teaching: December 2007 Archives

Within minutes of each other I watched and listened to Steve's rousing (northern) seasonal greeting from (as he says) "a happier time, before Vietnam, the Civil Rights, and all the "horrors" of our "modern" world," and Tamer's reminder of other realities: snapshot of a modern horror.

Meanwhile, the economic news is better in Bethelem this year, tourism has increased since a sharp dropoff after the second intifada in 2000. The increase of visitors is, however, a qualified "good": the occupation is as real as ever.

An ambivalent anthem and a quasi-clone?

Zizek's critique of 'Ode to Joy' as the European Union's choice of anthem is on the mark.

The exchange in the comments between dmclaney and elver about the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, United States of Europe finally created, are a mirror (with a different cultural text) to some of the media critiques produced by students this month. In particular, Evan Grabelsky's "The News Media: The War on Journalism" and "com375"'s "The Non-Reality of Reality TV." Most of the news coverage I encountered involved Gordon Brown's avoidance of the ceremony to sign incognito. (Reminds me of Governor Howard Dean signing Vermont's Civil Union Bill in a private, closed door ceremony.)

The question (as always) is what to do about our recognition of the problem? Bela presents an example of organized activism that is making a difference: "If the technology and the heart come together...." ElR6 follows the theme of cyberoptimism with " Communication and Global Consciousness."

Probably there are ways to counteract the shallow coverage of mainstream media, but we can't isolate only the media as the enemy. The cumulative effects of consumerist socialization are dulled awareness and self-absorbed insensitivity. Not to mention the desperate weaknesses of institutionalized education. A radical notion proposed by a friend the other night included not teaching history until the eighth grade. Why? "It's in third grade you learn that blacks used to be slaves. What are you supposed to do with that information?"

This is the central question. What are we 'supposed to do' with all the information we have?

Recently (December 12), I received a joke over email:

A driver is stuck in a traffic jam on the Tehran-Ghom Motorway.

Nothing is moving.

Suddenly a man knocks on the window. The driver rolls down his window

and asks, "What's going on?"

"Terrorists down the road have kidnapped Ahmadi Nejad. They're asking
for 100 million tomman ransom.

Otherwise they're going to douse him with gasoline and set him on fire.

We're going from car to car, taking up a collection."

The driver asks, "How much is everyone giving, on average?"

"Most people are giving about a liter."

I googled the unfamiliar name and came up with Iranian President Ahmadinejad! A few images came up as well, including an obviously irreverent one from May 3rd, 2007. The text accompanying the doctored image is challenging, too. People are paying a price for practicing freedom of expression: twenty students were arrested on December 7th.

"Let me ask you a question back," I told him.

"Has it ever occurred to you to wonder if the history we teach our children is a lie?
After a moment of stunned silence, he said, "Good Lord, Jason. I hope you're joking."
"Why?"
"Surely that's manifest."
"It isn't to me."
"You've been there, Jason. We were there together. It's all lies and bullshit till graduate school. Why else have graduate school?"
"That's very cynical."
"Is it?"
"Suppose I were to tell you that the lies don't stop in graduate school?"

This is the challenge.

Non-violent resistance, as a synonym for peace activism, still centers "violence" as the standard. The force of much anti-war talk revolves around violence as the anchor, providing energy that feeds momentum. I have been puzzling over this discursive looping for a long time: all talk is subject to perpetuating something. That "something" is wildly out of our control - because "it" is always mediated by interpretation.

I have been guilty, way too often, of getting caught up in layers of interpretation ("processing") instead of maintaining discursive intentionality. In a dialogue, both/all parties recognize the inevitable looping, making conscious choices about a) when to discard the historical baggage and b) how to create the present interaction on preferred terms. Shared recognition is, I think, key to successful shifting. Recognition is not the same as acknowledgment: acknowledgment (disclosure) will be important on some matters to establish trust but is not always necessary. If depended upon overmuch, distrust will grow in response to apparent evidence that recognition can never be assumed.