I cannot believe I only have three weeks left of my undergraduate career. I feel as if I am suddenly made of heavy, wet tissue paper, leaving pieces of me everywhere, more sensitive somehow.
When considering how exactly to fit three years worth of reflection into a two page summary, I went back to our drawing board: our Paideia blogs. At the very beginning, our cohort was much larger, much louder, and much less crazed. It’s been an interesting case study in its own way, to see who survived, how they did it, and what they look like/act like/speak like/believe by the end of this program. Everyone seemed to not only become progressively different but also progressively more stressed (including Dr. Giuliano!) as we’ve approached this final semester.
My very first blog was submitted on Saturday, August 30th, 2008 and in the very next blog, I wrote on the basics of why I had decided to join Paideia.
“I signed up for Paideia because I thought it was a program that really championed the ideals of a liberal arts institution and that it would help me to become a person more accepting of other opinions as well as better able to form my own. I signed up for the Human Behavior group in particular because I think it will yield some wonderful benefits and open some great windows for me as an English major that I wouldn't otherwise get to enjoy.”
And, looking back, I sincerely believe that Paideia has fulfilled all of the hopes and expectations I had for it. Of course, our cohort went through some bumps and confusions along the way, but I truly believe that I have become a more confident, more open, more considering, and more articulate person. The first informal presentation I gave in my cohort examined the ethics of torture warrants (a popular issue of discussion during the Bush presidency). And in this blog I actually defend the idea of torture warrants under the hope that it would lessen torture generally – through shame, I suppose. But in rereading this blog I recognize my old suppositions and thoughts, I recognize their general cogency, and I realize that I now disagree with them. That, for me, is proof not simply that Paideia has made me a more considerate person, but also that I have enabled myself to change and grow. – Paideia has given me room to move.
Now, I know that some Paideia cohorts have stricter themes such as music or healthcare but, I must say, I found the breadth and variety of our cohort’s discussions exceptionally stimulating. As I remarked in one of my blogs:
“From Kandinsky to how our language forms our perspectives on the world (those articles are still blowing my mind) to introverts taking back the floor – it’s been an extremely diverse and yet well blended semester, I think, so far.”
This gave me personal room to discuss and better consider different perspectives within my own interdisciplinary major, American Studies. Actually, now that I think of it, Paideia is part of the reason why I decided to double my English major with American Studies. Paideia gave some real purpose, some real definition to my undergraduate education. It enabled me to think of things from different avenues including possible means of applying my education to actions, to ameliorating my community and even my country.
In high school I knew I was going to college. In college I knew I wanted to major in English and then maybe become a professor one day. Now, thanks to the mindset Paideia helped me adopt, I’m going to George Washington University to earn an MA in American Studies with the recognition that, though I could still be a professor one day, what I’d really like to do is move to Washington, volunteer at the Spokane Indian Reservation, and write. Or maybe move to Wyoming and become a National Park Ranger. Or maybe become a high school teacher and work on devising new ways of improving the public school system in Texas.
I feel as though the world has opened itself up to me in so many new and beautiful ways that I had never before considered. The main concern I keep hearing from people is that they don’t believe I’ll be able to find a job with my degree. Well, in part thanks to the reflection, mindset, and support given to me by my Paideia experience, I know they’re simply thinking too small – they are limiting me and my education because they can’t see the larger picture. The world is larger than school – as Peter Elbow once said, school is short and life is long. So, while Paideia has ensured that I will be a lifelong student, it has also ensured that I no longer view life as a recipe with set ingredients that make up a set outcome. It’s opened me up, exploratory, new, adaptable, tolerant, Paideia.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Amazing Live Show
When U2 was Rock
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/photos/rolling-stone-readers-pick-the-top-ten-live-acts-of-all-time-20110309/6-u2-0379360
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/photos/rolling-stone-readers-pick-the-top-ten-live-acts-of-all-time-20110309/6-u2-0379360
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Shilling Lecture Series: TOMS Shoes
Well, I didn’t quite know what to expect out Mr. Blake Mycoskie, but I did think he’d dress up a bit more than our student representatives. At any rate, I did come into the auditorium feeling much more distrustful and dissatisfied than I did coming out – Mr. Mycoskie did win me over in certain aspects of his lecture. For instance, since I participated in one of the pre-lecture salons over TOMS shoes, I went in knowing a bit more about the company and with many more questions than I would have otherwise – questions like: if the shoes are so cheaply made, why only give away a single pair of shoes for each pair purchased? And how is your business working to avoid “white savior” paternalism issues? However, the question I liked best, the question Dr. O’Neill came up with, the question that wasn’t answered: why the hell are they called “TOMS” shoes? Why not BLAKES? Any way, I digress.
I was rather frustrated with his storytelling approach to this lecture when, in fact, I had come expecting him to speak on more substantial matters such as: it’s been said that your company’s style of charity will change the face of capitalism – how is it that you think this can hold any water given that you yourself (Mycoskie) don’t trust anyone else to be true to your mission (hence his refusal to sell the company unlike his previous businesses)? Or, how can you (Mycoskie) say that there are limits to how much people are willing to donate to charity but no limit to how many pairs of over-priced shoes people will be willing to buy?
Don’t mistake me, I am very grateful for what Mycoskie is doing in the world – shoes for children around the world are a basic necessity and the world is a better place for Mycoskie to be here trying to supply those shoes. However, it doesn’t seem to me that his business model is all that sustainable. It’s true that things could go either way: people will buy a pair of shoes, feel satiated in their “good” deed, and thus ends their charity for the (week, month, or year) or people will buy a pair of shoes and then decide to turn all of their consumer purchases to more responsible and charitable companies. From where I’m standing, it seems that Mycoskie should be standing at the ready with another line of products to release to the public under the same One for One promise.
I felt that his Q&A session was much more substantial than his actual lecture – and that’s where he did the winning over avec moi. I was pleased to learn that he works with and subsidizes NGO’s to make sure that the shoes are being distributed appropriately; I liked that he works with “local” shoe manufacturers; I liked that his focus was on disease prevention and in getting children to school so as to aid in the end of some instances of cyclical poverty; and I liked that, due to the NGO’s, he was redistributing larger shoes to children as they grew out of the ones he’d already given them. I was also glad to learn why his shoes are priced the way they are (for paying the retailers, the donated pair, transporting the donated pair, etc) as well as why he hadn't simply sold this company the way he has sold his previous businesses.
I was also particularly impressed with our student representatives and just how crisp and eloquent their questions were -- especially the question about if he believed he was competent or ready for actually maintaining a business given his lack of experience with that type of management. Very well done, Rosie and Brad!
But, overall, I found Blake Mycoskie charming, goofy, frustrating, misleading, naïve, a few shades away from the colors of a benevolent dictator, paternalistic, and, generally, a good person trying to do something good for others (while turning a profit).
I was rather frustrated with his storytelling approach to this lecture when, in fact, I had come expecting him to speak on more substantial matters such as: it’s been said that your company’s style of charity will change the face of capitalism – how is it that you think this can hold any water given that you yourself (Mycoskie) don’t trust anyone else to be true to your mission (hence his refusal to sell the company unlike his previous businesses)? Or, how can you (Mycoskie) say that there are limits to how much people are willing to donate to charity but no limit to how many pairs of over-priced shoes people will be willing to buy?
Don’t mistake me, I am very grateful for what Mycoskie is doing in the world – shoes for children around the world are a basic necessity and the world is a better place for Mycoskie to be here trying to supply those shoes. However, it doesn’t seem to me that his business model is all that sustainable. It’s true that things could go either way: people will buy a pair of shoes, feel satiated in their “good” deed, and thus ends their charity for the (week, month, or year) or people will buy a pair of shoes and then decide to turn all of their consumer purchases to more responsible and charitable companies. From where I’m standing, it seems that Mycoskie should be standing at the ready with another line of products to release to the public under the same One for One promise.
I felt that his Q&A session was much more substantial than his actual lecture – and that’s where he did the winning over avec moi. I was pleased to learn that he works with and subsidizes NGO’s to make sure that the shoes are being distributed appropriately; I liked that he works with “local” shoe manufacturers; I liked that his focus was on disease prevention and in getting children to school so as to aid in the end of some instances of cyclical poverty; and I liked that, due to the NGO’s, he was redistributing larger shoes to children as they grew out of the ones he’d already given them. I was also glad to learn why his shoes are priced the way they are (for paying the retailers, the donated pair, transporting the donated pair, etc) as well as why he hadn't simply sold this company the way he has sold his previous businesses.
I was also particularly impressed with our student representatives and just how crisp and eloquent their questions were -- especially the question about if he believed he was competent or ready for actually maintaining a business given his lack of experience with that type of management. Very well done, Rosie and Brad!
But, overall, I found Blake Mycoskie charming, goofy, frustrating, misleading, naïve, a few shades away from the colors of a benevolent dictator, paternalistic, and, generally, a good person trying to do something good for others (while turning a profit).
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Brown Symposium: Think * Converse * Act
Well, this past week was pretty wild pour moi just given exams, my thesis, and the Brown Symposium (for which I acted as the only student liaison for Dr. Robert Watson, professor of Shakespeare at UCLA). However, I couldn't be more grateful to have gotten to crown my senior year with this experience. I was invited to attend the Wednesday night Inaugural Performance (got to see Dr. G stand up and be recognized for her honor and role as a future Brown Symposium director (Go, Dr. G! Whoop!)) and actually saw Dean Gaffney do some acting! A small group of orchestra students played up some very rockin' Stravinsky during which the Dean gave a dramatic reading (the script detailed a soldier who unwittingly makes a deal with Satan (the script was awful but the Dean was fantastic, a great prelude acting-wise to the upcoming Into the Woods (which has a phenomenal script))).
Of course, on Thursday the true festivus for the restofus began. I attended the first lecture given by Dr. Beasley from Dartmouth (a French, Indian, Feminist, Literary Scholar), who discussed how the development of French literature and culture was affected and influenced by the 17th century salon culture/movement. She focused primarily upon the famous salonierre, Marguerite Hessein de Rambouillet, Madame de la Sabliere. And, I must say, interesting as the topic was, I found myself less interested in any of the specifics she gave (which were many) and more interested in how this broadly connected with Paideia. Because, after all, I feel as if my development as a literary and American cultural scholar has been greatly affected and influenced by the salon culture of our Paidiea group -- enabling me to think more holistically about my education and what I'm learning in each separate course (just as a I tried to connect and consider the Symposium as a whole, single entity). I got to focus on this question a great deal during this Symposium and even spoke to Jim Hunt about it at the President's Dinner Thursday evening (he was assigned to my table and we spoke a great deal about what the Paideia program has meant to me, etc. etc.).
At any rate, though the history of Indian textiles doesn't really grab my passions, it did interest me to think that clothing was such a heavy salon topic during the 17th century and that fashion was even of political concern -- King Louis' view that Indian fabrics as a threat to his absolutist rule reminded me of the importance of fashionable hats to the American women in the early 20th century working at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory (where the great NY fire of 1911 took place) and how the safety of those hats the women bought with their own incomes came to represent women's right to autonomy in the public and domestic spheres and how that dramatically affected the power structure in America (perhaps similarly to how Louis perceived a possibility in his power structure altering).
It made me wonder about what gives people strength, impetus, and passion to move forward; what makes people demand equality and knowledge? (Speaking of "Equality," we've been discussing this topic rather heavily in my American Politics class lately and, I have to say, I'm hooked. Dr. O'Neill mentioned to us this story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled "Harrison Bergeron." In the story, a futuristic America has decided to make everyone forcibly equal -- attractive people wear masks, intelligent people are given shock treatments, people with above-average singing voices have their voices distorted, etc. And I keep coming back to this story now, it's haunting me, because, as Dr. Beasely explained via Bernier: "diversity leads to knowledge" -- thus, we should take care in how we discuss equality and what we mean by desiring it and seeking after it. You all should really check out an article by John H. Schaar called, "Equality of Opportunity and Beyond" -- it's pretty astonishing.)
Anyhoo, Brady and I teamed up at one of the guest luncheons (with Jonah Lehrer in Howry (he's a science writer, young, handsome guy, dropped science for writing at the beginning of grad school which reminded me of our Mr. Steven dropping biology for philosophy (and I told Mr. Lehrer as much)) and that was a great deal of fun though we really didn't get to talk with him much at all (too many other people). However, it was nice to have that bit of background knowledge of him given his often broad remarks during the first salon concerning the origins of human morality and perception.
Being in this first salon really did remind me of our Paideia group. Thinking about the older purposes of salons which was often to inspire new legislation, music, books, and ideas generally made me recognize the successes of our Paideia group in doing the same -- in introducing us to new ideas in science, human behavior, art history, literature, and culture studies to inspire (at least for me) articles, a book, and even some artwork. It's helped me act as a theoretical salonierre, a negotiator of conversations between different classes and schools of thought in order to better understand them as a whole, hence papers like my "Steinbeck, Snyder, and Barthelme: Literary Perspectives on Urban Environments" which connects modern literature with urban studies and my thesis paper "Howling Coyote" connecting Allen Ginsberg with Native American trickster narratives.
The first salon concerned itself with "Arts - Sciences - Religions: Conflict or Convergence?" And right away this reminded me of Brady's surprise at people believing in both evolution and the Biblical text as explanations of the beginning of the world because, I truly believe, that this trio works beautiful in convergence and that it is only with ignorance and misunderstanding in people that they come to conflict with one another. Some of the most interesting ideas proffered during the salon, I thought, surrounded the image of Onca Mouse (I know that's misspelled, but I have no idea how to spell it -- Dr. Hobgood-Oster introduced the salon with this image of a mouse wearing a crown of thorns, possessing human limbs, and trapped in a windowed box while being carefully watched by human eyes peering inward). For me this image was interesting because Dr. Cooper continuously returned to the idea of "breaking down the 4th wall" between the lecturers and the audience in order to facilitate the best conversation possible, however, for Onca Mouse, we literally were the 4th wall of eyes peering inward upon the poor Mouse and there was no escaping that wall or our role as part of it.
But this observation in itself fits beautifully with the larger conversation that took place as people seemed to come to the consensus that it is the interpretation of facts (and not necessarily the facts themselves) that is essential to the progress of the human project (thus, art, science, and history do all work together or at least can given our multitudes of individual interpretations.
This reminded me of our own Paideia conversations and all the different interpretations and backgrounds we bring to the table over every subject and reading, how we only sometimes reach a consensus but always manage to agree on the fact that all opinions should be given some modicum of respect (although, given our last article about Republicans as a minority in academic circles may bring us to question just how true we are to this agreement :p).
I, sadly, had to miss out on the second salon in order to go to class. I think I could've actually contributed to that salon too, given what I learned while in Monterrey. The second salon brought issues of technology into the discussion and, in Monterrey, I sat privy to discussions about introducing electronic text books into the classroom between professors and text book publishers. Anyway, cest la vie.
The third salon, the closing salon, was entitled "Ethics, the Arts, and Public Policy." Dean Gaffney was the salonierre for this one and began with his own definition of art which I'll paraphrase here because I liked it so much:
"art is something selected, edited, arranged by a human being that communicates something that cannot be communicated in any other way." Post-defining art, he opened up the conversation with the question: what is art in a public policy sense?
This led into another interesting slew of conversations concerning the connections between art and democracy (which especially interested me given my current involvement in Dr. O'Neill's American Politics class). I played usher for Dr. Mariotti in this salon and found myself particularly impressed by many of her comments on the issue. She brought up questions of what democracy looked like in theory versus practice (demos-kratia translating to the people rule) and how both the concepts of art and democracy function as vital concepts to American culture given their invaluable role in prompting us to think in new, individual, and diverse ways. A democracy, she explained, requires critically thinking citizens, and art helps promote critical thinking.
There was also a great deal of talk over economics and whether or not the market decided what was and what wasn't art, but, given my English capstone paper over Shakespeare's use of intrinsic value versus "economic" value in his plays, I can't say that I think the two types of values are separated all that dramatically in our minds and thus, it's up to art to differentiate between the two -- thus, as someone pointed out (I apologize for not having a name) the truths of analytic and emotional dialogue: certain things simply cannot be quantified/valued by market forces but by individuals alone. This made me think, again, of the issues of Beauty and Equality, and how to define major concepts we all individualize without ever consciously recognizing we do. Romeo and Juliet serve as an excellent example of art as a social good in this context as it is a play discussing just this issue -- the issue of conflicting definitions over a single entity, the tension which arises between conflicting beliefs/perceptions/interpretations over names, definitions, and values. All of this then reminded me of James Madison, that wonderful man, who wrote in the Federalist Papers about the need for majority coalitions versus majority factions because factions could monopolize the democracy and thus destroy it -- and yet, to destroy the factions would be to destroy liberty itself and also destroy the democracy -- hence his own world of concentric paradoxes (and, the Constitution, I believe, is a work of art in and of itself) in which he discussed the ideas of art, ethics, and public policy (though perhaps without recognizing he'd entered the realm of art as well).
As Dr. O'Neill explained, liberty to factions is as air to a flame. And so, according to JMad, "ambition must be made to counter ambition" -- art, ethics, public policy, science -- all these things must work for themselves in recognition of the others, forcibly progressing as a whole by existing in a world of simultaneous competition and cooperation. It's how are Congress is supposed to work and, I think, how a great deal of our Southwestern works as well.
What do you think?
Of course, on Thursday the true festivus for the restofus began. I attended the first lecture given by Dr. Beasley from Dartmouth (a French, Indian, Feminist, Literary Scholar), who discussed how the development of French literature and culture was affected and influenced by the 17th century salon culture/movement. She focused primarily upon the famous salonierre, Marguerite Hessein de Rambouillet, Madame de la Sabliere. And, I must say, interesting as the topic was, I found myself less interested in any of the specifics she gave (which were many) and more interested in how this broadly connected with Paideia. Because, after all, I feel as if my development as a literary and American cultural scholar has been greatly affected and influenced by the salon culture of our Paidiea group -- enabling me to think more holistically about my education and what I'm learning in each separate course (just as a I tried to connect and consider the Symposium as a whole, single entity). I got to focus on this question a great deal during this Symposium and even spoke to Jim Hunt about it at the President's Dinner Thursday evening (he was assigned to my table and we spoke a great deal about what the Paideia program has meant to me, etc. etc.).
At any rate, though the history of Indian textiles doesn't really grab my passions, it did interest me to think that clothing was such a heavy salon topic during the 17th century and that fashion was even of political concern -- King Louis' view that Indian fabrics as a threat to his absolutist rule reminded me of the importance of fashionable hats to the American women in the early 20th century working at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory (where the great NY fire of 1911 took place) and how the safety of those hats the women bought with their own incomes came to represent women's right to autonomy in the public and domestic spheres and how that dramatically affected the power structure in America (perhaps similarly to how Louis perceived a possibility in his power structure altering).
It made me wonder about what gives people strength, impetus, and passion to move forward; what makes people demand equality and knowledge? (Speaking of "Equality," we've been discussing this topic rather heavily in my American Politics class lately and, I have to say, I'm hooked. Dr. O'Neill mentioned to us this story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled "Harrison Bergeron." In the story, a futuristic America has decided to make everyone forcibly equal -- attractive people wear masks, intelligent people are given shock treatments, people with above-average singing voices have their voices distorted, etc. And I keep coming back to this story now, it's haunting me, because, as Dr. Beasely explained via Bernier: "diversity leads to knowledge" -- thus, we should take care in how we discuss equality and what we mean by desiring it and seeking after it. You all should really check out an article by John H. Schaar called, "Equality of Opportunity and Beyond" -- it's pretty astonishing.)
Anyhoo, Brady and I teamed up at one of the guest luncheons (with Jonah Lehrer in Howry (he's a science writer, young, handsome guy, dropped science for writing at the beginning of grad school which reminded me of our Mr. Steven dropping biology for philosophy (and I told Mr. Lehrer as much)) and that was a great deal of fun though we really didn't get to talk with him much at all (too many other people). However, it was nice to have that bit of background knowledge of him given his often broad remarks during the first salon concerning the origins of human morality and perception.
Being in this first salon really did remind me of our Paideia group. Thinking about the older purposes of salons which was often to inspire new legislation, music, books, and ideas generally made me recognize the successes of our Paideia group in doing the same -- in introducing us to new ideas in science, human behavior, art history, literature, and culture studies to inspire (at least for me) articles, a book, and even some artwork. It's helped me act as a theoretical salonierre, a negotiator of conversations between different classes and schools of thought in order to better understand them as a whole, hence papers like my "Steinbeck, Snyder, and Barthelme: Literary Perspectives on Urban Environments" which connects modern literature with urban studies and my thesis paper "Howling Coyote" connecting Allen Ginsberg with Native American trickster narratives.
The first salon concerned itself with "Arts - Sciences - Religions: Conflict or Convergence?" And right away this reminded me of Brady's surprise at people believing in both evolution and the Biblical text as explanations of the beginning of the world because, I truly believe, that this trio works beautiful in convergence and that it is only with ignorance and misunderstanding in people that they come to conflict with one another. Some of the most interesting ideas proffered during the salon, I thought, surrounded the image of Onca Mouse (I know that's misspelled, but I have no idea how to spell it -- Dr. Hobgood-Oster introduced the salon with this image of a mouse wearing a crown of thorns, possessing human limbs, and trapped in a windowed box while being carefully watched by human eyes peering inward). For me this image was interesting because Dr. Cooper continuously returned to the idea of "breaking down the 4th wall" between the lecturers and the audience in order to facilitate the best conversation possible, however, for Onca Mouse, we literally were the 4th wall of eyes peering inward upon the poor Mouse and there was no escaping that wall or our role as part of it.
But this observation in itself fits beautifully with the larger conversation that took place as people seemed to come to the consensus that it is the interpretation of facts (and not necessarily the facts themselves) that is essential to the progress of the human project (thus, art, science, and history do all work together or at least can given our multitudes of individual interpretations.
This reminded me of our own Paideia conversations and all the different interpretations and backgrounds we bring to the table over every subject and reading, how we only sometimes reach a consensus but always manage to agree on the fact that all opinions should be given some modicum of respect (although, given our last article about Republicans as a minority in academic circles may bring us to question just how true we are to this agreement :p).
I, sadly, had to miss out on the second salon in order to go to class. I think I could've actually contributed to that salon too, given what I learned while in Monterrey. The second salon brought issues of technology into the discussion and, in Monterrey, I sat privy to discussions about introducing electronic text books into the classroom between professors and text book publishers. Anyway, cest la vie.
The third salon, the closing salon, was entitled "Ethics, the Arts, and Public Policy." Dean Gaffney was the salonierre for this one and began with his own definition of art which I'll paraphrase here because I liked it so much:
"art is something selected, edited, arranged by a human being that communicates something that cannot be communicated in any other way." Post-defining art, he opened up the conversation with the question: what is art in a public policy sense?
This led into another interesting slew of conversations concerning the connections between art and democracy (which especially interested me given my current involvement in Dr. O'Neill's American Politics class). I played usher for Dr. Mariotti in this salon and found myself particularly impressed by many of her comments on the issue. She brought up questions of what democracy looked like in theory versus practice (demos-kratia translating to the people rule) and how both the concepts of art and democracy function as vital concepts to American culture given their invaluable role in prompting us to think in new, individual, and diverse ways. A democracy, she explained, requires critically thinking citizens, and art helps promote critical thinking.
There was also a great deal of talk over economics and whether or not the market decided what was and what wasn't art, but, given my English capstone paper over Shakespeare's use of intrinsic value versus "economic" value in his plays, I can't say that I think the two types of values are separated all that dramatically in our minds and thus, it's up to art to differentiate between the two -- thus, as someone pointed out (I apologize for not having a name) the truths of analytic and emotional dialogue: certain things simply cannot be quantified/valued by market forces but by individuals alone. This made me think, again, of the issues of Beauty and Equality, and how to define major concepts we all individualize without ever consciously recognizing we do. Romeo and Juliet serve as an excellent example of art as a social good in this context as it is a play discussing just this issue -- the issue of conflicting definitions over a single entity, the tension which arises between conflicting beliefs/perceptions/interpretations over names, definitions, and values. All of this then reminded me of James Madison, that wonderful man, who wrote in the Federalist Papers about the need for majority coalitions versus majority factions because factions could monopolize the democracy and thus destroy it -- and yet, to destroy the factions would be to destroy liberty itself and also destroy the democracy -- hence his own world of concentric paradoxes (and, the Constitution, I believe, is a work of art in and of itself) in which he discussed the ideas of art, ethics, and public policy (though perhaps without recognizing he'd entered the realm of art as well).
As Dr. O'Neill explained, liberty to factions is as air to a flame. And so, according to JMad, "ambition must be made to counter ambition" -- art, ethics, public policy, science -- all these things must work for themselves in recognition of the others, forcibly progressing as a whole by existing in a world of simultaneous competition and cooperation. It's how are Congress is supposed to work and, I think, how a great deal of our Southwestern works as well.
What do you think?
Friday, February 11, 2011
The Loss & Recovery of Texas Slavery
Hello all, I'm in Dr. Stockton & Dr. Evans' Texas Slavery (Literature) course this semester and I just thought I'd throw out the address for our class' blog if anyone was interested in the civic engagement/film/history/literary project we're currently working on (it seemed very Paideia-esque to me, given it's interdisciplinary and civic engagement focuses).
http://slaveryintexas.wordpress.com/
I think the work we're doing there, the project that Dr. S & E have created, is really going to be something special. I had my own doubts about how much I would actually learn/enjoy/personally appreciate this class, but all those reservations have been blown away. I'm not a group-work kind of person, but this is really turning out to be an exciting opportunity and experience that I thought you all might want in on :]
till Tuesday :]
http://slaveryintexas.wordpress.com/
I think the work we're doing there, the project that Dr. S & E have created, is really going to be something special. I had my own doubts about how much I would actually learn/enjoy/personally appreciate this class, but all those reservations have been blown away. I'm not a group-work kind of person, but this is really turning out to be an exciting opportunity and experience that I thought you all might want in on :]
till Tuesday :]
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Hope Alliance Seminars
I literally had no idea what type of seminar or situation I was walking into today when I showed up for Paideia in the Ballrooms but I can safely say that I was excited the moment I found out :] My first seminar (as I believe was for most everyone in our group) was the Gender Identity Seminar, dealing with the definitions and cultural occurrences of homophobia, heternormativism, and heterosexism. For me it was a bit too large of a group to truly feel comfortable sharing such intimate information as personal experiences dealing with sexual abuse, assault, or oppression, but I do agree that such exercises in discussion are of paramount importance. After all, gay culture may be proliferating through our mainstream media nowadays but the primary depiction of homosexuals tends to be wealthy, white, and educated -- leading plenty of uneducated people to believe that the Gay Rights Movement is over and, in fact, seeking out special treatment. This depiction of homosexuality in our media obfuscates the fact that gays are not protected against discriminatory hiring and firing practices or that a great deal of the homosexual, bisexual, and, especially, the transsexual populations are poor and either under- or simply unemployed.
But beyond this, what most interested me, was simply in trying to derive a rhetoric or conversation opener I could utilize when I find myself presented with people who are homophobic simply to protect them and myself from my own tendency to be immediately critical rather than inquiring or constructive. Whenever my grandmother mistakenly or unwittingly says something heterosexist or prejudicial, I do ask her why she feels that way but I haven't yet been able to ask her in a non-accusatory fashion or tone -- and she is a generally loving and accepting woman who simply doesn't recognize the cognitive dissonance of some of her statements -- I'm just the one who doesn't recognize how to speak to her about my disagreements or offense at these remarks. I am self aware enough to know that I can quickly become heated and generalize when I come across something that offends me, and this is something I'm still trying to work on -- especially as a future teacher.
However, I did find that beyond the actual phrase, "heterosexism," there wasn't much said that I hadn't already heard. The same goes for the second speaker who focused on the "Personal is Political." Of course, I don't think that presenting "new" information was necessarily the goal of these seminars -- being in a forum of such discussion and remaining aware of the fact that these problems and cultural issues (and cultural "boxes," such as "Be a Man") persist seemed to be the primary goal, a goal I absolutely agree with and value.
I would like to add, however, a little something to the "Personal is Political" seminar -- I contend that, instead of LOVE YOURSELF being the most important realization to come to in fostering healthy relationships, I posit that being SELF AWARE is as if not more important than loving oneself. In fact, I would say that becoming better self aware is the first and larger step necessary before the step to loving oneself may be truly made. Loving yourself may make you more comfortable and happier with who you are, but becoming fully self aware enables you to better understand not only yourself, but how to articulate your feelings and opinions as well as constructively respond the the feelings and opinions of others. This is probably the largest and most valuable lesson I've come to terms with in college.
And, by the by, thank you again Dr. Giuliano not only for the encouragement and recommendation letter (which was utterly amazing and exceptionally generous), but for making sure I listened to the panel discussion over taking care of oneself. I did find our masculinity speaker particularly articulate and helpful in his explanation of why it is so vital to make sure that everyone, activists, students, and the rest, all take care of themselves in the midst of their battles to better the world. Taking care of yourself, as he explained, isn't selfish but a necessity -- and, in a society as absorbed with motion, binge dieting, drinking, and danger as ours, taking care of oneself can be a radical act and activism all on its own*** (this was his two cents that I found particularly insightful).
Channeling Columbo,
one more thing...
Did anyone else find it peculiar and potentially problematic that almost every photograph included in the "Men Can Help End Gender Violence" pamphlet, flattering or unflattering, is of a young black man?
Just thought I'd throw it out there for further consideration...
But beyond this, what most interested me, was simply in trying to derive a rhetoric or conversation opener I could utilize when I find myself presented with people who are homophobic simply to protect them and myself from my own tendency to be immediately critical rather than inquiring or constructive. Whenever my grandmother mistakenly or unwittingly says something heterosexist or prejudicial, I do ask her why she feels that way but I haven't yet been able to ask her in a non-accusatory fashion or tone -- and she is a generally loving and accepting woman who simply doesn't recognize the cognitive dissonance of some of her statements -- I'm just the one who doesn't recognize how to speak to her about my disagreements or offense at these remarks. I am self aware enough to know that I can quickly become heated and generalize when I come across something that offends me, and this is something I'm still trying to work on -- especially as a future teacher.
However, I did find that beyond the actual phrase, "heterosexism," there wasn't much said that I hadn't already heard. The same goes for the second speaker who focused on the "Personal is Political." Of course, I don't think that presenting "new" information was necessarily the goal of these seminars -- being in a forum of such discussion and remaining aware of the fact that these problems and cultural issues (and cultural "boxes," such as "Be a Man") persist seemed to be the primary goal, a goal I absolutely agree with and value.
I would like to add, however, a little something to the "Personal is Political" seminar -- I contend that, instead of LOVE YOURSELF being the most important realization to come to in fostering healthy relationships, I posit that being SELF AWARE is as if not more important than loving oneself. In fact, I would say that becoming better self aware is the first and larger step necessary before the step to loving oneself may be truly made. Loving yourself may make you more comfortable and happier with who you are, but becoming fully self aware enables you to better understand not only yourself, but how to articulate your feelings and opinions as well as constructively respond the the feelings and opinions of others. This is probably the largest and most valuable lesson I've come to terms with in college.
And, by the by, thank you again Dr. Giuliano not only for the encouragement and recommendation letter (which was utterly amazing and exceptionally generous), but for making sure I listened to the panel discussion over taking care of oneself. I did find our masculinity speaker particularly articulate and helpful in his explanation of why it is so vital to make sure that everyone, activists, students, and the rest, all take care of themselves in the midst of their battles to better the world. Taking care of yourself, as he explained, isn't selfish but a necessity -- and, in a society as absorbed with motion, binge dieting, drinking, and danger as ours, taking care of oneself can be a radical act and activism all on its own*** (this was his two cents that I found particularly insightful).
Channeling Columbo,
one more thing...
Did anyone else find it peculiar and potentially problematic that almost every photograph included in the "Men Can Help End Gender Violence" pamphlet, flattering or unflattering, is of a young black man?
Just thought I'd throw it out there for further consideration...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)