argument #3: Hierarchy
Yes, school might be teaching us how to be book smart, and each unit it’s something different. But one skill that schools have us develop over the course of our entire schooling career is the ability to follow orders. Ever since we were three years old, going off to Pre-Kindergarten (and even before that, with our parents), we are taught to submit to authority. We learn to do what we are told, and thus we are prepared for the working class. In school, we are
Monday, April 26, 2010
[HW #50]
[John Gatto]: Teacher of the Year Acceptance Speech
“Using school as a sorting mechanism we appear to be on the way to creating a caste system, complete with untouchables who wander through subway trains begging and sleep on the streets.” Gatto’s point is that schooling and education are not the same. The whole point of schools, according to Gatto is that they convert humans into obedient robots that will follow the system, and the path that the system sets out for us. “The truth is that school don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders.” By going to school, we learn that we’re in a position where there are rankings, and that we are to be subordinate to those who are “higher” than us (e.g. teachers). This arrangement gives us the mentality that we are all followers, hardly ever the ones to lead. And to be a leader would a goal we all try to meet. Gatto also makes the point that school is reinforcing homogeneity. Schools conforms us, being that we are all fed the same thing. When we finally attain that conformity and the obedience, we truly become robots.
One very interesting thing, to me at least, is that we think schools are for our education and us. And to some extent it is as we believe because the fact is that we are learning something, regardless of how efficiently we do it or how arbitrary the materials. But I think that being fed those tiny bits, we have a reasoning to stay in school and to let the school do as they wish, which according to Gatto is transform us into these “formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled.” But it’s not that we just follow along, but we passively follow along. The most we do is complain about tiny aspects of the school (e.g. “I hate homework”), but that’s as far as we go in terms of “fighting” the system.” And meanwhile, we are just these tiny sheep that are being herded “from cell to cell at the sound of a gong,” until we just become autonomous sheep, who habitually do what we are told, and follow the same motion that we followed for a good majority of our lives.
[Lisa Delpit]: Power and Pedagogy
Two terms that Delpit emphasized on were “codes” and “culture of power.” Codes are fairly simple. They are the formulas that you need to follow in order to “participate fully in the mainstream of American life.” However in order to do that, you must know the arbitrary rules of the American life, and Delpit argues that school doesn’t help students learn those rules, rather they are forcing students to “attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized subskills.” She argues that the material in school is not pertinent to their outside lives, and therefore that should be changed. And for “culture of power,” Delpit just means the dominant families occupying America- the lifestyle of middle class, white Americans. Delpit also gives a list of the four aspects of power:
It’s clear that Delpit is in favor of the students; in fact she is suggesting that we mold the classes, and not the students. Schools should adjust to the students, and not the other way around. One thing that I also found interesting was when she wrote, “Create situations in which students ultimately find themselves held accountable for knowing a set of rules about which no one has ever directly informed them… Explicitness is not provided to students.” Now I think that it’s important to know the rules and the type of we are playing, but what Delpit is suggesting seems to be a bit like spoon-feeding. Lastly, Delpit finished off with/this excerpt was cut off “Those who are less powerful in any situation are most likely to recognize the power variable most acutely.” This statement kind of explains why, even though our school system doesn’t appeal to the students, our schools are still the way they are. Those with power aren’t likely to notice the power differences (though it is arguable that they do), and therefore wouldn’t want to change anything, since they’re in a position of power and any alteration might that from them. And meanwhile, those without power notice the power differences, but aren’t able to change anything because they are “those without power.”
[Paulo Freire]: Pedagogy of the Oppressed
As Freire says, “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hoping inquiry, human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.” However, he argues that schools aren’t like that at all. There is no “invention and re-invention,” just a lot of depositing. It’s just the teachers filling up students with the stuff that they learned as a student. There is a clear hierarchy within school, where teachers are superior over the students. The teachers are the ones that are seen as more knowledgeable, the ones who talk, decide, “think,” enforces, and dictates. Meanwhile, the students are expected to just sit there, act obedient, and receive whatever is being deposited into them. Similar to the point that Gatto made, students are becoming these unconscious robots that are the perfect tools for society.
I think that it is true people are becoming more and more unconscious. Going back to Gatto’s speech, between the television and schools, students do nothing but receive. Information is just being poured into their system, without much of their input. “The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as the transformers of that world.” Rarely do we, in school, have the opportunity to invent and re-invent anything. We hardly have inputs in our lives, and everything is this one straight path, arranged by some stranger. So when the comes, if ever, we wouldn’t know how to approach a situation filled with the freedom to cause whatever change, and therefore we don’t do anything to change anything. “Indeed, the interests of the oppressor lie in “changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them.” Like I said in the previous response to Delpit’s article, people with power are unwilling to change the situation that they are in, because it might lose their power. So instead, our school system is set up the way they are. Since the age of 3, people go to school and slowly learn to become subordinate. Not only does it give us the mentality that we are less, but also that there is a right answer, but someone else has it. And so we are to listen to those other people.
“Using school as a sorting mechanism we appear to be on the way to creating a caste system, complete with untouchables who wander through subway trains begging and sleep on the streets.” Gatto’s point is that schooling and education are not the same. The whole point of schools, according to Gatto is that they convert humans into obedient robots that will follow the system, and the path that the system sets out for us. “The truth is that school don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders.” By going to school, we learn that we’re in a position where there are rankings, and that we are to be subordinate to those who are “higher” than us (e.g. teachers). This arrangement gives us the mentality that we are all followers, hardly ever the ones to lead. And to be a leader would a goal we all try to meet. Gatto also makes the point that school is reinforcing homogeneity. Schools conforms us, being that we are all fed the same thing. When we finally attain that conformity and the obedience, we truly become robots.
One very interesting thing, to me at least, is that we think schools are for our education and us. And to some extent it is as we believe because the fact is that we are learning something, regardless of how efficiently we do it or how arbitrary the materials. But I think that being fed those tiny bits, we have a reasoning to stay in school and to let the school do as they wish, which according to Gatto is transform us into these “formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled.” But it’s not that we just follow along, but we passively follow along. The most we do is complain about tiny aspects of the school (e.g. “I hate homework”), but that’s as far as we go in terms of “fighting” the system.” And meanwhile, we are just these tiny sheep that are being herded “from cell to cell at the sound of a gong,” until we just become autonomous sheep, who habitually do what we are told, and follow the same motion that we followed for a good majority of our lives.
[Lisa Delpit]: Power and Pedagogy
Two terms that Delpit emphasized on were “codes” and “culture of power.” Codes are fairly simple. They are the formulas that you need to follow in order to “participate fully in the mainstream of American life.” However in order to do that, you must know the arbitrary rules of the American life, and Delpit argues that school doesn’t help students learn those rules, rather they are forcing students to “attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized subskills.” She argues that the material in school is not pertinent to their outside lives, and therefore that should be changed. And for “culture of power,” Delpit just means the dominant families occupying America- the lifestyle of middle class, white Americans. Delpit also gives a list of the four aspects of power:
- Issues of power (Power of one person/group of people over another)
- Culture of power (Codes- presentation of oneself)
- “Institutions…is predicated upon acquisition of the culture of those who are in power.” (Distribution of power to those who are already in power)
- Explicitly being told that one culture is the way of success- at least that way of life is the easier way to achieve power.
[Paulo Freire]: Pedagogy of the Oppressed
As Freire says, “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hoping inquiry, human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.” However, he argues that schools aren’t like that at all. There is no “invention and re-invention,” just a lot of depositing. It’s just the teachers filling up students with the stuff that they learned as a student. There is a clear hierarchy within school, where teachers are superior over the students. The teachers are the ones that are seen as more knowledgeable, the ones who talk, decide, “think,” enforces, and dictates. Meanwhile, the students are expected to just sit there, act obedient, and receive whatever is being deposited into them. Similar to the point that Gatto made, students are becoming these unconscious robots that are the perfect tools for society.
I think that it is true people are becoming more and more unconscious. Going back to Gatto’s speech, between the television and schools, students do nothing but receive. Information is just being poured into their system, without much of their input. “The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as the transformers of that world.” Rarely do we, in school, have the opportunity to invent and re-invent anything. We hardly have inputs in our lives, and everything is this one straight path, arranged by some stranger. So when the comes, if ever, we wouldn’t know how to approach a situation filled with the freedom to cause whatever change, and therefore we don’t do anything to change anything. “Indeed, the interests of the oppressor lie in “changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them.” Like I said in the previous response to Delpit’s article, people with power are unwilling to change the situation that they are in, because it might lose their power. So instead, our school system is set up the way they are. Since the age of 3, people go to school and slowly learn to become subordinate. Not only does it give us the mentality that we are less, but also that there is a right answer, but someone else has it. And so we are to listen to those other people.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
[HW #49]
[a]Personal Contribution
I was and am an extra. Enough said.
[b]Analysis of the Message and Tone
Our class film seem to have portrayed the message of: Reality is, despite what the teacher might say or do, students will remain the same, if not stay similar, at the end of the day.In our film specifically, Mr. C the teacher completely blows off the cover of all the students, and had this moment of revealing to the students why the role they play will get them nowhere. And even with everything said, it only took the students less than half a minute to go back to their roles, neglecting everything that was said. This film showed the audience, especially with the detail of the teacher being an alcoholic, that teachers are not flawless nor are they saviors. In most cases, teachers would just lecture the students; never go above and beyond to "save" the them. That is because the teachers themselves are trying to escape (through sleeping, alcoholism, and leaving the room in this case).
The film displayed a sense of hopelessness, as though all the characters would be doomed even after the film. The teacher would have became an alcoholic, while the students continued to be misfits, and not be well-educated. There was also a sense of indifference in this film. Regardless of what happens, people would do what they do. The students could care less about what the teacher said. Meanwhile, the teacher could care less about what happens to the students, as he is able to easily give up on them after one attempt. Overall, there was an alienated feel between the characters, and I guess that's how school really is; we're all here within the same building, but in terms of who we are as people, the students don't have much say in the teacher's lives, and vice versa.
[c] Contrast the Film With the Savior/Teacher Films
I was and am an extra. Enough said.
[b]Analysis of the Message and Tone
Our class film seem to have portrayed the message of: Reality is, despite what the teacher might say or do, students will remain the same, if not stay similar, at the end of the day.In our film specifically, Mr. C the teacher completely blows off the cover of all the students, and had this moment of revealing to the students why the role they play will get them nowhere. And even with everything said, it only took the students less than half a minute to go back to their roles, neglecting everything that was said. This film showed the audience, especially with the detail of the teacher being an alcoholic, that teachers are not flawless nor are they saviors. In most cases, teachers would just lecture the students; never go above and beyond to "save" the them. That is because the teachers themselves are trying to escape (through sleeping, alcoholism, and leaving the room in this case).
The film displayed a sense of hopelessness, as though all the characters would be doomed even after the film. The teacher would have became an alcoholic, while the students continued to be misfits, and not be well-educated. There was also a sense of indifference in this film. Regardless of what happens, people would do what they do. The students could care less about what the teacher said. Meanwhile, the teacher could care less about what happens to the students, as he is able to easily give up on them after one attempt. Overall, there was an alienated feel between the characters, and I guess that's how school really is; we're all here within the same building, but in terms of who we are as people, the students don't have much say in the teacher's lives, and vice versa.
[c] Contrast the Film With the Savior/Teacher Films
Similar to "Hamlet 2", our film had a flawed teacher, who had alcoholism as one of their his flaws. But aside from that and the carnival aspect, there weren't many other similarities. However, the message of our film was very similar to "The Class" because contrary to most other movies about school, these films had a teacher who were unable to save the students. At the end of the film, nothing was resolved but the day went on, as showed by the students and teacher having fun playing football, even after Souleyman was expelled in "The Class," and the students chatting away after the teacher left in our class film.
[d]Theorize the Connection Between Salvation and Education/Schooling in Our Culture
[d]Theorize the Connection Between Salvation and Education/Schooling in Our Culture
School as training ground. School is supposedly saving us from ignorance and poverty. It prepares us for the "real world," and whoever does the best job preparing would become the most successful. Schools are trying to polish us- to refine us so that we are the perfect contribution to society, however that might be. This is partially true; school is saving us from total ignorance at least. Although school is saving us in this one aspect, it is trapping us in another. School may save us, but it also gives us a reason for us to be saved. There are many flaws in schooling that would come at the expense of students' lives. One obvious one would be how the students are encouraged to follow this one path. Schooling in our culture is homogenizing the people in our culture. There are patterns between people's attitude, way of thinking, way of holding up a conversation, interests in conversations, etc. Regardless of who the person is, he or she would have a similar approach in doing whatever as another person. So isn't that something to be saved from?
Monday, April 19, 2010
Extra Credit Opportunity- "The Class"
1. The main issue in "The Class" is that every character was more concerned about the face they put out than the overall tranquility and the progress of the class. The French teacher, François was trying to put on the face as the authority figure. He expects respect and obedience from all his students. Meanwhile, his students who are trying to portray themselves as rebellious, empowered teenagers are expecting recognition as individuals who can get by on their own. Each of these characters was obsessed with fulfilling their roles and letting their situations dictate their actions/personalities. However each of their desires contradict each other, in that they’re both trying to gain dominance over the other. So in such cases, a compromise would be a very fitting solution. And rather than constantly have a competition between the teacher and the students (and occasionally between students and students, or teachers and teachers), they should eliminate the power struggle. In all the arguments from “The Class” each opposing sides are constantly defending themselves. They are always trying to protect their own faces that they’re not really acknowledging or addressing the other’s face. So instead of moving past these contradictions in desires, the teacher and the students are in a cycle, entering and re-entering fights , in attempts to get their identities out there. And in order to escape that cycle, both sides can benefit from each other through learning who the others really are, and what they want. Although this solution may seem very ideal, once they are able to move past that issue, the class would seem less like a me vesus you, and more like an alliance making progress.
2. I don’t think that teachers should be held completely accountable for the students’ failures in school. Both the teachers and the students themselves play a role in that. On one hand, the students are lacking interest in school- for the most part, they choose to not engage in school. And on the other hand, as a teacher, it is their job to make sure the students learn, which may require gaining their interest. Rather than the teachers responsibility being to teach, it is their responsibility to have the students learn. However, just as it is the teachers job to do so, the students should have an active role in schools as well, afterall it is their education and their life. So perhaps our educational system should be one that is more interactive- one that requires more of an input from the students. In this , it seemed to have work momentarily, where the French teacher gave the assignment of self portraits, and Souleyman finally engaged in a school activity.
In this movie, I think that teachers are responsible for the students’ failures. It seems like they are in the school for themselves and are going through the motion just to get the pay check. Most of their concerns go towards their own selfish needs. For instance, when the teachers had what appears to be a late-night meeting, they were talking about rules and leniency and how they affect the students and their attitudes. And this discussion went on for about one hot minute, before one of the teachers say “we can’t spend all night talking about this” and moves on to another topic: the coffee machine and the profits of the coffee machine. This went on for the rest of the night, or so we assume through the scene ending with that conversation going. It shows how the teachers are prioritizing their own desires over the students’ needs. Another example would be when the teachers were notified that Wei’s mom got deported. Of course, everyone shows a bit of concern at first. But soon after, before any solution/plan was discussed, one of the teacher diverts the attention to herself, and tells everyone she’s pregnant. Of course, it works and everyone instantly forgets about the lives of one of their students.
Although it may be more efficient to view this as a systematic issue, where students get punished and seperated if they’ve done wrong, it does not however solve anything for the students, and do anything for the purpose of teaching. It merely pushes the issue and and the students aside. It causes school to be a filtration system, where only the students who start off strong with interest and has no problems outside of school would succeed (and in many other ways as well). But seeing this as a individual issue has its own flaws as well, because if the teachers were to go through each student and addressed each of their issues, they would be spending a lot of time. And whether or not that time spent is worth it is another discussion, which depends on what each student/teacher values.
3.One of the crucial similarities that I’ve noticed between this film and our school is that if the students ever verbally attacked a teacher (i.e. yell at him/her for something that he/she did wrong), the teacher would instantly go on the defensive mode. Of course, this may apply to most people, but being that teachers are supposedly playing their roles as teachers- as the authority figure, it is interesting to note how they momentarily break out of their roles, to justify their other role as a person. However, one difference between the teachers in this film and the teachers at our school is that the SOF teachers wouldn’t attack back at the students (with the exception of the two senior institute social studies teachers), or they wouldn’t justify themselves through a wrong-doing of a student.
In terms of the students, I think one major similarity is that there are certainly a lot of people who puts themselves out there to appear as cool. Once again, this can be applied to a lot of people, not just those who are within school walls. People make remarks about how much they like the opposite gender, or portray themselves as tough/gangster through their word choices. But similarly there are also some people who follow Souleyman’s mentality: “If your words are less important than silence, then keep quiet.” In that one class, there seems to only be Souleyman and a few extras who keep quiet for most/some parts. And in our school, there is also only a few, some which people may view them as extras as well.
Teacher-wise, I don’t think SOF needs to change it, following the path of the teachers in this film. But perhaps, they should be aware of how much of the class/their working hours are dedicated to themselves and what they want, and how much is dedicated to the students. Student-wise, it is the same- we do not need to follow their example. When watching this movie, I couldn’t help be overly annoyed by the students and how obnoxious and whinny they were, particularly Esneralda (guess she played her role right). But meanwhile, I noticed that some, if not most of the people in our school are just as whinny as they are. People, including myself, are constantly complaining about a few extra problems given to us, constantly complaining about how much pain school is causing us. So we really don’t need to learn how to be like the students from “The Class.” However, I really wouldn’t mind if we had a few more Souleyman’s in our school.
2. I don’t think that teachers should be held completely accountable for the students’ failures in school. Both the teachers and the students themselves play a role in that. On one hand, the students are lacking interest in school- for the most part, they choose to not engage in school. And on the other hand, as a teacher, it is their job to make sure the students learn, which may require gaining their interest. Rather than the teachers responsibility being to teach, it is their responsibility to have the students learn. However, just as it is the teachers job to do so, the students should have an active role in schools as well, afterall it is their education and their life. So perhaps our educational system should be one that is more interactive- one that requires more of an input from the students. In this , it seemed to have work momentarily, where the French teacher gave the assignment of self portraits, and Souleyman finally engaged in a school activity.
In this movie, I think that teachers are responsible for the students’ failures. It seems like they are in the school for themselves and are going through the motion just to get the pay check. Most of their concerns go towards their own selfish needs. For instance, when the teachers had what appears to be a late-night meeting, they were talking about rules and leniency and how they affect the students and their attitudes. And this discussion went on for about one hot minute, before one of the teachers say “we can’t spend all night talking about this” and moves on to another topic: the coffee machine and the profits of the coffee machine. This went on for the rest of the night, or so we assume through the scene ending with that conversation going. It shows how the teachers are prioritizing their own desires over the students’ needs. Another example would be when the teachers were notified that Wei’s mom got deported. Of course, everyone shows a bit of concern at first. But soon after, before any solution/plan was discussed, one of the teacher diverts the attention to herself, and tells everyone she’s pregnant. Of course, it works and everyone instantly forgets about the lives of one of their students.
Although it may be more efficient to view this as a systematic issue, where students get punished and seperated if they’ve done wrong, it does not however solve anything for the students, and do anything for the purpose of teaching. It merely pushes the issue and and the students aside. It causes school to be a filtration system, where only the students who start off strong with interest and has no problems outside of school would succeed (and in many other ways as well). But seeing this as a individual issue has its own flaws as well, because if the teachers were to go through each student and addressed each of their issues, they would be spending a lot of time. And whether or not that time spent is worth it is another discussion, which depends on what each student/teacher values.
3.One of the crucial similarities that I’ve noticed between this film and our school is that if the students ever verbally attacked a teacher (i.e. yell at him/her for something that he/she did wrong), the teacher would instantly go on the defensive mode. Of course, this may apply to most people, but being that teachers are supposedly playing their roles as teachers- as the authority figure, it is interesting to note how they momentarily break out of their roles, to justify their other role as a person. However, one difference between the teachers in this film and the teachers at our school is that the SOF teachers wouldn’t attack back at the students (with the exception of the two senior institute social studies teachers), or they wouldn’t justify themselves through a wrong-doing of a student.
In terms of the students, I think one major similarity is that there are certainly a lot of people who puts themselves out there to appear as cool. Once again, this can be applied to a lot of people, not just those who are within school walls. People make remarks about how much they like the opposite gender, or portray themselves as tough/gangster through their word choices. But similarly there are also some people who follow Souleyman’s mentality: “If your words are less important than silence, then keep quiet.” In that one class, there seems to only be Souleyman and a few extras who keep quiet for most/some parts. And in our school, there is also only a few, some which people may view them as extras as well.
Teacher-wise, I don’t think SOF needs to change it, following the path of the teachers in this film. But perhaps, they should be aware of how much of the class/their working hours are dedicated to themselves and what they want, and how much is dedicated to the students. Student-wise, it is the same- we do not need to follow their example. When watching this movie, I couldn’t help be overly annoyed by the students and how obnoxious and whinny they were, particularly Esneralda (guess she played her role right). But meanwhile, I noticed that some, if not most of the people in our school are just as whinny as they are. People, including myself, are constantly complaining about a few extra problems given to us, constantly complaining about how much pain school is causing us. So we really don’t need to learn how to be like the students from “The Class.” However, I really wouldn’t mind if we had a few more Souleyman’s in our school.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Treatment for Savior/Teacher Movie [HW #48]
[Scene I]
His hand quickly moves the mouse. With his index fingers, he clicks the left button, and instantly he hears, "BOOM! HEADSHOT! RakShot wins the match for Red Team." As he watches the replay of his final shot, he gives the computer screen a giant smirk. Soon he hears, "Timothy, it's bed time." So he signs out of the game, turns off his computer, and goes into his bed. His mom comes into his room, tucks him in, and says "sweet dreams."
[Scene 2]
Timothy wakes up, and gets out of bed. Naturally, he goes to the bathroom, brushes his teeth and washes his face. Following the same routine everyday, he mindlessly goes to his closet and wears the same outfit that he wears everyday. After he is done, he heads down the stairs. He goes ahead and eats the breakfast that was already at the table set up for him. (Cliche scene). After a while, his mom says "Come on, it's time for school. I'm going to start the car." Timothy finishes his breakfast, and heads outside and into the car.
His hand quickly moves the mouse. With his index fingers, he clicks the left button, and instantly he hears, "BOOM! HEADSHOT! RakShot wins the match for Red Team." As he watches the replay of his final shot, he gives the computer screen a giant smirk. Soon he hears, "Timothy, it's bed time." So he signs out of the game, turns off his computer, and goes into his bed. His mom comes into his room, tucks him in, and says "sweet dreams."
[Scene 2]
Timothy wakes up, and gets out of bed. Naturally, he goes to the bathroom, brushes his teeth and washes his face. Following the same routine everyday, he mindlessly goes to his closet and wears the same outfit that he wears everyday. After he is done, he heads down the stairs. He goes ahead and eats the breakfast that was already at the table set up for him. (Cliche scene). After a while, his mom says "Come on, it's time for school. I'm going to start the car." Timothy finishes his breakfast, and heads outside and into the car.
[Scene 3]
Timothy exits the car and starts heading to school. And as he is walking, his mom yells out "Have a good day at school." Naturally, Timothy pretends to not hear her, or at the very least not know her. So Timothy continues to walk up the stairs, through the crowded hallways, and finally gets to his classroom. Knowing that it will be an extremely long day, he gives an exasperated sigh just right before he enters the classroom.
[Scene 4]
The moment that he entered the classroom, he hears everyone talking- multiple conversations occurring at the same time. He sees people not sitting on their chairs, but on their desks. There is laughter everywhere. He also takes notice of how much taller everyone is compared to him. It does not take long before everyone sees Timothy walk in. They stare at him, and suddenly becomes quiet. Timothy looks around, scanning across the room with his eyes, and sees that all these people were silent because of him. And so, with his head down, he continues walking towards his desk, and sits down. He pulls out his notebook and pencils. As he is doing so, everyone returned to their conversations. So he just sits there and waits. Until suddenly, the clock strikes 8:30 and the bell rings. And all of the students falls silent and properly sits on their chairs within instants. Of course, Timothy was already doing so and all he did was wait. And once everyone was perfectly silent and still, that is when Timothy says, "Good morning class. I am Timothy Oswell and I am your professor for Psychology 101."
[Scene 5]
Timothy gives instructions to the students, and begins to teach the material. Meanwhile, all the students are chatting with one another, refusing to listen to Timothy. Timothy gets annoyed and puts down the books. He tells the students to listen to him and lectures them. He was always aware that his age might be an issue, in that it would result in a lack of respect from his students. So he addresses that issue without the students having to say anything. Right in the middle of his sentence, the bell rings indicating that the period ended. And instantly the students pack up their books and leave the classroom.
[Scene 6]
Timothy enters his room, and goes straight to the power button on his power. He takes off his bag, and changes his clothes as he waits for his computer to fully load. He sits down on his chair. He puts on his headset and pulls down his microphone. He signs onto his server, and enters the chat room. He says "So who are we dealing with today?" He begins playing his game, and as usual, he is dominating the other team.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Class Film Preparation I [HW #47]
- What if we were to make John's short story into a film?
- In each of the movies, the teachers went to extraordinary lengths to "save" the students in order to show they care. Like Hilary Swank and her diaries, Robin Williams and his unorthodox lesson plans, Anne Francis and her visits to the students' homes. Matthew Morrison and his monthly payments of $60 and his temporary job as janitor. Each of these actions were very obvious. I think it would be interesting to try more subtle ways of show that the teacher cares (if we decide that he/she is the type of teacher that does).
- Being that, there really is no climax in our story as students in schools, it would be more realistic to not have one in our movie. That does not, however, mean there is no conflict. But maybe, we shouldn't hype up this one event or have this ultimate solution. Most things would be at an even level, with a few bumps here and there. This may be boring, but realistic.
- Silent film? Have everything be expressed through physical movements, possibly dancing?
- [Inspired by American Born Chinese] Have multiple stories going on, each of which would seem completely impertinent to one another, but still somehow connect at the end. And maybe less emphasis on the time spent in school/classroom. Not only is that the obvious binder that connects all of these students' lives together, but it's not really the part of the day that most of us remember.
- I think one thing that sets SOF teachers away from other teachers is that they "chill" with the students. There's a lot more student-teacher interactions outside the classrooms, afterschool and such in SOF than in other schools (that I know/hear of). So I think that's something that we could bring out.
Research and Writing [HW #46]
American Born Chinese by Gene Luen Yang
Within American Born Chinese, there are three stories. And within each of these three stories (which eventually intertwines) there is the theme of escapism. However each of these stories took a different approach in doing so. The book begins with the story of the Monkey King, who denies his identity of being a monkey. As an attempt to escape that, he trained multiple disciplines of martial arts... AND, he even changed his name. But after all was done, his denial was only to be denied. Meanwhile an American Born Chinese, Jin Wang has just moved into a new school, where he is the only American Born Chinese. After being told that he does not fit the role of boyfriend to a certain girl, he tries to become who he's not. Eventually Jin Wang the American Born Chinese became Danny the American Born Chinese, minus the "Born Chinese," which leads into the next story. Every year Danny gets a visit from his cousin Chin-Kee. Just from his name, you can probably tell that he is a Chinese person. But he's not just any Chinese person, he is a the epitome of the asian stereotype- accent, good at every subject, highly inappropriate, pupils that cannot be seen, etc. And every year, Danny tries to escape the shame of being cousins with Chin-Kee by transferring to a different school. We later find out that Chin-Kee is the same Monkey King from the first story, watching over Jin as his "conscience- as a signpost to [his] soul".
With my focus being alternatives to school, this book would be why those alternatives are significant. Considering our other options are important, but we should understand why that is- why would we even need alternatives to begin with, and are they worth trying? Although American Born Chinese (at least 2/3 of it) is specifically about ABCs, it describes the student life. And like I said before, each of these stories portrays some sort of need to escape. So in the same sense, are we looking to escape our current situation with schooling? This book gives several options (I might be missing a few):
- Shape yourself into something for fitting for the situation (when Jin became Danny, and when Jin got the new haircut, and when Monkey King became "The Great Sage Equal of Heaven" and told all the other monkeys to wear shoes)
- Jump from place to place, school to school so that your current situation isn't a lasting one (Danny transferring)
- Say screw it all and do as you wish (Wei-Chen deciding to no longer be Tze-Yo-Tzuh's emissary)
- Claiming to be better than the institution and try to override it (Monkey King fighting everyone who denied his self-proclaimed title)
- Submit to authority (Monkey King becoming Jiang Tao's disciple)
- Isolate yourself and improve on your own (when Monkey King locked himself underground and studied Kung-Fu
One thing from American Born Chinese that I thought related to our situation was when the Monkey King tried to fly away from Tze-Yo-Tzuh on his cloud. It said that even "he flew through the boundaries of reality itself," Tze-Yo-Tzuh was still able to find where he was, and follow him there. And the reasoning was, according to Tze-Yo-Tzuh, "All that I have created- all of existence- forever reamins within the reach of my hand. You I have created. Therefore, you can never escape my reach." In the same sense, we as students are created by schools. So would that mean that we can't escape this institution? Or perhaps only our minds can't escape school, since we've gotten used to having its development depend on schools. Even in our situation now, the inability to escape still seems to be present; it does not just apply to monkeys flying their clouds away from Tze-Yo-Tzuh.
In each of the stories in American Born Chinese there is not only the theme of escapism, but also the motif of the figure which each character appeals to, just like the ones that we have. In Jin's story, he's trying to appeal to Amelia, his crush. In Danny's story, he's trying to appeal to all his peers in school. And for the Monkey King, he wants to appeal to himself, but eventually to Tze-Yo-Tzuh. In all these stories, there is some sort of satisfaction that needed to be met. And that is exactly how school is. There is some sort of bar that we need to jump over in order be considered successful. And none of these characters, nor we have escaped this obstacle.
The format of this book portrays how schools and our lives are. Because in both cases, there are multiple stories going on, simultaneously. And although none of them seem to relate as they're going on, it would appear that they do. After all, they are all in the same book.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Big Expectations for School [HW #44]
Obama made his point very clear when he said, "That's what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education." Education is viewed as a "responsibility." It's something we are bound to because as the children of America, it our duty to succeed and thus rid this country of all of its problems. Obama's point of view on education is clearly education as an escape route. But it's not just an escape route for each individual, it's one for the entire country. Obama, as a functionalist believes that if we succeed, so will the country. And "if you don't do that -- if you quit on school -- you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country."
Kiyosaki's New Mission, in my opinion, will not work. To split the schooling system into "two different public school programs: one for employees and one for entrepreneurs" would be like asking people to choose whether they want to be the star actors or to be an extra. Most people would want to be the star. They would want to transcend rather settle down for a mediocre life. Even disregarding the issue, people would rather be listened to than to listen. Although I do not think this method will work, I do think that considering alternatives is important; and it's not just considering alternatives to solve the crisis, but it's to consider alternatives with that in mind, in addition to making school more enjoyable. So that we aren't learning out of commitment, and instead out of desire. Kiyosaki says, "we need to pledge ourselves to this New Mission: job creation by those who are true job creators" and "it was drummed into our souls that our mission was more important than our lives." Although, it is important to have a mission, and think of the end results, it should not dictate how you view any aspect of one thing, especially not education. In his case, Kiyosaki seems to only be looking at education as a way to solve society's issues, which is important, but it is also important to look at it in a much smaller scale- not just think about the future, and how education may future issues, but also think about the present, and how we can shape the experience.
To Obama, education is what we, the seeds need to grow. It is clear that he has a trascendent point of view. He repeatedly emphasized on the future, and how if we worked hard it will all towards the greater good. And the only times he mentions the present is the amount of work we need to put into our education now. He didn't once talk about education as something we can enjoy. Of course, this point of view is a bit harsh. It makes it seems like we're all just growing to become tools of society. But Obama does a good job in softening that up. He tells them that: "No one's written your destiny for you, because here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future." Despite the overall theme of his speech being about responsibility, he's telling us that we choose our paths, and that no one else has control. This is true to some extent, but our paths are right along side with the mainstream road. In his speech he also uses the terms "you" and "each of you," as opposed to "you all" (disregarding "I’m glad you all could join us today."), he places a sense of self-significance to each person, making each student seem like they are the hero of this story. Also, by using himself as an example and relating to the students through himself, he makes it seem possible that all of those students have potential in becoming the president- the greatest hero of all.
Friday, March 5, 2010
More Research and More Thinking [HW #42: Part B- Significance]
Focus: For the school unit I was, still am interested in schooling alternatives. Based on my interviews, it seems like a huge majority of the people has accepted the education system, as it is. We all follow this straight, two-dimensional path. This path has become our way of life, and our approach towards, as well as our definition of "success." Schools are, of course just an organization interpreted by man. It is only the method that our ancestors chose, and we follow. So what if that choice was never made, or if we made another choice- to discontinue and change courses? What are our options? What have people living on the sidelines of the mainstream road been doing?
Being a student for 13 years, awaiting an additional 4+ years, I feel like school, as it is, is extremely dreadful. Between the lag of the curriculum, and inability to change the things we're doing on a daily basis, there's not much to look forward to in school. However, I thought that it really didn't help to mourn and whine about this again and again (but that didn't stop me from doing it). So I decided to look up alternatives to our orthodox education system. Although, it is a bit too late for me to apply any of these alternatives to my life, being that I'm already in too deep, it is still important to know what are the options given to us... Well not "given to us," but are there and neglected.
In terms of how this topic matter functionally, I think just the fact that there are all these alternatives, and we're only aware of maybe four of them shows a lot about the situation we are put in. And by that I mean: we are trapped in a room, with the door open. It's almost like our society is structured so that we are guided- maybe even pushed to go in one direction. However, there are these options that we have, but are unaware of, to escape that path; but rarely does anyone embrace those options. Most of us move along with the push, and. It is much easier to go with the current, than to go against.
Similar to myself, many others constantly whine about school, and constantly return to school. For the most part, none of us particularly enjoy school or look forward to school, and yet we go to it 5 days a week, for 6+ hours. As of right now, with the people in my life, school seems to just be an obligation to all of us. We're here to fulfill those obligations, and play the role we are given. With that, none of us have tried to break out of those obligations or those roles. All of us have remained stationary, just living the life that was given. And until, last week I didn't even know about majority of the other paths that are there for us. Even so, I only discovered them due to another obligation, that was a part of school. It's not only that this topic- alternative paths show insight about what else we can do to feed our minds, but it also shows us how we are as a society. It's just the fact that we're not embracing this chance to escape that we dread, that shows us how trapped we truly are.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Initial Research on Schooling [HW #41 & HW #42: Part A]
Borcsa, Attila. "The Autodidacticism Complex." Vertegram (2007): n. pag. Web. 26 Feb 2010. < http://www.vertegram.com/conscious-living/the-autodidacticism-complex/ >.
By definition, autodidacticism is: "is self-education or self-directed learning. An autodidact is a mostly self-taught person, as opposed to learning in a school setting or from a full-time tutor or mentor." In this article, Borcsa questions how far can the path of autodidacticism bring you, by pointing out the benefits & risks of self-learning. He evaluates education through two aspects: personal development and spiritual development. Borcsa mainly states that automaths are driven by self-motivation, but are in danger of saturation and isolation- both can contribute and take away from personal/spiritual development.
One of the first questions that this website triggered for me was: "what if you're not self-motivated enough?" Of course, this type of mentality only developed through going to school for the past 13 years of my life, where my hand was held throughout my entire education process. However, if we were to consider autodidacticism, the idea might be intimidating. We probably wouldn't believe that it is possible, because we're too dependent on the authority figures, who create straight, two-dimensional paths for all of us. Even though it may seem impossible to use, there has actually been some famous thinkers who were automaths, which show that autodidacticism is an alternative worth considering. But then, of course, you wouldn't receive a physical representation of your knowledge and abilities.
"Unschooling." Absolute Astronomy (2009): n. pag. Web. 1 Mar 2010. < http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Unschooling >.
Unschooling is another alternative to education; one that centers around "allowing children to learn through their natural life experiences, including child directed play, game play, household responsibilities, and social interaction, rather than through the confines of a conventional school." The whole idea of unschooling is that the traditional schools with teachers and professors do not work because of mainly three reasons:
- "Children are natural learners."
- "Children do not all learn the same way (or at the same pace)."
- "It is possible to store the mind with a million facts and still be entirely uneducated"
This alternative method seems somewhat primitive, just by the fact that you're learning through life experiences and interaction with the world, as opposed to going to some building and have stuff poured into your mind. I find it interesting that although this is similar to older methods, it had to brought up by John Halt 1970s. It shows that people have already seen the educational system now as default, which is odd because usually the originals are the defaults.
Smith, Mark K. "Youth Work." INFED (2001): n. pag. Web. 1 Mar 2010. < http://www.infed.org/youthwork/b-yw.htm >.
Amongst the three alternatives, youth work is the most similar to our educational system now. Rather than changing the learning process as a whole, youth work just changes the focal point. This method would still take place in a school with an authority figure, but rather than concentrating on letting the students know what they need to know for the next level, youth work tries to emphasize "focusing on young people," "volunteer participation and relationship," "committing to association," "being friendly and informal, and acting with integrity," and "being concerned with the education and more broadly, the welfare of young people."
I can see how this might create a better environment for schools and the whole learning process. It encourages students to engage with their community outside the school walls. However, I think that it's still similar to our system now, in that there will be people who wouldn't want to engage in those activities. Students would still be subordinate to the teachers, and do what they are told, rather than what they want. I'm not saying that it's absolutely horrible that we the young listen to the elders, because there I do believe that guidance and structure is needed. But it may be better if students had an input into the guidance and structure, like which path they want to be guided in.
Just as the article name state, this website lays out the alternatives to schooling. There are a few routes that still revolve around going to school, etc. but are not part of the traditional, main-stream way of getting your education (e.g. dropping out/getting a GED, starting college early). There are also schools that have different philosophies, and different teaching styles (e.g. Waldorf schools- emphasis on imagination, Montessori schools- emphasis on the children and their "self-directed activities," Democratic schools- where teachers and students are "equal" and students get to decide how their time is spent, Free "Skool"- "encourage self-reliance, critical consciousness, and personal development.") The author also mentions a few other, more well-known alternatives: homeschooling, charter schools. online schooling, unschooling, and private schools.
Although the author seems a bit like a brat, he/she does a good job in listing out the alternatives. Some of these methods are still within the "school/education as an institution" idea (i.e. it's still the "inferiors" listening to the "superiors," but just with a different share of power, and a different tone of voice. The good thing about the alternatives included in this website is that they take into account the fact that you're going to need some sort of physical indication of your mental abilities, if you want to succeed in society that is. However, that does mean that the options given are less out there. We are limited to the options that will still teach us the same stuff and jump through the same hoops, but just in a different method. Hmm, that in itself says a lot about how our education system and our society are set up.
Once again, as the article title states, this web page compares a high school diploma to a GED. It breaks down and describes each one through four categories: Eligibility, Requirements, Length of Study, Reception at the Office, and Reception at the College.
Despite GED, meaning "General Equivalency Diploma," Littlefield, along with most people views GEDs are inferior. Although people saw that a GED is nearly equivalent to a high school diploma, it is more likely that a high school graduate will get a job over a person with a GED. If GED tests supposedly test you on the knowledge you need to have for college and whatever job is at the high school education standard, then why is that GED-holders are looked down upon? Even if two people are academically equivalent, why is it worse that a person took an alternative path, and saved himself/herself time in getting a diploma- that he/she was able to meet the standards of society at an earlier point in his/her life? But then again, most of the time, GEDs are seen as back up, given that it only requires a 60% to pass.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
School Interviews x5 & Synthesis [HW #40]
PART A: INTERVIEWS
Why would it be important to learn about things that we do not need for survival? Why do you think we’re learning about stuff that we’re not going to use in our lives outside of school?
Who is to say that we most definitely will not need outside of school?... Things may come out in conversations amongst intellectuals... We are learning these things because the government or the school system does not know what paths we are going to take in the future, such as career or lifestyle. Therefore it is always better safe than sorry to learn extra things.
Is school really teaching us to think? Or is it just teaching how to remember and recite?
It really depends on the individual. There are those that utilizes what they learn in school and apply it to everyday life, and there are those that are just in school and learning what they are taught and just regurgitate . So does the person go to school for the sake of learning or does the person go to school for the sake of getting a grade?
How certain are we about life, or about anything when we're in school?
We are not certain about life, because life can take a sharp turn down a foggy road. School is for us to get experience on socializing with others, and by interacting with others we are exposed to new ideas that can improve what we know.
Do you think it’s possible to learn through life experiences?
It is definitely possible to learn through life experiences. You touch a hot stove, you get burned. After having experienced that pain, you learn not to do it again.
[Follow Up]:What about solely on life experiences?
Of course not, because a person may have had a life experience but without thinking about it or knowing the significance behind it its useless
Phillip M. (Cousin)- Senior at Long Island City High School
When you’re in school, are you mostly concerned about getting the work done, or about how you appear in front of your peers?
To be honest, I’m more concerned about getting my work done. Because I like to plan everything out. It forces to not procrastinate and to focus. You do things step by step.
[Follow-Up]: Why is that you value one over the other?
Because it affects my future. And I don’t want to be yelled at by my teachers. My teacher yells at the students. Like my AP teachers. They give you a whole lecture. “You retards!.”
[Follow-Up]: Why is the other aspect not as important?
Well, you’re gonna make friends no matter how you look in front of your peers.
If not at school, what would you do with your time?
Well, I don’t know. I don’t really do anything. I would just find stuff that entertains me, like: games, hanging out, handball. You know, come on.
[Follow-Up]: Since you said you don’t really do anything, does school occupy your time? If yes, does it occupy it in a good way?
From time to time. But sometimes I feel like I have better stuff to do than school. It occupies it in a good way… It lets you socialize. You learn something. And sometimes you have fun.
[Follow-Up]: How do you think this will affect your overall social life, and intelligence? Would you be able to attain the same social status and become just as smart, without school?
I won’t be intelligent at all. I would be stupid. I would be more retarded. I think my social life would go down the pooper too. And I don’t think I would be able to have the same social life, or be as smart. I wouldn’t know where to start. And I think that your parents’ influence will be even greater on your social life and education.
[Follow-Up]: Why do you think that your parents’ influence will increase without school?
Because they’re the main nurturers. And won’t your parent’s social status and education affect your own?
[Follow-Up]: Well, our parents are supposedly the closest people we have in this world, shouldn’t they be the main nurturers anyways, regardless of school? So do you think school is taking away from that closeness?
Yes our parents are closest. And yes, school is taking away from our relationships with our parents.
[Follow-Up]: Do you think that’s okay?
I don’t think it’s wrong. It’s the American way. We’re Americanized. (“Sister” cousin: What?! That doesn’t even make sense.) Yes, I know.
Adam "Tyrone" W. (Friend)- fellow SOF student
Hmm. We learn about things in order to have an understanding of them. We may not use it in our life directly, but the process of thinking that we gain from learning the stuff that we don't need for survival could help in another way. Need more?
[Follow-Up]:This "process of thinking" that you speak of... is that really only attainable through school? Would there be a more efficient way of developing those mental activities- perhaps a method that would be more enjoyable, and take less time?
In school the process of thinking is already planned out, teachers assign you a problem, and then show you how to solve it using their method of thinking. Since people think in different ways, it looks like the only way to get that thought process into people's minds. I think that a more enjoyable way would be to throw people into a problem, giving them the tools they need to solve it, and letting them figure out how to solve it themselves. Although it does seem that the most efficient method is to drill the thought process into peoples minds.
Do you think that most of our knowledge is dependent on what school requires?
No, our knowledge depends on what we know, if people are interested in what they learn in school and it is required by the school then by coincidence or influence their knowledge is dependent on the school's. But I believe that we learn more outside of school, in the "real world", and our knowledge comes from there.
How much of our interests, do you think, come from our desire to suceed in school?
I think that those who desire strongly to succed in school will have more interests based off of what they learn in school, and those with a less desire to succed in school will have interests based on what they like.
I think that those who desire strongly to succed in school will have more interests based off of what they learn in school, and those with a less desire to succed in school will have interests based on what they like.
Is school really teaching us to think? Or is it just teaching how to remember and recite?
That depends on the core of the school. In schools like stuyvesant, students are given textbook assignments and tests based on what they've read, analyzing only whats in front of them, with no real "thought" behind in. In our school the teachers want us to think, and guide us toward the answer, by giving us the fundamentals of different subject and slowly putting them together in order to find an answer. By showing us how things can be integrated we are able to use that in our lives, by connecting problems to different situations accordingly.
That depends on the core of the school. In schools like stuyvesant, students are given textbook assignments and tests based on what they've read, analyzing only whats in front of them, with no real "thought" behind in. In our school the teachers want us to think, and guide us toward the answer, by giving us the fundamentals of different subject and slowly putting them together in order to find an answer. By showing us how things can be integrated we are able to use that in our lives, by connecting problems to different situations accordingly.
Amanda Y. (Friend)- senior at Eleanor Roosevelt High School
Is school really teaching us to think? Or is it just teaching how to remember and recite?
Second one. Because there's no way for you to actually like KNOW something unless you've experienced it.
[Follow-Up]: So you think that we can only truly learn through life experiences?
Yup.
[Follow-Up]: If it's not to teach us to think, then what is the purpose of school, in your opinion?
It helps us when we are in those certain situations. It sets up a certain standard.
What role does school play in your life? How exactly do you see it, in relations to you?
I don't know. I don't want to think. Hehe.
PART B: SYNTHESIS
Of all my interviewees, everybody appears to have submitted to our current education system. Not only has everybody accepted it for what it is, but also they're arguing for it. Everyone said something along the lines of: school preparing us for the outside world, and although it may not be completely relevant, the stuff taught in school will create a foundation for us. In my opinion, I think that may just be a way to validate their way of life, that wasn't chosen by them... us. I think we all want to believe that this path that we're following is the right one.
But all of this seems similar to stockholm syndrome. We've all been held captive by this institution, and not only are we not fighting it, we're not even questioning it. And although most people said that schools are teaching us how to think. But being that everybody had similar ideas, I don't really believe that's true. It ties back to the whole idea of Monkey Minds. We saw the first thing that comes to our minds- whatever the institution taught or led us to believe. And when we break out of those monkey minds, we usually take longer than usual (because it's not within our comfort zone), or simply say "I don't know. I don't want to think. Hehe."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)