I find the practice of assigning corporate guilt to any sociological segment of humanity to be despicable. Corporate guilt is the practice of attributing fault or responsibility to an entire (usually stereotyped) grouped based on the real or supposed actions of a few (or many). Corporate guilt has been partner of all atrocities that punish the whole group for the sins of a few, whether or not these sins were actual or only sins against the situational norms or mores of the elite. Examples of corporate guilt include South African apartheid, U. S. segregation, the Holocaust, and British and French colonial imperialism. From what little I have read, Peggy McIntosh advocates corporate guilt, and therefore has some strange bedfellows indeed.
Corporate guilt results in two diverse outcomes. For one, it hides the true guilt of the majority, for if everyone is guilty, in a sense no one is guilty. If I confess so many inconsequential sins and injustices and accuse my compatriots of the same, it is easy for me to cover my true failings. Secondly, corporate guilt provides a scape goat for the truly guilty, the oppressive, and tyranny. Nero escaped the blame for burning Roman by accusing and subsequently killing Christians to appease the anger of the mobs. Mob rule of this sort is true democracy in action. It is not the rational, but the emotional that win the day.
As a case in point, lets take McIntosh as our paradigm of hope. As she confesses all the guilt of whiteness, is she trying to hide a greater fault. Is it really the privilege of using a check rather than a credit card, or is it that she has chosen family instability and forced her choice upon both her children and partner? Now the one sin is theoretically partaken of by all the white, the second is her personal responsibility, but choice and consequences only lie with the second. And is it the greatest evil that McIntosh can cohort with those "of her own kind" at any time or is it a greater sin that she ignores a colleague or known face in the grocery store that happens to be a Republican, pro-lifer, or Evangelical? Is it privilege that McIntosh can walk into a store without being "watched" or is it privilege she walks out with a $100 bottle of Merlot to get into her BMW bought with her six figure salary from her tenured position. It is these last few items that privileges her above the majority of humanity, though she fails to either confess or bewail such gross luxury that exists between her and the rest of the world.
Let me bring the point home to each of us. The problem is not that we fail to provide for all the faceless unknowns of the world, but that I fail to help Johnny or Alan or Kim or Christi when I know they need me. I can not cry over the nameless needy and use that to justify ignoring those in need whom I know, even if they are white or black or red. It is not dedication to "the cause" that makes one just, but the dedication to real individuals with names and faces. What McIntosh calls privilege I call responsibility. I can either wear the hair shirt and flagellate my body for having it, setting myself up as a pseudo-saint, or else I can offer the same to those within my reach, starting the long pathway to true responsibility and authenticity.
How can people be so heartless
How can people be so cruel
Easy to be hard, easy to be cold
How can people have no feelings
How can they ignore their friends
Easy to be proud, easy to say no
Especially people who care about strangers
Who care about evil and social injustice
Do you only care about bleeding crowd
How about a needing friend, I need a friend
How can people be so heartless
You know I'm hung up on you
Easy to be proud, easy to say no
Especially people who care about strangers
Who care about evil and social injustice
Do you only care about bleeding crowd
How about a needing friend, we all need a friend
How can people be so heartless
How can people be so cruel
Easy to be proud, easy to say no
Easy to be cold, easy to say no
Come, on, easy to give in, easy to say no
Easy to be cold, easy to say no
Much too easy to say no.
(Three Dog Night, 1971)
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Cover of Newsweek
No matter what our economic sentiments, we should all consider the February 9th cover of Newsweek and the contents of the article. What do you think?
Who's a Coward?
I thought the following news clip from the Attorney General was relevant as relates to the Tuesday discussion. I hope we as a class and as individuals will put an honest effort into getting off the cowards' list. --des
*******
*******
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder described the United States Wednesday as a nation of cowards on matters of race, saying most Americans avoid discussing unresolved racial issues.
In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.
"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," said Holder, nation's first black attorney general.
Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, Holder said, but "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."
He urged people of all races to use Black History Month as a chance for frank talk about racial matters.
"It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation's history, this is in some ways understandable," Holder said. "If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us."
He told Justice Department employees they have a special responsibility to advance racial understanding.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Who looks in your soul?
I have read the blogs and seen the experiences that relate to color, to skill, and to disability. I do not know the challenges that faced Danielle, Joel, Johnny, or Alan. You see, I could always see (until about 45 anyhow), I could always sing, and I was never black. I would be lying if I claimed to understand those feelings. But there are some adventures that I did experience or suffer along the way, although I am a little uneasy of the political connotations of marginalization.
When I was a little boy, I tried out for little league. That's what you do, even though I didn't really like baseball and wasn't very good. As I was standing my post in the out field, I happened to pull a thread out of my knit shirt. The whole bottom half dropped down and made me look like I had a beer belly hanging out at 12 years old. The coach saw it and told be to take a couple of laps around the field for my health. I didn't make the team.
In the US, all young boys should play football. So off I went to try out for the 8th grade team. When it came to choosing who would start, I did not hear my name called. Those not called and chosen became the test dummies, the opposing side. As I attempted to play the part of the loosing team, I went in for a tackle, but somehow I ended up on the bottom with a broken arm. That was the end of my football career. From then on, I would play in the band (which was what I wanted to do anyhow). I am guessing, but I don't think Johnny every experienced this side of sports.
I remember when desegregation came to my county. There were no confrontations in the high school I attended, though there were in other local schools. I personally did not understand what was the problem, though before long I met some of the harsh realities. Some of you may doubt the fact, but I was a little rowdy in my youth. In that ancient time, a fellow could get a quart of beer for $.55 and a couple of those gave great courage to fools who go where angels fear to tread. On one adventure several of us decided to go party with the brothers. You see the brothers (black guys and gals) had a private club that served literally everything. There must have been three or four of us white guys to enter the black club, buy a couple of drinks (I'm probably a little younger than 18 at this time), and make ourselves at home listening to the music. We had only been there a matter of minutes before someone began calling us crackers, rabbits, and several other appellations denoting either our complexion or our failure to realize that we were in the wrong place. To make a long story short, we barley escaped with our hides. One of the black football players from our school help us to retreat from the establishment where some of the brothers had a different opinion on integration than we had come to expect.
Around the same era in my life, there was the tendency among my peers to dress, look, and act like hippies (to a lesser or greater degree). Long hair, partaking of the noble weed, and rock-n-roll were not as appreciated in that ancient time as they are today (well maybe not today either). Anyway, a lot of folks were trying to find themselves and its no wonder. Consider the things folks ingested, either orally or audibly, at least 50% of the country was wandering around wondering where we were. Nevertheless, hippies were not appreciated, were watched, were mocked, and sometime abused by red necks. Take the film Easy Rider for your paradigm of hope for that era. As good or bad fortune would have it, I felt the brunt of some of it, but chiefly from the local law enforcement who watched us like hawks. I spent more than one night in jail for just associating with hippies. They couldn't do it to you today, but they could then.
I have lingered too long, but one final story comes to mind. After my youth had past and I became an responsible citizen of these fair United States, I came under the false impress that all the B. S. prejudice, stereotypes, and censorship had gone the way of the Pterodactyl. After finishing a tour of duty in the electronics industry (professional audio, two way radio, and finally IT manager), I returned to the classroom. In the NC community college in which I taught, I had two women bosses: one white and one black. I offered the department something that had never happened, which was an online religion course. Everyone was delighted and dubbed me the guru of online humanities. That was great, but for some strange reason I was not assigned a course for one spring semester. I took it as cutbacks and though nothing of it, but after the semester started I began to get email from students. Come to find out, my online course had been given to a white female instructor lock, stock, and barrel, including my personal notes and profile. Since no online coursed existed in this area before me, this was my intellectual property. I threatened legal action, but settled with the equivalent of one semester's pay because I was really not interested in a fight. This was bad policy, bad manners, and bad form for a department head who had a Ph.D. in feminist studies from UNCG. The department chair was the only one who could have allowed my intellectual property to be taken without my sayso. To be frank, I was more qualified, had taught the course more times, and had more teaching experience. The only reason I can attribute to the adventure is bias and preference. Being a white male worked against me in an institution (higher education) that claims to play fair and support the cause of the disenfranchised. I don't believe it one minute. I never even got an apology from those in command.
So how do I feel about blacks, white women in positions of authority, and law enforcement because of my experiences? Well, I actually love all sorts of women (Platonic stuff here), although I trust very few, but neither do I trust law enforcement. I am afraid of the possibility of a police state which almost happened in the early 1990s and a feminist state that exists more and more. What about my experience with black prejudice? It's like this, people of all colors can behave poorly under the influence of alcohol. That was actually the easiest of all situations with which to deal. On the other hand I am not an anarchist by any stretch, and as concerns sociology and anthropology, I am an agnostic. I do not know all black men by my encounters with a few, nor do I know all women by my adventures with a few, nor do I know all whites, reds, democrats, republicans, Christians, Jews, or Hindus by my encounters with a few. I only know those who I have encountered, and that is what upsets me about some of the readings that judge and stereo type groups. Change whiteness et al to Jew, and it reads like Nazi propoganda of the 1930s and 1940s. This is not good, if indeed there is such a thing as good.
When I was a little boy, I tried out for little league. That's what you do, even though I didn't really like baseball and wasn't very good. As I was standing my post in the out field, I happened to pull a thread out of my knit shirt. The whole bottom half dropped down and made me look like I had a beer belly hanging out at 12 years old. The coach saw it and told be to take a couple of laps around the field for my health. I didn't make the team.
In the US, all young boys should play football. So off I went to try out for the 8th grade team. When it came to choosing who would start, I did not hear my name called. Those not called and chosen became the test dummies, the opposing side. As I attempted to play the part of the loosing team, I went in for a tackle, but somehow I ended up on the bottom with a broken arm. That was the end of my football career. From then on, I would play in the band (which was what I wanted to do anyhow). I am guessing, but I don't think Johnny every experienced this side of sports.
I remember when desegregation came to my county. There were no confrontations in the high school I attended, though there were in other local schools. I personally did not understand what was the problem, though before long I met some of the harsh realities. Some of you may doubt the fact, but I was a little rowdy in my youth. In that ancient time, a fellow could get a quart of beer for $.55 and a couple of those gave great courage to fools who go where angels fear to tread. On one adventure several of us decided to go party with the brothers. You see the brothers (black guys and gals) had a private club that served literally everything. There must have been three or four of us white guys to enter the black club, buy a couple of drinks (I'm probably a little younger than 18 at this time), and make ourselves at home listening to the music. We had only been there a matter of minutes before someone began calling us crackers, rabbits, and several other appellations denoting either our complexion or our failure to realize that we were in the wrong place. To make a long story short, we barley escaped with our hides. One of the black football players from our school help us to retreat from the establishment where some of the brothers had a different opinion on integration than we had come to expect.
Around the same era in my life, there was the tendency among my peers to dress, look, and act like hippies (to a lesser or greater degree). Long hair, partaking of the noble weed, and rock-n-roll were not as appreciated in that ancient time as they are today (well maybe not today either). Anyway, a lot of folks were trying to find themselves and its no wonder. Consider the things folks ingested, either orally or audibly, at least 50% of the country was wandering around wondering where we were. Nevertheless, hippies were not appreciated, were watched, were mocked, and sometime abused by red necks. Take the film Easy Rider for your paradigm of hope for that era. As good or bad fortune would have it, I felt the brunt of some of it, but chiefly from the local law enforcement who watched us like hawks. I spent more than one night in jail for just associating with hippies. They couldn't do it to you today, but they could then.
I have lingered too long, but one final story comes to mind. After my youth had past and I became an responsible citizen of these fair United States, I came under the false impress that all the B. S. prejudice, stereotypes, and censorship had gone the way of the Pterodactyl. After finishing a tour of duty in the electronics industry (professional audio, two way radio, and finally IT manager), I returned to the classroom. In the NC community college in which I taught, I had two women bosses: one white and one black. I offered the department something that had never happened, which was an online religion course. Everyone was delighted and dubbed me the guru of online humanities. That was great, but for some strange reason I was not assigned a course for one spring semester. I took it as cutbacks and though nothing of it, but after the semester started I began to get email from students. Come to find out, my online course had been given to a white female instructor lock, stock, and barrel, including my personal notes and profile. Since no online coursed existed in this area before me, this was my intellectual property. I threatened legal action, but settled with the equivalent of one semester's pay because I was really not interested in a fight. This was bad policy, bad manners, and bad form for a department head who had a Ph.D. in feminist studies from UNCG. The department chair was the only one who could have allowed my intellectual property to be taken without my sayso. To be frank, I was more qualified, had taught the course more times, and had more teaching experience. The only reason I can attribute to the adventure is bias and preference. Being a white male worked against me in an institution (higher education) that claims to play fair and support the cause of the disenfranchised. I don't believe it one minute. I never even got an apology from those in command.
So how do I feel about blacks, white women in positions of authority, and law enforcement because of my experiences? Well, I actually love all sorts of women (Platonic stuff here), although I trust very few, but neither do I trust law enforcement. I am afraid of the possibility of a police state which almost happened in the early 1990s and a feminist state that exists more and more. What about my experience with black prejudice? It's like this, people of all colors can behave poorly under the influence of alcohol. That was actually the easiest of all situations with which to deal. On the other hand I am not an anarchist by any stretch, and as concerns sociology and anthropology, I am an agnostic. I do not know all black men by my encounters with a few, nor do I know all women by my adventures with a few, nor do I know all whites, reds, democrats, republicans, Christians, Jews, or Hindus by my encounters with a few. I only know those who I have encountered, and that is what upsets me about some of the readings that judge and stereo type groups. Change whiteness et al to Jew, and it reads like Nazi propoganda of the 1930s and 1940s. This is not good, if indeed there is such a thing as good.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Neo-Liberalism
I have come to believe that the term neo-liberalism is a stereotype and pejorative term in the writings of Apple and Giroux. Therefore we do not have a true description of this category of individuals or this economic ideology from the readings. I think that the reason that this is a pejorative term is that some do not wish to admit that free markets (alias neo-liberalism) are a classic example of liberal democracy and laisssez faire economics. For if we confess that free markets are indeed part of classical liberalism, then authors such as Apple and Giroux are then opponents of liberalism and liberal democracy.
It is also interesting that the promotion of free markets, as far as the United States is concerned, is neither left or right of the political aisle. There are democrats, republicans, and libertarians that are proponents of free markets. If we use Giroux's example of Enron as an abuser of the markets, we may also need to know that the failed Enron contributed equally to democrats and republicans. If we look at another abuser of the markets, Global Crossings, we find out that it was under the control of the same man that was chairman of the DNC, Terry McAlliffe. On the other hand, we may look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both proponents of globalization and free markets, but apparently also responsible citizens. Gates was opposed to many of the tax cuts proposed by the Bush administration and Buffett allocated tremendous amounts of money to health care in third world nations. It is said that the Gates/Buffett budget for health care in underdeveloped nations is in excess of the total budget of the World Health Organization of the United Nations.
Giroux in some of his writings also attacks conservative Christianity, opting for liberation theology (a Marxist revolutionary in a priest frock). But if we were to inquire into the amount of humanitarian aid that proceeds from Christian organizations (like Samaritans Purse and World Vision), we might discover that it exceeds any that comes from secular organizations. Christian groups were on the scene after Katrina faster than any government agencies, yet they received little credit for their labors.
With a sense of limited knowledge in global affairs and economics, I feel the need to be careful and to adapt the viewpoints noted by media literacy specialists: protection, pleasure, and preparation. I find Giroux a protectionist view and what would be considered censorship if applied to media. On the other hand, Thomas Friedman may tend more towards pleasure, how we can enjoy the fruits of free markets and globalization. As educators, we should be careful not to endorse opinions, lest we be charged with starting a new secular religion of sorts. It seems that environmentalists have received such a charge as recent as yesterday's news. The job of educators is preparation, which includes investigation of many viewpoints and options, and the sectarian promotion of none. It is not the easy way, but as Siddhartha Gautama might say, it is the middle way.
D. Smith
It is also interesting that the promotion of free markets, as far as the United States is concerned, is neither left or right of the political aisle. There are democrats, republicans, and libertarians that are proponents of free markets. If we use Giroux's example of Enron as an abuser of the markets, we may also need to know that the failed Enron contributed equally to democrats and republicans. If we look at another abuser of the markets, Global Crossings, we find out that it was under the control of the same man that was chairman of the DNC, Terry McAlliffe. On the other hand, we may look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both proponents of globalization and free markets, but apparently also responsible citizens. Gates was opposed to many of the tax cuts proposed by the Bush administration and Buffett allocated tremendous amounts of money to health care in third world nations. It is said that the Gates/Buffett budget for health care in underdeveloped nations is in excess of the total budget of the World Health Organization of the United Nations.
Giroux in some of his writings also attacks conservative Christianity, opting for liberation theology (a Marxist revolutionary in a priest frock). But if we were to inquire into the amount of humanitarian aid that proceeds from Christian organizations (like Samaritans Purse and World Vision), we might discover that it exceeds any that comes from secular organizations. Christian groups were on the scene after Katrina faster than any government agencies, yet they received little credit for their labors.
With a sense of limited knowledge in global affairs and economics, I feel the need to be careful and to adapt the viewpoints noted by media literacy specialists: protection, pleasure, and preparation. I find Giroux a protectionist view and what would be considered censorship if applied to media. On the other hand, Thomas Friedman may tend more towards pleasure, how we can enjoy the fruits of free markets and globalization. As educators, we should be careful not to endorse opinions, lest we be charged with starting a new secular religion of sorts. It seems that environmentalists have received such a charge as recent as yesterday's news. The job of educators is preparation, which includes investigation of many viewpoints and options, and the sectarian promotion of none. It is not the easy way, but as Siddhartha Gautama might say, it is the middle way.
D. Smith
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
China: Not Flat by Choice
An internet news clipping follows:
Chinese Translation Cuts Out Parts of Obama Inauguration Speech: Obama's inauguration references to communism and dissent veered into politically sensitive territory for China's ruling Communist Party.
BEIJING - The official Chinese translation of President Barack Obama's inauguration speech was missing his references to communism and dissent, while a live broadcast on state television Wednesday quickly cut away to the anchor when the topic was mentioned.
The comments by the newly installed U.S. president veered into politically sensitive territory for China's ruling Communist Party, which maintains a tight grip over the Internet and the entirely state-run media. Beijing tolerates little dissent and frequently decries foreign interference in its internal affairs.
At one point, Obama said earlier generations "faced down communism and fascism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions." He later addressed "those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent know that you are on the wrong side of history."
The Chinese translation of the speech, credited to the Web site of the official China Daily newspaper, was missing the word "communism" in the first sentence. The paragraph with the sentence on dissent had been removed entirely.
The censored version was carried by the state-run Xinhua News Agency and posted on popular online portals Sina and Sohu. Another portal, Netease, used a version without the paragraph mentioning communism, but retaining the part about dissent....
The full translation of Obama's speech could be viewed on the Web site of Hong Kong-based broadcaster Phoenix Satellite Television, which has a reputation as a more independent news source. The China Daily Web site posted Obama's full remarks in English only.
China has previously altered the words of U.S. officials.... In 2003, the memoirs of then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton were pulled from publication in China after the government-backed publisher removed references to the 1989 Tiananmen Square democracy protests and altered Clinton's comments about human rights activist Harry Wu.
(Source)
Chinese Translation Cuts Out Parts of Obama Inauguration Speech: Obama's inauguration references to communism and dissent veered into politically sensitive territory for China's ruling Communist Party.
BEIJING - The official Chinese translation of President Barack Obama's inauguration speech was missing his references to communism and dissent, while a live broadcast on state television Wednesday quickly cut away to the anchor when the topic was mentioned.
The comments by the newly installed U.S. president veered into politically sensitive territory for China's ruling Communist Party, which maintains a tight grip over the Internet and the entirely state-run media. Beijing tolerates little dissent and frequently decries foreign interference in its internal affairs.
At one point, Obama said earlier generations "faced down communism and fascism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions." He later addressed "those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent know that you are on the wrong side of history."
The Chinese translation of the speech, credited to the Web site of the official China Daily newspaper, was missing the word "communism" in the first sentence. The paragraph with the sentence on dissent had been removed entirely.
The censored version was carried by the state-run Xinhua News Agency and posted on popular online portals Sina and Sohu. Another portal, Netease, used a version without the paragraph mentioning communism, but retaining the part about dissent....
The full translation of Obama's speech could be viewed on the Web site of Hong Kong-based broadcaster Phoenix Satellite Television, which has a reputation as a more independent news source. The China Daily Web site posted Obama's full remarks in English only.
China has previously altered the words of U.S. officials.... In 2003, the memoirs of then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton were pulled from publication in China after the government-backed publisher removed references to the 1989 Tiananmen Square democracy protests and altered Clinton's comments about human rights activist Harry Wu.
(Source)
Monday, January 19, 2009
A Flat World: Is there a choice?
In the past year I have taken a class where my instructor lived in Poland while I sat in Hudson, NC. At the same time I taught a class where some of my students lived on military bases in Georgia and Europe, yet I still remained in Hudson. I once had a student who was deployed and finished a course on a naval battleship. I teach classes where the meekest of students now has a loud voice and anyone who desires the responsibility can have a seat at the table. In these classes, both students and teachers are oblivious to race, color, creed, nationality, sex, or any number of other contours that formerly made for a less flat educational world. I teach online, exclusively. All my courses are asynchronous and the time-space continuum is relatively non-existent. Some students can not adapt to such freedom, and neither can some teachers, just as some people do not seem to prosper in a flat world. I realize that this is only one avenue to a flat educational world, but it grows daily. There is a technology and personal discipline prerequisite, but I consider it little different than adapting to the invention of concrete or steel plows.
Now, on the other hand, do we have a choice of flat world or other? First of all, we need to be careful for what we ask, since it may come to pass. Most of us desired lower gas prices this past summer, and guess what? It happened! The same can be said for the US trade deficit and real estate prices. We were told that there would never again be cheap energy, but those prophets (or profits) were wrong. Those who demanded a lower trade deficit never told the public that it could come in the wake of a recession. We really can't have our cake and eat it too. But is there a choice, that depends.
Science does not know right from wrong, and I'm not sure that economics can tell the difference either. Although Marxism focuses on a narrow view of [economic] oppression of the [proletariat] oppressed, it does not really value individually oppressed persons. Marxism advocates the oppression of the [bourgeois] oppressors, or at least that is what happened in the 20th century Marxist experiements in Europe and South America. The oppression of the oppressors was also a key element in the French revolution and those who produced that famous document, The Declaration of the rights of man (Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen). It got so bad that the rich could be condemned just for being the aristocracy, regardless of crime. Indeed, it was a crime to be French nobility or aristocracy under Robespierre. I guess the rich were not really human after all. So in the flat world, do we condemn those who prosper unless all the world prospers with them? In the guise of Nietzsche, let me ask what is wrong with political and economic natural selection? On what basis can one advocate the cause of the third world or anyone else that may suffer from a flat world? Is it not true that species which adapt are those who ultimately survive? Why do we war against the inevitable? We have no guarantee that a somewhat less flat world could either exist or would benefit the losers in the flat world. It could be another lower-gas-prices, lower-trade-deficit scenario.
So could the flat world descentors do better feeding the world, increasing the overall communication, facilitate a wider dissemination of education or quality of life for a greater number of persons? I don't know. I don't see why they don't go for it, show a better plan, do more good to more folks, and quit crying foul. I'm not sure the conflict model works, and I'm not sure there is even a choice to be made, but even if there were a choice, there are no guarantees. We might get lower fuel costs whether we like it or not. If the flat world destroys humanity as we know it, how would that differ from the extinction of any previous species? Why are humans any better than the 90% of species that have already passed into infinity? The whole good/bad thing is a little fuzzy.
Now, on the other hand, do we have a choice of flat world or other? First of all, we need to be careful for what we ask, since it may come to pass. Most of us desired lower gas prices this past summer, and guess what? It happened! The same can be said for the US trade deficit and real estate prices. We were told that there would never again be cheap energy, but those prophets (or profits) were wrong. Those who demanded a lower trade deficit never told the public that it could come in the wake of a recession. We really can't have our cake and eat it too. But is there a choice, that depends.
Science does not know right from wrong, and I'm not sure that economics can tell the difference either. Although Marxism focuses on a narrow view of [economic] oppression of the [proletariat] oppressed, it does not really value individually oppressed persons. Marxism advocates the oppression of the [bourgeois] oppressors, or at least that is what happened in the 20th century Marxist experiements in Europe and South America. The oppression of the oppressors was also a key element in the French revolution and those who produced that famous document, The Declaration of the rights of man (Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen). It got so bad that the rich could be condemned just for being the aristocracy, regardless of crime. Indeed, it was a crime to be French nobility or aristocracy under Robespierre. I guess the rich were not really human after all. So in the flat world, do we condemn those who prosper unless all the world prospers with them? In the guise of Nietzsche, let me ask what is wrong with political and economic natural selection? On what basis can one advocate the cause of the third world or anyone else that may suffer from a flat world? Is it not true that species which adapt are those who ultimately survive? Why do we war against the inevitable? We have no guarantee that a somewhat less flat world could either exist or would benefit the losers in the flat world. It could be another lower-gas-prices, lower-trade-deficit scenario.
So could the flat world descentors do better feeding the world, increasing the overall communication, facilitate a wider dissemination of education or quality of life for a greater number of persons? I don't know. I don't see why they don't go for it, show a better plan, do more good to more folks, and quit crying foul. I'm not sure the conflict model works, and I'm not sure there is even a choice to be made, but even if there were a choice, there are no guarantees. We might get lower fuel costs whether we like it or not. If the flat world destroys humanity as we know it, how would that differ from the extinction of any previous species? Why are humans any better than the 90% of species that have already passed into infinity? The whole good/bad thing is a little fuzzy.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Paradigm Chooses the Researcher
Though we have talked about paradigm shift in the past, up until this week no one seems to have experienced one. This week was different. Until Tuesday evening we may have considered ourselves masters of our own fates and captains of our own souls, much as Henley's Invictus describes. Tuesday evening, we again brought our assumptions to terms.
Does it not seem more likely that, as researchers, we all audition for a part and that we are players on the academic stage, some for a performance of feminism and others for constructivism. It is not that the actors are either feminists or constructivist, but rather they play the part. Neither do the we decide which parts we will play, for that is at the discretion of the entity that casts the parts for the play. We are little more than actors on a stage, as Shakespeare said many years ago. Neither do we get a part because we choose to do so, but rather our life's narrative and pre-dispositions have prepared us for such a part. The only choice we really have is whether or not to audition, though I am not sure how much a choice herein lies. We were chosen for a job, we did not choose, we are at the beck and call of the paradigm, for it is the paradigm that chooses. The paradigm is the master of our fates and the captain of our souls, and the souls of those who went before us (Vachel, George, and Alicia). On the other hand, there have been those who have cheated fate and regained their souls, such as Faust, and there is one in out midst that has discovered the secrets of moksha.
Dave
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Argumentum ad Hominem & Cultural relativism
As I review the feminist concepts from this past week, it seems that there is one determinant principle to this research model that dwarfs all others: the ad hominem argument. I would like to consider what exactly is an argumentum ad hominem, query if such an argument is valid when presenting a position, and finally illustrate this type of argument from the class discussion.
Argumentum ad hominem is a Latin phrase used in debate or rhetoric which literally translates "argument against the man." I did not make this up, nor did I intend the pun (as we shall see later). An ad hominem argument "consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim" (Wikipedia). Therefore when feminists state that a certain claim is made "because x is a male (white male, black male, et al)," they are using argumentum ad hominem in more ways than one. In the first place, it is a de facto statement categorizing a claim made by a male by nature as invalid because the author is a male. At the very least, this is circular reasoning. In the second place such an argument has never been considered valid, seeing that it is based on neither qualitative nor quantitative evidence or data. Because ad hominem arguments do not directly address the claim or proposition (only the author of the proposition), such arguments are falacies. As it relates to feminism, it is an a priori premise to validate the feminist paradigm and nothing more. Therefore, if this form of argument is invalid then any parts of feminism based upon it remain indeterminate and without either authority or authenticity.
Some may say that many positions hold to a priori premises and feminism is thus no worse or better than any other. That may be so, but if feminism's a priori premises (which ultimately disenfranchise one group and take away their voice) go unchallenged then several movements of the past that have proved less that egalitarian or humanitarian based upon similar a priori reasonings (19th treatment of Native Americans, social-darwinism, holocaust, slave trade, Darfur genocide) are given a pass. This makes for strange bed-fellows.
Let's consider a case in point from class. There was a brief discussion on the Muslim Hijab which somehow morphed into long hair on women in American holiness churches. When it was suggested that possibly the women under consideration (either Muslim or Holiness) chose to wear the associated head dress, it was stated that this was clearly oppression and that only a [white] male would make such a statement. Now that, my friends, is a classic example of an ad homimen argument, meaning this: since x male made the claim and y female said it was oppressive, then ipso facto the male was in error because he was a male. The behavior as relates to women's head dress had already been deemed oppressive (whatever that means), so any argument to the contrary, especially when made by a male, is therefore invalid. But where is the evidence? Is it possible that western culture is being read into either situation to deem it "oppressive," or is it possible that only certain women consider it such. I'm really having a hard time with the connotations of oppressive. Am I being told that a scarf is oppressive to the same extent as honor killing is? Everything with which one disagrees can not be considered "oppressive" just to bolster the quantative data on female oppression. Doesn't this sort of data manipulation parallel to the girl who cried "wolf?" Now for the rest of the story.
As regards the hijab in the Mulsim world. This head dress did not derive from 7th century Muslim males (which were, by the way, not white males), but rather from the wives of Muhammad. It seems that these gals were on the par with superstars and could not leave their houses to go shopping or to the bathroom without being thronged. Therefore these women (not men) decided to go incognito, and the hijab was created. Later on some folks though that if it was good enough for the wives of the prophet, it was good enough for the common folks. Thus it was an imitation of women's customs, not male dictates. How it may have evolved in the present is another narrative. The moral of the story is to be careful with the facts and not read western culture into every situation.
In the second example, it was stated that women who wore long hair in US holiness churches were oppressed. Now that is really peculiar considering the historical context from which it derives. Neither does a hair style seem so oppressive a the self-imposed female assessories of the past such as girdle, corset, eye-liner, high-heels, chokers, etc. (but I do admit that is my own perspective and would not want to participate in gladitorial games that requires such equipment). Cultures have their symbols: iPods, blue jeans, hats, and hair. Faith communities also have symbols: crosses, menorah's, and head coverings. Jewish men wear a tallit when praying. For many years, only males did this but now it is common to see women in synagogue wearing a prayer shawl. In Christian faith communities, it has been women who wore the head coverings. Could common men wear them: not usually! From whence does this custom derive? From white male oppression or from female customs of the east? Take your best guess, and then you can proceed. In the first century Roman empire, it was common for women to have long hair, to wear veils, and to have head dresses. In the church of Corinth, St. Paul addressed this matter. Not that the women failed to veil themselves (as female custom dictated), but that some of the men were apparently copying older Greek traditions of wearing long hair like the Greek warriors in the Trojan war (Iliad). It was apparently no longer customary to do such. St. Paul asks the folks, "what are your customs." He appealed to the common life of Roman citizens in formerly Greek regions. Life was hard enough without asking for a fight. Holiness churches drew their idea of long hair on women from the same passage of scripture (1 Corinthians 11), such was common in the early 20th century, it released those women from hats and veils, and it actually states that a woman's long hair empowered her (at least in that day). Again, we have considered oppression what another culture considers empowerment, because of a failure to recognize what anthropologist call cultural relativism. Western values are not the touchstones for all peoples.
Dave
Argumentum ad hominem is a Latin phrase used in debate or rhetoric which literally translates "argument against the man." I did not make this up, nor did I intend the pun (as we shall see later). An ad hominem argument "consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim" (Wikipedia). Therefore when feminists state that a certain claim is made "because x is a male (white male, black male, et al)," they are using argumentum ad hominem in more ways than one. In the first place, it is a de facto statement categorizing a claim made by a male by nature as invalid because the author is a male. At the very least, this is circular reasoning. In the second place such an argument has never been considered valid, seeing that it is based on neither qualitative nor quantitative evidence or data. Because ad hominem arguments do not directly address the claim or proposition (only the author of the proposition), such arguments are falacies. As it relates to feminism, it is an a priori premise to validate the feminist paradigm and nothing more. Therefore, if this form of argument is invalid then any parts of feminism based upon it remain indeterminate and without either authority or authenticity.
Some may say that many positions hold to a priori premises and feminism is thus no worse or better than any other. That may be so, but if feminism's a priori premises (which ultimately disenfranchise one group and take away their voice) go unchallenged then several movements of the past that have proved less that egalitarian or humanitarian based upon similar a priori reasonings (19th treatment of Native Americans, social-darwinism, holocaust, slave trade, Darfur genocide) are given a pass. This makes for strange bed-fellows.
Let's consider a case in point from class. There was a brief discussion on the Muslim Hijab which somehow morphed into long hair on women in American holiness churches. When it was suggested that possibly the women under consideration (either Muslim or Holiness) chose to wear the associated head dress, it was stated that this was clearly oppression and that only a [white] male would make such a statement. Now that, my friends, is a classic example of an ad homimen argument, meaning this: since x male made the claim and y female said it was oppressive, then ipso facto the male was in error because he was a male. The behavior as relates to women's head dress had already been deemed oppressive (whatever that means), so any argument to the contrary, especially when made by a male, is therefore invalid. But where is the evidence? Is it possible that western culture is being read into either situation to deem it "oppressive," or is it possible that only certain women consider it such. I'm really having a hard time with the connotations of oppressive. Am I being told that a scarf is oppressive to the same extent as honor killing is? Everything with which one disagrees can not be considered "oppressive" just to bolster the quantative data on female oppression. Doesn't this sort of data manipulation parallel to the girl who cried "wolf?" Now for the rest of the story.
As regards the hijab in the Mulsim world. This head dress did not derive from 7th century Muslim males (which were, by the way, not white males), but rather from the wives of Muhammad. It seems that these gals were on the par with superstars and could not leave their houses to go shopping or to the bathroom without being thronged. Therefore these women (not men) decided to go incognito, and the hijab was created. Later on some folks though that if it was good enough for the wives of the prophet, it was good enough for the common folks. Thus it was an imitation of women's customs, not male dictates. How it may have evolved in the present is another narrative. The moral of the story is to be careful with the facts and not read western culture into every situation.
In the second example, it was stated that women who wore long hair in US holiness churches were oppressed. Now that is really peculiar considering the historical context from which it derives. Neither does a hair style seem so oppressive a the self-imposed female assessories of the past such as girdle, corset, eye-liner, high-heels, chokers, etc. (but I do admit that is my own perspective and would not want to participate in gladitorial games that requires such equipment). Cultures have their symbols: iPods, blue jeans, hats, and hair. Faith communities also have symbols: crosses, menorah's, and head coverings. Jewish men wear a tallit when praying. For many years, only males did this but now it is common to see women in synagogue wearing a prayer shawl. In Christian faith communities, it has been women who wore the head coverings. Could common men wear them: not usually! From whence does this custom derive? From white male oppression or from female customs of the east? Take your best guess, and then you can proceed. In the first century Roman empire, it was common for women to have long hair, to wear veils, and to have head dresses. In the church of Corinth, St. Paul addressed this matter. Not that the women failed to veil themselves (as female custom dictated), but that some of the men were apparently copying older Greek traditions of wearing long hair like the Greek warriors in the Trojan war (Iliad). It was apparently no longer customary to do such. St. Paul asks the folks, "what are your customs." He appealed to the common life of Roman citizens in formerly Greek regions. Life was hard enough without asking for a fight. Holiness churches drew their idea of long hair on women from the same passage of scripture (1 Corinthians 11), such was common in the early 20th century, it released those women from hats and veils, and it actually states that a woman's long hair empowered her (at least in that day). Again, we have considered oppression what another culture considers empowerment, because of a failure to recognize what anthropologist call cultural relativism. Western values are not the touchstones for all peoples.
Dave
Monday, November 24, 2008
To be or not to be a feminist, et al; do such choices really exist?
I come to feminism with some of the thoughts already posited by Joel. Is feminism the new segregation? Why does this somehow seem sexist to me? I really wanted to discover that humanity had laid it's differences aside for the more significant "sameness" that we all share, but alas I was disappointed. One of the drawing cards that structuralism offered was sameness. It is not that differences do not exist, but that what we share is more significant that the diversity that we so often imagine.
Feminism wants me to see more difference, more politics, more power, more oppression, and more avenues to voice and empowerment. But I must ask, empowerment at whose expense? I can not speak for feminist, or so I am told that this is not possible since I am a male, but I am sure that females or feminist are not the only persons who have been oppressed and silenced. Neither do I believe that all silencing and oppression comes via white males, black males, rich males, poor males, smart males, dumb males, or males of any shape or color. We have somehow approved racism, sexism, and religious intolerance as long as it refers to a general, biologically non-existent, category of white males or white European males, or white European Christian males. Why do we continue to perpetrate racism and sexism, just as long as it is the phantom white male whom we imagine has all the benefits and none of the disadvantages of humanity. Even if this phantom male is guilty and without defense, is it O. K. to be racist and sexist just as long as it's "the other." Hitler could have done no better.
I asked my wife if she was being or had been oppressed in her life and if so by whom. She said she had suffered oppression, almost exclusively from other women. She claimed there were few males that a woman can not handle, seeing most of them can easily be controlled with food and sex. It was the other women that had oppressed, silenced, and disenfranchised her in nearly every walk of life, including education. She added that she had most often gotten sincere help from males of all classes and colors. Women, she said, were the problem and the chief oppressors of the species of both genders. In Chaucer's Wife of Bath tale, the wise woman says what females most want is to rule over men, not to be their equals. Do they also want to rule over other women?
I speak for myself, as an observer of critical theory. I speak as a mere human who had no choice over either race or gender as I entered the world. I personally and presently don't have any power, either over women or other males. I live with three daughters and one wife. When I got married, my wife and I split my authority 50/50; she retained all of her own. I was told by her: What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine tool. It sounded like a fair trade to me, her company has always been worth more than my stuff. When my son was born, I did not impart any of my authority to him; he will have to fend for himself. When my first daughter was born, I divided my remaining authority with her 50/50 while my wife continued to retain all of hers. I think that left me with 25% of my original allotment. When my second daughter was born, I again shared my authority 50/50 with her, leaving me somewhere around 12% considering inflating and devaluation. By the time my third daughter was born, it left me with about a nickel's worth of say-so in my own home. I have to be really careful so as not to lose what is left.
I often read ancient texts, philosophical treatises, and sacred writings. It's my job and what I teach online. Nothing I have seen in critical theory surpasses the words of a first century Roman Citizen of the Jewish persuasion: "And [you] have put on the new humanity, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free-man, male nor female: but Meshiach is all, and in all (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:10-11). Friends, we are still far, far away from this type of "new humanity."
Dave
Feminism wants me to see more difference, more politics, more power, more oppression, and more avenues to voice and empowerment. But I must ask, empowerment at whose expense? I can not speak for feminist, or so I am told that this is not possible since I am a male, but I am sure that females or feminist are not the only persons who have been oppressed and silenced. Neither do I believe that all silencing and oppression comes via white males, black males, rich males, poor males, smart males, dumb males, or males of any shape or color. We have somehow approved racism, sexism, and religious intolerance as long as it refers to a general, biologically non-existent, category of white males or white European males, or white European Christian males. Why do we continue to perpetrate racism and sexism, just as long as it is the phantom white male whom we imagine has all the benefits and none of the disadvantages of humanity. Even if this phantom male is guilty and without defense, is it O. K. to be racist and sexist just as long as it's "the other." Hitler could have done no better.
I asked my wife if she was being or had been oppressed in her life and if so by whom. She said she had suffered oppression, almost exclusively from other women. She claimed there were few males that a woman can not handle, seeing most of them can easily be controlled with food and sex. It was the other women that had oppressed, silenced, and disenfranchised her in nearly every walk of life, including education. She added that she had most often gotten sincere help from males of all classes and colors. Women, she said, were the problem and the chief oppressors of the species of both genders. In Chaucer's Wife of Bath tale, the wise woman says what females most want is to rule over men, not to be their equals. Do they also want to rule over other women?
I speak for myself, as an observer of critical theory. I speak as a mere human who had no choice over either race or gender as I entered the world. I personally and presently don't have any power, either over women or other males. I live with three daughters and one wife. When I got married, my wife and I split my authority 50/50; she retained all of her own. I was told by her: What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine tool. It sounded like a fair trade to me, her company has always been worth more than my stuff. When my son was born, I did not impart any of my authority to him; he will have to fend for himself. When my first daughter was born, I divided my remaining authority with her 50/50 while my wife continued to retain all of hers. I think that left me with 25% of my original allotment. When my second daughter was born, I again shared my authority 50/50 with her, leaving me somewhere around 12% considering inflating and devaluation. By the time my third daughter was born, it left me with about a nickel's worth of say-so in my own home. I have to be really careful so as not to lose what is left.
I often read ancient texts, philosophical treatises, and sacred writings. It's my job and what I teach online. Nothing I have seen in critical theory surpasses the words of a first century Roman Citizen of the Jewish persuasion: "And [you] have put on the new humanity, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free-man, male nor female: but Meshiach is all, and in all (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:10-11). Friends, we are still far, far away from this type of "new humanity."
Dave
Monday, November 17, 2008
Multiple Annies or multiple models?
1. Do you consider this a phenomenological study (388) or using these methods constitute phenomenology? Crotty would say that it is a purely American construction to believe that anyone could have done a phenomenological study in this instance except Annie (Crotty, 84).
2. The study states that "I take up the feminist researcher's concern of honoring the voices of women, using a multiplicity of data, and starting with women's personal experiences" (388). I did not hear the voices of all four women (Annie, Candace, Sheila, & Alecia), I mainly hear Alecia's voice and Annie as a construction of Alecia's conceptual framework. I do not see how we can hear all voices unless all women are allowed to speak for themselves?
3. The article states that "Sheila did not acknowledge difference and assumed that Annie would assimilate to teach exactly like her, even though Annie's method of teaching is nearly opposite Sheila's" (393). I find this a non sequitur. Nothing in the article persuades the reader that Sheila either ignored difference or assumed that Annie would assimilate to teach exactly like her." On the contrary, what appears in the article is that Annie did not acknowledge difference and assumed that Sheila would act exactly as Candace." Neither does it follow that worksheets, tests, or lectures are poor forms of teaching, nor that they constitute teacher-centered models. There is no direct connection between constructivist ideology and modes or models of teaching (discussion, portfolio, presentations). Open discussions, whatever they are, do not in and of themselves constitute student learning, neither do other methods in and of themselves exclude student learning. The content often dictates the method, and a good teacher must master more than one teaching style. Why does the language of the article force me to see Sheila as a poor example, to see her teaching style as somehow "wrong" or that Annie must be correct in her assessments.
4. I find Annie a classic example of an Echo Boomer. Is this a correct assessment, and if not how does she differ from this sociological model.
2. The study states that "I take up the feminist researcher's concern of honoring the voices of women, using a multiplicity of data, and starting with women's personal experiences" (388). I did not hear the voices of all four women (Annie, Candace, Sheila, & Alecia), I mainly hear Alecia's voice and Annie as a construction of Alecia's conceptual framework. I do not see how we can hear all voices unless all women are allowed to speak for themselves?
3. The article states that "Sheila did not acknowledge difference and assumed that Annie would assimilate to teach exactly like her, even though Annie's method of teaching is nearly opposite Sheila's" (393). I find this a non sequitur. Nothing in the article persuades the reader that Sheila either ignored difference or assumed that Annie would assimilate to teach exactly like her." On the contrary, what appears in the article is that Annie did not acknowledge difference and assumed that Sheila would act exactly as Candace." Neither does it follow that worksheets, tests, or lectures are poor forms of teaching, nor that they constitute teacher-centered models. There is no direct connection between constructivist ideology and modes or models of teaching (discussion, portfolio, presentations). Open discussions, whatever they are, do not in and of themselves constitute student learning, neither do other methods in and of themselves exclude student learning. The content often dictates the method, and a good teacher must master more than one teaching style. Why does the language of the article force me to see Sheila as a poor example, to see her teaching style as somehow "wrong" or that Annie must be correct in her assessments.
4. I find Annie a classic example of an Echo Boomer. Is this a correct assessment, and if not how does she differ from this sociological model.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Critical Theory: First Thoughts
Coming to post-colonialism theory the class safari fully enters into the realm of critical dialog. I come to this region with some fear and trepidation realizing the basis in conflict/warfare thesis and some of the consequences of this model from the past. It is rather easy for me to buy into liberation for the oppressed, social justice, and political empowerment, but then I realize an unforeseen caveat, a sort of Pandora's jar or pot (it was really not a box folks). What is hidden under the lid of this pot is not hope, but rather vested/conflict of interest.
On the one hand, critical theory does seem to focus on the oppression of the masses. On the other hand, the masses seem to be faceless and individuals are rather expendable. So critical theory is willing to empower the masses while at the same time disenfranchising the individual. I believe that it is important to consider that the revolution often proposed by critical theory, either social, economic, or military, does not propose to liberate all people, but only the oppressed of a certain sort, usually economically oppressed or those on the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Should we be satisfied to offer humanity bread and circuses, considering the task accomplished? What of those who are spiritually or ideologically oppressed, those who lack transcendent purpose, and those who oppress others because of ignorance? I would consider all of the foregoing candidates for liberation, though usually not the liberation of which the revolutions of the past have focused. Maybe humanity does not live by bread alone and possibly those who are well fed, clothed, and housed also suffer a type of oppression that is beyond the ken of current critical theory with its monolithic and myopic origins. What if by liberating a few spiritually they in turn would use their means to liberate the masses economically, forgoing the cruel and bloody revolutions that dogged the so called liberators of the past.
Dave
On the one hand, critical theory does seem to focus on the oppression of the masses. On the other hand, the masses seem to be faceless and individuals are rather expendable. So critical theory is willing to empower the masses while at the same time disenfranchising the individual. I believe that it is important to consider that the revolution often proposed by critical theory, either social, economic, or military, does not propose to liberate all people, but only the oppressed of a certain sort, usually economically oppressed or those on the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Should we be satisfied to offer humanity bread and circuses, considering the task accomplished? What of those who are spiritually or ideologically oppressed, those who lack transcendent purpose, and those who oppress others because of ignorance? I would consider all of the foregoing candidates for liberation, though usually not the liberation of which the revolutions of the past have focused. Maybe humanity does not live by bread alone and possibly those who are well fed, clothed, and housed also suffer a type of oppression that is beyond the ken of current critical theory with its monolithic and myopic origins. What if by liberating a few spiritually they in turn would use their means to liberate the masses economically, forgoing the cruel and bloody revolutions that dogged the so called liberators of the past.
Dave
Monday, November 10, 2008
Action Research
I must admit that I had a change of heart concerning action research after the in class exercises and discussion. Here was my initial problem: I had so many red flags (no pun intended, well maybe a small pun) go up when reading the Cammarota article that I saw this methodology in far right of Methodologies. I knew the remaining authors did not fall into the Cammarota camp, but I was still a little gun shy thinking that these guys were going to start another revolution and get us all shot. At such crossroads in philosophy, I usually quote "Won't get fooled again" by the Who: Meet the new boss, same as the old Boss! It was a great relief when I discovered that Action Research seemed to fall across models, tending to be more on the method side of matters. Vachel's presentation clinched the format for me.
After that epiphany, I have found Action Research to be a liberating and time saving ideology. It also tends to function much along the lines of phenomenology, allowing the participants to tell the story. It made me begin to imagine ways to incorporate Action Research into some of my more time consuming methods of inquiry.
If there are many ways of knowing, many truths, and no Truth, it makes no difference whether one takes the red or blue pill; one fellow's poison is another's potpourri. It only makes a difference in a universe of hierarchical values where it is possible to make good and bad choices.
Action Research project in my community:
My wife is the music director for a UMC in Hickory, NC. She is always wondering what songs folks want to hear & sing. They have used a questionnaire in the past, but then someone has to tabulate the data. After we did the fish/rock activity, I got this idea of a simple way to get the same data without the intervening days/weeks of compilation. Do the fish chart, but write favorite songs in the fish and bad songs (ones folks don't like) on the rocks. If folks like the same song, they could trace around the fish and make it bigger. The same would go for the rocks. Folks could do this as they walked in the auditorium and the results could be used in just a few minutes. I guess folks could also use Jacob's ladder and stumbling blocks if they wanted biblical allusions to the exercise. I wonder if I could market the idea to the folks who sell the rights to the songs/music?
Dave
After that epiphany, I have found Action Research to be a liberating and time saving ideology. It also tends to function much along the lines of phenomenology, allowing the participants to tell the story. It made me begin to imagine ways to incorporate Action Research into some of my more time consuming methods of inquiry.
If there are many ways of knowing, many truths, and no Truth, it makes no difference whether one takes the red or blue pill; one fellow's poison is another's potpourri. It only makes a difference in a universe of hierarchical values where it is possible to make good and bad choices.
Action Research project in my community:
My wife is the music director for a UMC in Hickory, NC. She is always wondering what songs folks want to hear & sing. They have used a questionnaire in the past, but then someone has to tabulate the data. After we did the fish/rock activity, I got this idea of a simple way to get the same data without the intervening days/weeks of compilation. Do the fish chart, but write favorite songs in the fish and bad songs (ones folks don't like) on the rocks. If folks like the same song, they could trace around the fish and make it bigger. The same would go for the rocks. Folks could do this as they walked in the auditorium and the results could be used in just a few minutes. I guess folks could also use Jacob's ladder and stumbling blocks if they wanted biblical allusions to the exercise. I wonder if I could market the idea to the folks who sell the rights to the songs/music?
Dave
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Second Thoughts: Critique of Interpretism
After posting my initial post on interpretism, I began to reflect and read/re-read Crotty on the topic. Now I'm not so sure that either Constructivism or Constructionism (Crotty distinguishes the two), should be placed in the interpretist fold. I was not definitive enough when I labeled constructivism as a horse of a different color. Possibly it is more like a platypus of sorts, a species that dislikes categorization. What seems to be materializing, at least to my mind are not just many truths, as the constructivist would say, but multiple constructivisms, multiple phenomenologies (Crotty 83-84), and I suspect multiples of most other methodologies. My question is, "What is important." It is as though ambiguity being taken for granted in constructivism, the model has done its best to construct more of the same a (more ambiguity); this is no way to build a railroad.
des
des
Monday, October 27, 2008
Critiquing the Interpretist
I have become hesitant at accepting solutions that promise to deliver us from the two extremes. I find the interpretist model falling into this category at times. On the one hand, constructivism as one example says that it is neither subjective nor objective, but a horse of a different color (to use the words of the Wizard of Oz). This means that constructivism is to some extent a reaction to both objectivism and subjectivism, but is this actually the case. Could it be the case that constructivism is posited (pun intended) to be the new objectivism, or perhaps even the new subjectivist. Let me offer a case in point. Constructivism teaches us that there is no one way, no Truth (big T), but many truths (little t). So far so good, but is that really the case? If there is actually no Truth, then the statement itself (there is no Truth) can not be valid, because it poses as an absolute, what would have formerly been called a Truth. On the other hand, if there are many truths, then one of the many truths may be an absolute Truth, such as humans need water and air to exist. It is easy to assent to a interpretist model in social sciences, literature, or humanities, but it is not so easy to do so in the physical world. The physical world cares little of what humans think about it, it has no conscience, no consciousness, and no social-constructions of its own.
Let me propose, since there are many truths, that constructivism and the other models are only one of many models and that it may be very possible that no one model can answer all questions, just as no one man or woman can possess all the truth. That interpretist models can answer some questions in some situations (social constructions), may be a reasonable assumption. That intrepretist models can best answer all questions in all situations is a generalization which is unwarranted. That we may some day find a more useful model that can answer many more questions and possibly replace constructivism or other interpretist models is altogether likely. We have seen it happen at least three times in the 20th century educational contexts (idealism => logical empiricism => behaviorism => constructivism). It seems that total annihilation of one model by the next is never complete, and few models can expect eternal life in the academy.
It may be that case that constructivism is the current dominant paradigm because it best explains the dominant mode of teaching, not that it best explains the modes of learning. There actually seems to be no logical connections between the theoretical foundations of constructivism, how people learn (social construction of knowledge), and what constructivist teachers should do (Lerman). At the least, social constructions of meaning (or sense) are not limitless (Crotty), but very limited indeed. If this were not so, communicating with other humans (even in the same language), writing a book, giving directions to a male of the species, or typing on the computer would prove near impossible. In many cases, a cigar is just a cigar. And on second thoughts, I might retract the statement about giving directions to keep from looking ignorant before my female colleagues.
Dave
Let me propose, since there are many truths, that constructivism and the other models are only one of many models and that it may be very possible that no one model can answer all questions, just as no one man or woman can possess all the truth. That interpretist models can answer some questions in some situations (social constructions), may be a reasonable assumption. That intrepretist models can best answer all questions in all situations is a generalization which is unwarranted. That we may some day find a more useful model that can answer many more questions and possibly replace constructivism or other interpretist models is altogether likely. We have seen it happen at least three times in the 20th century educational contexts (idealism => logical empiricism => behaviorism => constructivism). It seems that total annihilation of one model by the next is never complete, and few models can expect eternal life in the academy.
It may be that case that constructivism is the current dominant paradigm because it best explains the dominant mode of teaching, not that it best explains the modes of learning. There actually seems to be no logical connections between the theoretical foundations of constructivism, how people learn (social construction of knowledge), and what constructivist teachers should do (Lerman). At the least, social constructions of meaning (or sense) are not limitless (Crotty), but very limited indeed. If this were not so, communicating with other humans (even in the same language), writing a book, giving directions to a male of the species, or typing on the computer would prove near impossible. In many cases, a cigar is just a cigar. And on second thoughts, I might retract the statement about giving directions to keep from looking ignorant before my female colleagues.
Dave
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Second Thoughts on Kitchen Psalms
I think we all got a kick out of Kitchen Stories, but on second thoughts this was somewhat of a worse case scenario. I doubt if every objectivist research adventure is fraught with such methodological blunders, subjectivism, and collusion with the subject. An observer could not very well become drinking buddies with a penguin or grizzly bear or rattle snake. All situations, environments, and topics are not equal, not to mention that the context/environment could have a great deal to do with the choice of methodology and methods.
Therefore I am beginning to see Kitchen Stories as the characature it is, a cartoonish spoof of objective methodologies. I saw this more clearly when I read of ethnographic methods/methodology (Eisenhart seems to confuse the two). It is almost impossible to generalize ethnographic studies, and when it is attempted great error can occur. It is not that ethnographic studies are subjective, but it seems that since subjectivism is admitted folks don't feel that private or sectarian interpretations must be guarded against. One of Eisenhart's admissions of weakness was lack of mobility. Of course this is the case. A researcher can not study Amazon tribes anywhere but in the Amazon, and the study can have little or no correlation with the evolution of northern European society. Eisenhart seems unable to even define "culture," although this is the focus of ethnology. Culture, instead being the defining aspects of a group such as food, clothing, religion, art, et al, has become little more than individual habits or imitations. The quest for difference and diversity has had such an overwhelming influence on the methodology that ethnology has truly lost sight of both the forest and the trees, focusing on a NY Yankee's ball caps mistakenly left on-site by a boy scout troupe 3 years ago.
It seems as all methodologies wish to use some form of quantification. Even Eisenhart counts the number of Ph. D. students doing qualitative research at the beginning of a 14 year span and after it (18). It seems pretty ungrateful to bite the hand that feeds you. The article is also filled with the conflict thesis. I wonder if ethnology or critical theory could function without words like dominate, justice, fairness, narratives, change, poor, equality, poverty, economic, socialization, world view, multicultural, identity, manipulated, struggle, incongruities, incommensurable, contradictory, elite, hierarchy, violence, minority, relationships, contention, and gender. If these concepts are so important, why are they never defined or why do anthropologist and ethnologist argue over the connotations or applications of the words. The surrender to uncertainty has made the methodology of uncertain value to some if not many. No wonder that Eisenhart seems to be trying to salvage a sinking ship at times.
Dave
Therefore I am beginning to see Kitchen Stories as the characature it is, a cartoonish spoof of objective methodologies. I saw this more clearly when I read of ethnographic methods/methodology (Eisenhart seems to confuse the two). It is almost impossible to generalize ethnographic studies, and when it is attempted great error can occur. It is not that ethnographic studies are subjective, but it seems that since subjectivism is admitted folks don't feel that private or sectarian interpretations must be guarded against. One of Eisenhart's admissions of weakness was lack of mobility. Of course this is the case. A researcher can not study Amazon tribes anywhere but in the Amazon, and the study can have little or no correlation with the evolution of northern European society. Eisenhart seems unable to even define "culture," although this is the focus of ethnology. Culture, instead being the defining aspects of a group such as food, clothing, religion, art, et al, has become little more than individual habits or imitations. The quest for difference and diversity has had such an overwhelming influence on the methodology that ethnology has truly lost sight of both the forest and the trees, focusing on a NY Yankee's ball caps mistakenly left on-site by a boy scout troupe 3 years ago.
It seems as all methodologies wish to use some form of quantification. Even Eisenhart counts the number of Ph. D. students doing qualitative research at the beginning of a 14 year span and after it (18). It seems pretty ungrateful to bite the hand that feeds you. The article is also filled with the conflict thesis. I wonder if ethnology or critical theory could function without words like dominate, justice, fairness, narratives, change, poor, equality, poverty, economic, socialization, world view, multicultural, identity, manipulated, struggle, incongruities, incommensurable, contradictory, elite, hierarchy, violence, minority, relationships, contention, and gender. If these concepts are so important, why are they never defined or why do anthropologist and ethnologist argue over the connotations or applications of the words. The surrender to uncertainty has made the methodology of uncertain value to some if not many. No wonder that Eisenhart seems to be trying to salvage a sinking ship at times.
Dave
Monday, October 13, 2008
Psalms from the Kitchen
I don't know about the rest of you folks, but if I were a positivist stuck on a Norwegian farm in the winter in a 5 X 8 trailer, I would be severely tempted to take up drinking with the farmer, especially if he was buying. If I was a positivist anywhere in the world, I would take up drinking just to save my sanity. Even thinking about being a positivist makes my head hurt, even without a drink. It is not that I disagree with empiricism as an epistemology, it's just that I disagree with it as the only epistemology. It has also been revealed to me through an extended discussion with a positivist-materialist blend that is it nigh impossible to remove a researcher from his research. Why not just confess the complicity, tell folks what and who you are, and let others attempt to separate the research from the researcher.
I don't know why the original title is Kitchen Psalms. I wonder if the Swedes automatically think of the Hebrew Bible when the word Psalm is mentioned. The book of Pslams in the Hebrew Bible contains hymns, but it also contains royal Psalms, thanksgiving psalms, penitential psalms, and imprecatory psalms. I don't know if there is a connection or the title is incidental. Titles usually mean something.
Probably the most remarkable point in the film is near the end where it is realized that the observer had been observed, and the observed had filled in some of the details himself. Where the understudy feels that this has jepordized the objectivity of the research, the author of the study finds the phenomenon interesting and possibly the best part of data that was collected. Here again, the researcher determines both the validity of the data and its importance.
Melanie's viewpoint from a media perspective as film criticism is just another example of how we can see the same data differently based on perspective.
What I want to know from research is can we live with it. That is, do our conclusions reflect how earth folks really live or do I have to believe in Lilliputians or Martians to make sense of it all.
Dave
I don't know why the original title is Kitchen Psalms. I wonder if the Swedes automatically think of the Hebrew Bible when the word Psalm is mentioned. The book of Pslams in the Hebrew Bible contains hymns, but it also contains royal Psalms, thanksgiving psalms, penitential psalms, and imprecatory psalms. I don't know if there is a connection or the title is incidental. Titles usually mean something.
Probably the most remarkable point in the film is near the end where it is realized that the observer had been observed, and the observed had filled in some of the details himself. Where the understudy feels that this has jepordized the objectivity of the research, the author of the study finds the phenomenon interesting and possibly the best part of data that was collected. Here again, the researcher determines both the validity of the data and its importance.
Melanie's viewpoint from a media perspective as film criticism is just another example of how we can see the same data differently based on perspective.
What I want to know from research is can we live with it. That is, do our conclusions reflect how earth folks really live or do I have to believe in Lilliputians or Martians to make sense of it all.
Dave
Friday, September 26, 2008
Parallel events, causation and other musings
I must concur with Christy's assessment of correlation: its not good enough. I can see the necessity of research that shows correlation, it just appears logical that someone would proceed to determine if some of the correlations were causative. But that brings me to the crux of matter. Research in the social sciences (including education) is different that research in hard sciences, as one of the readings related. That may be why Christy struggles with correlation, and why I do too. We were both in the objectivist hemisphere of the grid, though she was in the lower right and I was off the grid in the upper right. Some day I must come to realize this fact, but I think it would really help if researchers in the social sciences and education would quit calling their work "Scientific Research." It makes me recall Anna and the King (movie version: The King and I). We could coin a new, more authentic term, for example: good-enough research or even "Educational Research." That would work for me and reduce my increasingly frequent bouts with cognitive dissonance.
Now for class and how it goes. Vachel's demo of the correlation function in Excel was great stuff. Melanie said it only appears in Office 2007, but I also found it in Open Office 2.4 which is free and multi-platform. I must also admit I am a skeptic, so I checked Excel 2003 and found a correlate (correl) function hidden there also. So this tip was cool! Thanks Vachel.
Now for the classroom. O. K., the cat is out of the bag. Who is researching the attrition rate of doctoral students confined to small spaces? That is the only reason I can deduct that 11 doctoral students and their kind master are week by week stuffed into a low tech cul-de-sac created in the dark ages before Kenneth Eble published Professors as Teachers (1971), which stated that the physical accommodations for learning were atrocious and derived from medieval torture chambers and French monasteries. This is not good modeling folks. I suggest we form a doctoral students' union, compose a manifesto, stock up on garlic, and begin negotiations with the bourgeoisie. Better yet, let's move class to Portofino's, a bar, a church, or somewhere that is conducive to human beings and Boone's environmental fluxes. If we were cattle or chickens, the humane society would help us. Seeing we are on the top of the food chain, we have no advocate.
Resolve: That Cohort 16 hold class at the Chancellor Peacock's house every Tuesday afternoon (and on the two weekends we are in town), eat his food, and drink his beer until the situation is remedied. I am sure this course of action would speed up the negotiations and work better than any formal complaint that we can lodge. His house also has lots of free parking.
Dave
Now for class and how it goes. Vachel's demo of the correlation function in Excel was great stuff. Melanie said it only appears in Office 2007, but I also found it in Open Office 2.4 which is free and multi-platform. I must also admit I am a skeptic, so I checked Excel 2003 and found a correlate (correl) function hidden there also. So this tip was cool! Thanks Vachel.
Now for the classroom. O. K., the cat is out of the bag. Who is researching the attrition rate of doctoral students confined to small spaces? That is the only reason I can deduct that 11 doctoral students and their kind master are week by week stuffed into a low tech cul-de-sac created in the dark ages before Kenneth Eble published Professors as Teachers (1971), which stated that the physical accommodations for learning were atrocious and derived from medieval torture chambers and French monasteries. This is not good modeling folks. I suggest we form a doctoral students' union, compose a manifesto, stock up on garlic, and begin negotiations with the bourgeoisie. Better yet, let's move class to Portofino's, a bar, a church, or somewhere that is conducive to human beings and Boone's environmental fluxes. If we were cattle or chickens, the humane society would help us. Seeing we are on the top of the food chain, we have no advocate.
Resolve: That Cohort 16 hold class at the Chancellor Peacock's house every Tuesday afternoon (and on the two weekends we are in town), eat his food, and drink his beer until the situation is remedied. I am sure this course of action would speed up the negotiations and work better than any formal complaint that we can lodge. His house also has lots of free parking.
Dave
Monday, September 22, 2008
SET et al
In the community college setting, each instructor sees (semester by semester) a particular piece of research that directly relates to teaching, or should I rather say holding class. The technical term for this survey form of research is SET (Student Evaluations of Teaching). Administrators place some predictive confidence in these surveys, though in type they appear to be simply descriptive. It is easy for the shrewd instructor to manipulate both SET input and the results. Let me give an illustration.
Although SET are used to present quantifiable data, often using a 1-5 scale (strongly agree, agree, no opinion or neutral, disagree, strongly disagree) resulting in percentage breakdowns, it has been documented in the literature that student input can be directly influenced by one or more of the following: candy, gender, easy course requirements, personal appearance (hot or not) and professional favors. For example, if I want high student ratings on a bad course, I would prep the students at least a week before SET by showing funny movies, giving out pop corn, and allowing students to write their own final scores in the gradebook. On the other hand, if I taught a rather difficult course, I could get a poor SET score merely because I gave a difficult test, did not allow late work, or wore stinky sox on the same day of SET.
This is not to totally ignore or call for a moratorium on the use of SET, but it goes to illustrate the need for controls, not only over the control group and its environment, but in interpretation of results and the possible fallacy of basing quantitative reports on qualitative data and highly subjective input. This is definitely not rocket science from anyone's point of view, unless that be be the viewpoint of one's department head.
Although SET are used to present quantifiable data, often using a 1-5 scale (strongly agree, agree, no opinion or neutral, disagree, strongly disagree) resulting in percentage breakdowns, it has been documented in the literature that student input can be directly influenced by one or more of the following: candy, gender, easy course requirements, personal appearance (hot or not) and professional favors. For example, if I want high student ratings on a bad course, I would prep the students at least a week before SET by showing funny movies, giving out pop corn, and allowing students to write their own final scores in the gradebook. On the other hand, if I taught a rather difficult course, I could get a poor SET score merely because I gave a difficult test, did not allow late work, or wore stinky sox on the same day of SET.
This is not to totally ignore or call for a moratorium on the use of SET, but it goes to illustrate the need for controls, not only over the control group and its environment, but in interpretation of results and the possible fallacy of basing quantitative reports on qualitative data and highly subjective input. This is definitely not rocket science from anyone's point of view, unless that be be the viewpoint of one's department head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
