RCAH 292 - Reflections on Service Learning

Now Serving Trader Joe's Assam Tea

Possibly the strongest element of my community engagement work this semester is "democracy." Between helping a state representative process the demands of his constituents and teaching middle school debate, I'm confident that my work will facilitate the democratic process.

Reading Spoma Jovanovic's Communication as Critical Inquiry in Service-Learning with a thought to whether my service learning met her criteria, I'm relieved to find that it does, and I likewise see a stronger direction and purpose for community engagement than I did before. Jovanovic connects community with politics, discourse and disagreement, all necessary elements of human life that need to be dealt with. She further posits that service learning teaches students about the duties of a citizen in a democratic society, an approach that I hadn't considered, seeing community service as a sort of ethically optional good deed. These different approaches mirror the distinction made in the article between charity and service learning - where charity is an act of kindness towards the disenfranchised, service learning attempts to solve those problems that necessitate charity (and not out of "kindness" so much as civic duty).

What Jovanovic says in the section "Critical Inquiry Probing Social Justice," I'm cautiously enthusiastic about. In the context of our debate class, "building awareness of the social problems in our community" could be done by exposing students to the political and philosophical arguments surrounding these problems. My concern with this is more practical than abstract - our teacher liason at the Montessori school strikes me as someone whose political views would be incompatible with those that want to change the structure of society (although of course I could be totally wrong). All the same, some of the schools we work with might unfriendly to the notion of building awareness for a number of reasons, and perhaps even (in extreme cases) feel that we sort of "suckered" them into what they thought would be an innocuous debate class, and is instead a tool for "brainwashing" their kids. I don't think this means we should remove the social justice element of service learning (I think awareness needs to be spread regardless of these practical risks), I merely think it means that we should be both cautious and transparent, and obviously present both sides of the issues we present.

In the context of my volunteering at the capitol, spreading an awareness of social inequities and injustices should be a natural result of volunteering for a liberal politician like Andy Meisner.

I was encouraged by what Jovanovic had to say about inviting surprises. She seemed to focus more on the surprise of students realizing that they were capable of causing social change, and certainly the anecdotes of students going on to continue their work after their service-learning semester make me hopeful, but most significant for me was the idea that surprises would "enable responsibility to emerge for the students." I expect that exposure to the unexpected events of the real world will be a valuable experience, and help me develop my ability to deal with crises. Certainly that's an ability that's extremely important to bureaucrats, and the volunteer job for Andy Meisner might be thought of as "Junior Bureaucrat," although I expect that the debate classes will give me a great deal more of that "valuable experience," due in part to the unpredictable nature of children.

A final important element of Jovanovic's article, which I had again not considered, was the consideration of communication in service-learning. In the academy, there is more or less only one way of speaking, and this helps to facilitate understanding between scholars; in the real world, there are as many different ways of speaking as there are divisions of people. In the capitol, I hope to learn how to communicate effectively within politics (and already have to some extent, as Andy taught me the distinction between "luxuries" and "amenities" in the context of current tax legislation), and in debate I will have renewed exposure to parents, children and teachers of a school community (and more or less my first exposure as something of an adult). Certainly my first day teaching debate showed me the importance of using language that's accessible to and holds the attention of middle schoolers.

Unbought and Unbossed

Shirley Chisholm!

"I've always met more discrimination being a woman than being black."

"The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says: 'It's a girl.'"

"One distressing thing is the way men react to women who assert their equality: their ultimate weapon is to call them unfeminine. They think she is anti-male; they even whisper that she's probably a lesbian."

The quotes are from here.

The awesome is from here.

Ring Ring

It Wasn't Making Enough Money

I think that if people ran themselves like fully capitalist countries, they would have no interest in taking care of themselves.

High Source of Iron

"Islamofascism" is kind of its own punchline, don't you think?

Security Level Code Spoiler

It continues to begin.

Comcast shows no restraint. There really are such things as good companies, I think, and perhaps I'd even say there are a lot of ethically decent large companies out there. Most of them seem to have set some limits for themselves.

Comcast does not. Time and time again, they make it obvious: contract clauses attempting to remove the customer's right to sue after thirty days, nonsense with the Big Ten network (because Big Ten didn't fall in line with their monopoly), inconsistent and monopolistically half-assed service, and of course the height of their crimes, which is the continued destruction of net neutrality.

Ethical citizens in this country should do everything in their power to avoid using Comcast for their internet service, and should likewise do everything in their power to take legal action against Comcast's monopolistic regime.

DUMBLEDORE IS GAY, undoubtedly the next "Snape Kills Dumbledore!" internet-fad.

And will the book-burners not have a field day as well? If this were some kind of eleventh-hour attempt to keep public attention as the books come to a close, it wouldn't be a bad one.

As it happens, it looks like Rowling is going to move beyond fantasy, having announced that she plans to continue writing. I admit I find it admirable that she's continuing to do what she wants, knowing full well that the public wants more Harry Potter, and that she could continue making lots of money down the sickening road of selling her soul to fanatical fandom. Perhaps good karma will give her non-fantasy books a strong showing as well? Perhaps she's a Great Writer? We do know one thing for certain: Dumbledore likes men! Ahahahahahaha!

Gameday at the Hyper Bowl

Now Serving Amway Tea: Because We're Everywhere

Lawsuit!

"The Ada Township-based multi-level marketing giant this week filed a sweeping suit in Ottawa County Circuit Court against 30 people classified as John Does for disparaging the company in blogs, online forums and YouTube videos."

Were they disparaging them as sexist? Where are the "Jane Does?"

"...The company is planning to ask the court to approve subpoenas of companies ranging from godaddy.com to YouTube to figure out who posted the materials, said spokesman Rob Zeiger."

AMWAY EXECUTIVES REGULARLY MASTICATE AND DIGEST INFANTS WITHOUT CAUSE.

Eyes Adjust

Now Serving Celestial Seasonings Coconut Chai Tea

What does the opinion "no one has a good system of government [my emphasis]" reveal about our education system?

(a) Senior pranks cause world disasters
(b) We have an overpopulation of llamas
(c) There are too many multiple-choice questions
(d) It is full of lies about the world

Are you a freshman? RTFM

Aaron Carter was in my class wearing a Darfur shirt, but I wonder if this will last longer than four years. Live Earth was a goofy college fling, a memory of wilder days that will get stored in the global attic and hidden from the kids.

Say "What" Again!

Now Serving Swiss Tea

So, George W. Bush is still the president. If I were around Sammy J, I'd be Swiss cheese by now.

Speaking of the Swiss, they have awesome public bathrooms. (That's one-way glass if you're wondering.) When it comes to European water closets, people always seems to be getting excited about the Russians and Fins, but I tell you, don't count out the Swiss. It's not just chocolate and watches any more! And you can be sure that these toilets are cleaned in a punctual fashion.*

Our president should visit a Swiss bathroom, to collect ideas for our own excremental infrastructure. Then he should stick his head in and flush incessantly. Or just shoot himself in the face, that would work too (metaphorically speaking).

HOLY "crude political hyperbole" BATMAN, IT'S A FELONY!

Fortunately, this blog is not unlike a Swiss public bathroom - it's awesome, surrounded by one-way glass, occasionally full of shit, and ever so socialist (but not really?)!

Someday, if I am teaching philosophy of language, I will use Pulp Fiction to help get my students "into it." I will ask:

Which of these sentences is correct: "Say what again!" or "Say 'what' again!"

Students who answer incorrectly will, naturally, be shot by Samuel L. Jackson. He'll ask them if I (the teacher) look like a bitch, and when they say "no," he will say "then why did you try to fuck him like a bitch?" (The women and gay men in my class will, at this point, begin giggling.) The students will think this is very cool, and I will be beloved across campus by all.

In closing, Bruce Springsteen is pretty awesome, isn't he?

*Edit: Who better than John Hersey to explain the reason behind these novelties? Recalling that in Switzerland (and much of Europe) public bathrooms sometimes have a small charge, he noted that nothing ensures a high turnover-rate in a bathroom like the feeling that everyone out in the street can see you - or, if the government charges per minute, such a toilet booth might also make money from creepier customers who spend a good forty-five minutes in it while there's a cute girl in the cafe across the street.

Sammitch

Ann Coulter makes baby Jesus cry. Also, she makes the population cry with her terrible attention-grabbing theories. More here.

STFU and disappear,
that is all.

Regarding the "WWASD - 'What Would an Angry Scotsman Do?'" Dormitory Door-Mounted Spinner

Now Serving Brodies Tea of Edinburgh

...
the answers were like "brawl" "eat haggis" and "kick a sheep"
what would an angry scotsman do
kick a sheep is my favorite
if I were an angry scotsman, I would get my kicks from kicking sheep
I would go a-sheep-kicking, terrorizing the countryside and kicking unsuspecting sheep
shepherds would whisper my name with awe and fear
the mysterious kilted figure running around screaming like a madman and kicking sheep
some call him the demon of the hills
others call him things not appropriate to say in polite company
but none can deny he is one ferocious sheep-kicking motherfucker
that would be me
except I'm a schmuck from the midwest, so my spinner is like "listen to an iPod" "play video games" "smoke"
gotta go, I desperately want to play the scots in medieval II

RCAH 292/PHL 356 - Instrumentality and Lessons of Feminism

Peter Block's discussion of the instrumental imperative makes the subtle argument ("subtle" if for no other reason than his vague style) that socializing forces in American society have the purpose of molding each person into an instrument. The implications of this argument are far-reaching; nothing could fly in the face of our American self-image more than the idea that we are instruments rather than self-determining individuals.

To sort of take Block's argument for a "test drive," I'd like to look at one of the largest socializing factors in America (and indeed the rest of the world) from his instrumental perspective. While he is concerned with the sorts of jobs we're raising people to fill (his economist/engineer archetypes), there's another element to this instrumentality.

The common understanding of feminism is that it's the cause of womens' equal rights, but what we can learn from feminist philosophy goes a bit further. We quickly learn that women face the socialization of society from the moment they are born - dressed in pink rather than blue, given effeminate toys to play with, receiving messages about what a woman is from her mother and later television, school, and other children. Women today are still given the message that they belong in the private sphere, that they are not intelligent, that they must be a dependent of a husband, and that as a result of this dependency the most important thing for them is to be attractive to men.

Obviously these messages have been diluted and broken up by the feminist movement, but they remain strong and surprisingly prevalent (despite the common misconception to the contrary). This seems to relate somewhat to instrumentality regarding women, but the lessons of feminism are in fact useful for looking at every person. With the two genders viewed in a hierarchy as something of symmetrical opposites, what is "feminine" is often defined as what is "not manly;" it's likewise the case that men are expected to exhibit traits that are "not feminine." If women are emotional and irrational, then to be rational men must suppress their emotions. If women are more inclined towards art or other pursuits of immeasurable, impractical value, then manly pursuits are those which are practical or measurably productive.

That brings us more directly to Block's idea of instrumentality. While the concept does include socialization, we don't see gender socialization helping to form people into instruments until we look at the "reflection of sexism." By suppressing emotions and pursuing what is practical and measurable, men in our society are socialized to be instruments - effective workers who can have technical expertise without thinking too much about impractical, "feminine" concerns (art, philosophy, introspection, etc.) which might distract them from their work (that is to say, lead them to question the status quo, as Block does).

I should, of course, clarify what I mean with "reflection of sexism." By no means is it true that men have faced socialization equivalent to that faced by women; to paraphrase Simone de Beauvoir, the genders are symmetrical only on paper. It's often the case that things considered to be "normal, human" things are relegated to males, whereas females are seen as an inhuman other. This adds further problems to the socialization of men I've outlined above; liberated women in modern times sometimes come to believe that all "manly" traits are "normal" traits for a person to have, and as they adopt those traits themselves, these liberated women are likewise made instruments. They were not raised with the socialization of a man, but all the same, they come to value the suppression of emotion and pursuit of only practical, measurable goals. It might even be said that woman professionals feel the need to prove that they belong in male-dominated worlds of business by exhibiting those super-pragmatic traits.

We're seeing that gender socialization has immense impact, and I would argue that gender socialization is equal to the socializing forces Block identifies in public education as a molder of human instruments. How, in fact, could this impact not be immense? All of humanity is divided into these two genders, and the more difference that we enforce upon them, the more we'll find that our identities are informed by them. Considering the public schools that cut arts or philosophy in favor of math and science, this could even be seen from a feminist perspective: since "manly" traits are seen by many as "normal," our schools' curricula are bound to pursue the creation of people who have those traits. Math and science are indeed valued so highly that the majority of students in some places are in advanced classes; the "normal" classes become the ones that are "slow." (It was like that at my High School.) We rightly encourage girls to learn about math and science, rejecting residual sexist notions that women are incapable in these areas, but in so doing we also continue to push our children towards becoming instruments as per Block's explanation.

I've explained how our misogynistic institutions contribute to the instrumentality of all. How, then, can we help solve the instrumental problem with a feminist solution?

The reality is that what we consider "manly" isn't necessarily "normal," despite what we may think. I suggest that, instead of turning into "men," women in our society should join men in considering that our conceptions of both "manly" and "feminine" are severely flawed. We're not even completely certain that there are only two genders (at birth, babies who seem to have "mixed" genitalia are surgically changed to fit one of the two sexes whose existence we accept). It's not that easy, of course; any decision impacted by one's gender identity will still appear to be a "free choice." But if we can educate ourselves about the nature of gender/sex relations and work to change the socializing forces that separate men and women into predefined categories, we may be able to mitigate or even remove one of the obstacles to "acting on what matters" and living a meaningful life.

Newses and newses of newses

Now Serving Trader Joe's Orange Spice Rooibos Herbal Tea

Bill O'Reilly says he's being smeared; he should get a kerchief

Check this out: "If you listened to the full hour," says O'Reilly, "it was a criticism of racism on the part of white Americans who are ignorant of the fact that there is no difference between white and black anymore" [my emphasis].

Remember when Peter from Family Guy got a job as an opinionated talk show host?

Meanwhile, take a gander at what our Democratic congress is doing! Now I can go to Hell comfortable in the knowledge that it will be very, very frozen over. While I'm at it, did you know that Michigan (interestingly the home of Hell) is one of few states without a state-level mental health parity bill?

Civilization at its finest!