During the performance of the play "You The Man", underlying dynamics that lead to domestic violence presented different possible situations that could affect individuals involved in a certain type of conflict. The type of conflict that emerged throughout the play was the topic of rape and the relationship between a man and a women. Each individual that was somewhat involved that was being played were either friends of the boyfriend or girlfriend, advice giver, father and a cop. Each character was played out showing the type of role that could possibly be followed by their position. The friend was characterized as the bystander, or the family member that just does not know what is going on, to an advice giver structuring the situation of the boyfriend. Some of the dynamics that allowed domestic violence to occur in the relationship between the boyfriend and the girlfriend were mainly because of the lack of help from outside family and friend help.
The dynamics that allowed the relationship to become abusive I think depended on where the power in each person was located. In these domestic violent relationship, we see a lot of inequality in the relationship furthermore disrupting the balance of power between the two people. In this case, the boyfriend had more power and the girlfriend abides by anything that he said. I think once he realized he had complete control over her, he wanted more out of what was already a given in the relationship.
Another aspect of the play I appreciated was showing the oppositions of the friends because in some way we could somewhat relate. Showing how the friend tried to make an attempt on steeping in, but not knowing when the best time would be demonstrated how delicate but the seriousness of this type of situation. Also, how much you try, the uncomfortable feeling between the two would be there in confronted and that's why a lot choose to be the bystander.
After the play, having a discussion about all types of relationships were valuable to me because it opened my mind to things much more then just a known conflict in relationships, but the conflict and struggle other people endure who witness it going on. The tendency to find affirmation from each person who we know and care about, is a complex and difficult situation because each individual may pull you in a different direction. And all these directions building the type of people around you seeking your interests and concerns.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Hw - 58 Parenting 102
Part 3:
In our class, we were let in on primary experiences on what parenting is like. Our guest that came in to talk about her perspectives of parenting presented new and different perspectives of how she is raising her children. Melissa (our guest) talked about how their should be a reasonable control over your kids life so they could figure out the differences between the right's and wrong's of their own decisions.
I also asked my mom on what she felt about parenting. For example, did you see parenting as something that came naturally, or multiple perspectives that help raise her children. She began with how it felt naturally because her mother was not there most of the time, but made sure that her kids stayed healthy. She said the first thing that came naturally to her was her maternal instinct. The need to protect and ensure of safety of us, but it would be ignorant not to say that not knowing and acknowledging other people's perspectives on parenting would just make you a poor parent. Knowing and feeling about how you see how others choose to parent would be more wise because you would get the opportunity to pick and choose the methods you don't or do like. My mom also talked about how she does past judgement on her sisters methods of parenting, but only because she does not agree with how it being parented.
Part 4:
Throughout this unit I felt like I've been absorbing a lot of insights on how to be a parent, or how to be parented. Gathering insights from those who have experienced or experiencing being a parent has opened my mind to how differently each child is raised at home, and even though it may be different from how I was raised, I have come to realize that even if it is different, it is still not wrong, something our culture is strung up on. Our culture tends to past judgement on a lot of styles and methods of parenting because it is either different from their type of style(s) so they categorize it as wrong. Now it is not bad to past some judgement on some types of parenting because the result of the child may be negative. I've also come to realize that parenting may be the hardest job ever. A Parent must be consistent with their child and when the parent falls short of being with your child, the sense of security and safety is lost with the child's dependency. Being ill unprepared to hold such type of job sets difficulties for the parent and for the child because the child does not have anyone to depend, and for a child to be independent at such a young age is something they cannot handle by themselves.
In our class, we were let in on primary experiences on what parenting is like. Our guest that came in to talk about her perspectives of parenting presented new and different perspectives of how she is raising her children. Melissa (our guest) talked about how their should be a reasonable control over your kids life so they could figure out the differences between the right's and wrong's of their own decisions.
I also asked my mom on what she felt about parenting. For example, did you see parenting as something that came naturally, or multiple perspectives that help raise her children. She began with how it felt naturally because her mother was not there most of the time, but made sure that her kids stayed healthy. She said the first thing that came naturally to her was her maternal instinct. The need to protect and ensure of safety of us, but it would be ignorant not to say that not knowing and acknowledging other people's perspectives on parenting would just make you a poor parent. Knowing and feeling about how you see how others choose to parent would be more wise because you would get the opportunity to pick and choose the methods you don't or do like. My mom also talked about how she does past judgement on her sisters methods of parenting, but only because she does not agree with how it being parented.
Part 4:
Throughout this unit I felt like I've been absorbing a lot of insights on how to be a parent, or how to be parented. Gathering insights from those who have experienced or experiencing being a parent has opened my mind to how differently each child is raised at home, and even though it may be different from how I was raised, I have come to realize that even if it is different, it is still not wrong, something our culture is strung up on. Our culture tends to past judgement on a lot of styles and methods of parenting because it is either different from their type of style(s) so they categorize it as wrong. Now it is not bad to past some judgement on some types of parenting because the result of the child may be negative. I've also come to realize that parenting may be the hardest job ever. A Parent must be consistent with their child and when the parent falls short of being with your child, the sense of security and safety is lost with the child's dependency. Being ill unprepared to hold such type of job sets difficulties for the parent and for the child because the child does not have anyone to depend, and for a child to be independent at such a young age is something they cannot handle by themselves.
I've also acknowledged the fact that other parenting perspectives can help guide you to become a better parent because what would be the point of going into parenting blind, making mistakes that other perspectives are there to warn you about. This is the point where I believe when or if I do become a parent that I will emulate a lot of the parenting methods used on me to carry out on the child I will have in the future. Even the things that I do not like like about how my parents have raised me with, I'll probably do it to my own kids subconsciously because it was something I was use to as a kid.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Hw - 57 Parenting 101
So what makes a good parent? A huge criteria that is ever so judged with everyones own opinion of what "good" exactly is. The similarities that you find in parenting can all relate but how these methods are carried out could be completely different. For example, punishing your child. Parents do it all the time, but there are variety of ways parents punish their own child. So who is it that makes up the rule that they have the best child punishment method? They all do, but how we interpret another method we may see it as wrong. That goes for a lot of things because what we may do personally, and someone does the same exact thing, but differently, we see it as wrong.
Parenting is a tough job, from my own experience, I think I give my parents a hard time, because of the 24/7 nurturing they have to attend to. For my parents I think learning from multiple perspectives have helped them create methods of their own acknowledging the pros and cons of other methods other parents have used. It is sort of like how we dress ourselves. You have friends that dress a certain way, and then the public, so you pick apart what you like from each group and you make it your own combining the styles. I mean why not accept the multiple perspectives, there only there to either be declined or a venue that you a choose and pick things out of. But does this make for good parenting then? How do you know if the type of perspectives you've chosen were "good" ones then? This goes into the complexity of how each individual is different from another. This is why the criteria for being a "good parent" is so opinion based because each individual sees something different, and as we may see something foreign/different, we match it with it being wrong.
Personally, I believe my parents have done a great job at raising me. How would I see it any way different? I would actually past judge on how I would see it different, and by judging it, I would associate it with it being wrong. The only fault I see in how I was parented that probably when I get old enough to have my own kids, that a lot of my teaching will resemble my parents methods because that was how I saw it 24/7. Even if I consciously believed that I would not raise my kid the same way my parents did me, How else would I raise my child then? Naturally? What is naturally? My own criteria of the rights and wrongs in life? Sure, but then wouldn't that be much of my parents criteria of how they taught me their rights and wrongs? I'm not saying that when we get older of course that we are going to be exactly like our parents, we have our judgement now, but it is the fact that a lot of the things we'll do, may resemble what our parents did for us. So, What makes good parenting then?
When Parenting Theories Backfire
In this article, it demonstrated how the theory of giving your child choice deciding opportunities could backfire on you. I'm not a parent, but it seems from this perspective of this parent that letting your child makes his/her own decision could result in the denial of your owns parents wishes. By letting the child make decisions between one or the another, the child realized that he/she now had the power to start making his/her owns demand.
Diana Baumrind's (1966) Prototypical Descriptions of 3 Parenting Styles
In this article it described the styles of permissive, authoritarian and authoritative parenting which any child could be a subject to. Each style resulted in pro and cons which from what I understand shows that their is not one good parenting method. One Style of that really stuck out to me was the authoritative style because of how I could see the child being structured properly in a dominant culture. If I were a parent now, I personally would like to see my child succeed in this dominant culture, so the other styles seemed wrong if I were to follow it. Seeing as there a 3 styles of structuring plans to build how a child's emotions and feelings are controlled, it makes me wonder how else I could raise my children and are there other categories for that.
Parenting is a tough job, from my own experience, I think I give my parents a hard time, because of the 24/7 nurturing they have to attend to. For my parents I think learning from multiple perspectives have helped them create methods of their own acknowledging the pros and cons of other methods other parents have used. It is sort of like how we dress ourselves. You have friends that dress a certain way, and then the public, so you pick apart what you like from each group and you make it your own combining the styles. I mean why not accept the multiple perspectives, there only there to either be declined or a venue that you a choose and pick things out of. But does this make for good parenting then? How do you know if the type of perspectives you've chosen were "good" ones then? This goes into the complexity of how each individual is different from another. This is why the criteria for being a "good parent" is so opinion based because each individual sees something different, and as we may see something foreign/different, we match it with it being wrong.
Personally, I believe my parents have done a great job at raising me. How would I see it any way different? I would actually past judge on how I would see it different, and by judging it, I would associate it with it being wrong. The only fault I see in how I was parented that probably when I get old enough to have my own kids, that a lot of my teaching will resemble my parents methods because that was how I saw it 24/7. Even if I consciously believed that I would not raise my kid the same way my parents did me, How else would I raise my child then? Naturally? What is naturally? My own criteria of the rights and wrongs in life? Sure, but then wouldn't that be much of my parents criteria of how they taught me their rights and wrongs? I'm not saying that when we get older of course that we are going to be exactly like our parents, we have our judgement now, but it is the fact that a lot of the things we'll do, may resemble what our parents did for us. So, What makes good parenting then?
When Parenting Theories Backfire
In this article, it demonstrated how the theory of giving your child choice deciding opportunities could backfire on you. I'm not a parent, but it seems from this perspective of this parent that letting your child makes his/her own decision could result in the denial of your owns parents wishes. By letting the child make decisions between one or the another, the child realized that he/she now had the power to start making his/her owns demand.
Diana Baumrind's (1966) Prototypical Descriptions of 3 Parenting Styles
In this article it described the styles of permissive, authoritarian and authoritative parenting which any child could be a subject to. Each style resulted in pro and cons which from what I understand shows that their is not one good parenting method. One Style of that really stuck out to me was the authoritative style because of how I could see the child being structured properly in a dominant culture. If I were a parent now, I personally would like to see my child succeed in this dominant culture, so the other styles seemed wrong if I were to follow it. Seeing as there a 3 styles of structuring plans to build how a child's emotions and feelings are controlled, it makes me wonder how else I could raise my children and are there other categories for that.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Hw - 56
1.How many personal interactions a day have been positive? How many have been negative?
2.Are social interactions important to your life? Why?
3.What type of interactions do you find yourself in? Scripted(Hello, How was your day? etc.) Personal
Marshall:
Me
Social Interactions important to your life? Why?
Marshall
obviously they matter to me because i've already asked if my answers will be direct or not and all that
Me
Why is that frequent interactions matter?
Marshall
because weather we like it or not people forget about us. i bet the best Friends who you thought you'd hangout with forever from grade school, you forget about them and them about you, or at least you don't hangout anymore but if you had frequent interactions you probably could.
Me
oh, so your saying that knowing how to interact with people, would matter because people eventually forget about you, so you have to gain new friends and socialize with new people?
Marshall
yeah that too. also "frequent" implying that you see that same people frequently too, so they'll think to hangout with you more
Me
so how many of these interactions today do you think have been positive, or negative?
Marshall
a day?
Me
today, and or in general
Marshall
umm in general; 7 good, 2 bad ??
Me
okay. Do these interactions make you feel anyway?
Marshall:
Ummm…
Me
how do these conversation/frequent interactions make you feel?
Marshall
they make me feel like they are necessary and we need more
Me
Why?
Marshall
Because without them you end up a loner.
Greta:
Me
Are social interactions important to your life?
Greta
yes they are, but i can also be just as content being by myself
Me
which do you prefer to do then and why?
Greta
mm i think being by myself actually no
wait yeah
by myself haha
Me
haha, so why is that you feel more comfortable by yourself?
Greta
i think I've always been really depended on so its led me to become more independent; but i wish i could be more dependent
Me
interesting. people seem to always say they want to be more independent, what would be words of wisdom towards those other people?
Greta
haha mmm i think by literally doing things by yourself, like taking a walk or doing something alone that you would usually do with other people, you start to become much more in touch with yourself
Me
haha i see. umm How many personal interactions a day have been positive? how many have been negative?
Greta
like usually or just today?
Me
today, and or general
Greta
mm probably like 10 positive and 2 negative
Nikki:
I:Are Social Interactions important to your life?
A:Of course.
I:Why is it important to you then?
A:Why wouldn't it be important. It's what creates relationships between people.
I:What exactly does it create in relationships?
A:It's how you get friends and whatever else, and it makes life that much more interesting.
I:How many personal interactions a day have been positive? How many have been negative?
A:I would say about 19 in total have been positive today.
I:Do you think your engaged in a lot of personal interactions that you find significant?
A: I'd say I am.
I:What type of interactions are they then?
A:Scripted and deep/private.
I:Do these interactions make you feel any certain way?
A:Not necessarily.
I:So being engaged in these conversations and interactions are pointless then, they have no significance towards you?
A:No, they do have significance.
I:So isn't this pretty much contradicting what you said before, that interactions create things, but you find it not necessarily making you feel a certain way?
A:No, I don't think they are insignificant, I think they are important. I'm just not entirely sure how significant they are to me.
Reading through these responses of how frequent interactions impact our ability to engage in defined relationships, a lot of it we see as how the other person in the conversation affects us. Finding the significance in what we do depends on how dependable or independent that individual is. From what I heard in these interviews, having frequent interactions is necessary because where would we be if no one liked to socialize?
What is Significant in the relationships you have with other people?
2.Are social interactions important to your life? Why?
3.What type of interactions do you find yourself in? Scripted(Hello, How was your day? etc.) Personal
Marshall:
Me
Social Interactions important to your life? Why?
Marshall
obviously they matter to me because i've already asked if my answers will be direct or not and all that
Me
Why is that frequent interactions matter?
Marshall
because weather we like it or not people forget about us. i bet the best Friends who you thought you'd hangout with forever from grade school, you forget about them and them about you, or at least you don't hangout anymore but if you had frequent interactions you probably could.
Me
oh, so your saying that knowing how to interact with people, would matter because people eventually forget about you, so you have to gain new friends and socialize with new people?
Marshall
yeah that too. also "frequent" implying that you see that same people frequently too, so they'll think to hangout with you more
Me
so how many of these interactions today do you think have been positive, or negative?
Marshall
a day?
Me
today, and or in general
Marshall
umm in general; 7 good, 2 bad ??
Me
okay. Do these interactions make you feel anyway?
Marshall:
Ummm…
Me
how do these conversation/frequent interactions make you feel?
Marshall
they make me feel like they are necessary and we need more
Me
Why?
Marshall
Because without them you end up a loner.
Greta:
Me
Are social interactions important to your life?
Greta
yes they are, but i can also be just as content being by myself
Me
which do you prefer to do then and why?
Greta
mm i think being by myself actually no
wait yeah
by myself haha
Me
haha, so why is that you feel more comfortable by yourself?
Greta
i think I've always been really depended on so its led me to become more independent; but i wish i could be more dependent
Me
interesting. people seem to always say they want to be more independent, what would be words of wisdom towards those other people?
Greta
haha mmm i think by literally doing things by yourself, like taking a walk or doing something alone that you would usually do with other people, you start to become much more in touch with yourself
Me
haha i see. umm How many personal interactions a day have been positive? how many have been negative?
Greta
like usually or just today?
Me
today, and or general
Greta
mm probably like 10 positive and 2 negative
Nikki:
I:Are Social Interactions important to your life?
A:Of course.
I:Why is it important to you then?
A:Why wouldn't it be important. It's what creates relationships between people.
I:What exactly does it create in relationships?
A:It's how you get friends and whatever else, and it makes life that much more interesting.
I:How many personal interactions a day have been positive? How many have been negative?
A:I would say about 19 in total have been positive today.
I:Do you think your engaged in a lot of personal interactions that you find significant?
A: I'd say I am.
I:What type of interactions are they then?
A:Scripted and deep/private.
I:Do these interactions make you feel any certain way?
A:Not necessarily.
I:So being engaged in these conversations and interactions are pointless then, they have no significance towards you?
A:No, they do have significance.
I:So isn't this pretty much contradicting what you said before, that interactions create things, but you find it not necessarily making you feel a certain way?
A:No, I don't think they are insignificant, I think they are important. I'm just not entirely sure how significant they are to me.
Reading through these responses of how frequent interactions impact our ability to engage in defined relationships, a lot of it we see as how the other person in the conversation affects us. Finding the significance in what we do depends on how dependable or independent that individual is. From what I heard in these interviews, having frequent interactions is necessary because where would we be if no one liked to socialize?
What is Significant in the relationships you have with other people?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Hw - 55
Part 1: What is the importance of frequent interactions with adults, teachers, friends and strangers? (Most likely will be changed)
Or! What kind of conflict(s) should be allowed in a mediated relationship?
Chloe,
I think if you really wanted to go deeply into making your question less vague and more meaningful and precise.
Since I believe your already in a relationship, what already is difficult about your relationship and what do you want to get out of it? I don't know, just a suggestion. It may be a bit personal, but you could work it out.
*Needs more people*
Or! What kind of conflict(s) should be allowed in a mediated relationship?
Chloe,
I think if you really wanted to go deeply into making your question less vague and more meaningful and precise.
Since I believe your already in a relationship, what already is difficult about your relationship and what do you want to get out of it? I don't know, just a suggestion. It may be a bit personal, but you could work it out.
*Needs more people*
Hw - 54
I took the Myers-Briggs test and I have to say, the results I think were pretty useful. I got the results of ESTP, someone who likes a lot of group oriented positions, basically very social. It offered what type of jobs I would feel comfortable in, and the types that did not fit my results. I also enjoyed taking this quiz, because personally I have problems trying to explain the "Who I am" to people and for a test to narrow down how moods, feelings and thoughts just made it easier.
Although the results I find useful, like narrowing down to how my feelings and thoughts compared to favored careers, I do not find accurate because it was just narrowing down how my personality and feelings were set, but not the type of motives I have to be in other careers. A personality could change, feelings could change, but it was useful to see that the way I am now, and the person I make myself out internally lead to these type of careers.
The Myers-Briggs test is fun to follow up on people you know, trying to study them internally and guessing there positions externally. One of my friends that I had guessed turned out to be almost exactly like how I thought he would be, when he took the test. This shows how easily we get to know and see people, and automatically we place them in a type of category. The social categories are made by assumptions about people who think fit this certain manner, and by reading their attitudes, thoughts, and feelings, we get to see how similar we are, or how different we could be.
Although the results I find useful, like narrowing down to how my feelings and thoughts compared to favored careers, I do not find accurate because it was just narrowing down how my personality and feelings were set, but not the type of motives I have to be in other careers. A personality could change, feelings could change, but it was useful to see that the way I am now, and the person I make myself out internally lead to these type of careers.
The Myers-Briggs test is fun to follow up on people you know, trying to study them internally and guessing there positions externally. One of my friends that I had guessed turned out to be almost exactly like how I thought he would be, when he took the test. This shows how easily we get to know and see people, and automatically we place them in a type of category. The social categories are made by assumptions about people who think fit this certain manner, and by reading their attitudes, thoughts, and feelings, we get to see how similar we are, or how different we could be.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Hw - 53 Survey Analysis
Part 2:
Taking this survey I realized that for myself, I answered either most of the questions neutrally or not completely yes, but still a "yes." This made me wonder why? Were any of the questions asked, I honestly did not feel comfortable about answering, or was it that this is just how it was suppose to play out? Some of the questions asked in the survey made stop think, or even second guess how I answer because I was not completely sure on how I "really" felt about it. Questions about like self politics I had to go back and re-read the question because most of them were questions that described you as an individual, and I always have difficulty explaining a "who am I?" based question.
Part 3:
After the results were posted, almost all but some, each was a interesting score, just because of either how similar I was to some students or how different I was from the next. For instance questions in the self politics genre, most of the students agreed on things I answered for but questions about family, the answers varied. This opened my mind that a lot of us are not the same, even though we may feel that we could possibly be the same. One of the questions that I remember, was that students at home become scapegoats, or know scapegoats are used at home. Which I am not aware of in my home. I think when things get more personal and closer to home, everyone is different, but on more general topics, we find a lot of similarities.
Part 4:
Comparing our results to the other surveys, just shows how very similar we could get, and then on a personal level of how different we could be. What surprised me was how similar and close the percentage was to how much us students consider attempting suicide, is this personal behavior, students share on a deep level. Is it something in school that provokes it? Similarities in living styles and areas that cause this thinking? etc.
Reading about the types of experiences that students go through that I may not associate myself with makes think that, am I wrong for not being as similar as them, or are they wrong for not being like me? Why is it such an issue when one person's personality that is different from us, we are quick to judge them as wrong? What is the cause that makes us easily judge a person for something that they do differently from me? I could keep going on questioning where all of it could derive from, but what would be the ready answer for it?
Taking this survey I realized that for myself, I answered either most of the questions neutrally or not completely yes, but still a "yes." This made me wonder why? Were any of the questions asked, I honestly did not feel comfortable about answering, or was it that this is just how it was suppose to play out? Some of the questions asked in the survey made stop think, or even second guess how I answer because I was not completely sure on how I "really" felt about it. Questions about like self politics I had to go back and re-read the question because most of them were questions that described you as an individual, and I always have difficulty explaining a "who am I?" based question.
Part 3:
After the results were posted, almost all but some, each was a interesting score, just because of either how similar I was to some students or how different I was from the next. For instance questions in the self politics genre, most of the students agreed on things I answered for but questions about family, the answers varied. This opened my mind that a lot of us are not the same, even though we may feel that we could possibly be the same. One of the questions that I remember, was that students at home become scapegoats, or know scapegoats are used at home. Which I am not aware of in my home. I think when things get more personal and closer to home, everyone is different, but on more general topics, we find a lot of similarities.
Part 4:
Comparing our results to the other surveys, just shows how very similar we could get, and then on a personal level of how different we could be. What surprised me was how similar and close the percentage was to how much us students consider attempting suicide, is this personal behavior, students share on a deep level. Is it something in school that provokes it? Similarities in living styles and areas that cause this thinking? etc.
Reading about the types of experiences that students go through that I may not associate myself with makes think that, am I wrong for not being as similar as them, or are they wrong for not being like me? Why is it such an issue when one person's personality that is different from us, we are quick to judge them as wrong? What is the cause that makes us easily judge a person for something that they do differently from me? I could keep going on questioning where all of it could derive from, but what would be the ready answer for it?
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Hw - 52 Initial Theories of Human Relationships
Human Relationships are split into many different categories and even those categories have categories and so on. But they all have something in common. Affirmation. Affirmation is related to every type of human relationship because every human wants to be accepted. We want to be accepted by our lovers, families, friends, co-workers and the public. So we put on these roles to fit almost everyone's needs, almost like multiple personalities. Why? That's a good question, is this human relationship the meaning and value of life? In my previous blog's about the "Cool" unit, I realized that we demand this popular label of "being cool" and a reason for that was because we felt lonely. We felt empty, and by filling this emptiness we were always constantly conforming to fit the people that mattered, needs'. Now here is my great attempt at trying to theorize these human relationships.
My theory about family relationships are the bonds between child and parent. Naturally the bond between a child and parent is strong because the child is being taken care of. The parents fit the child's needs so he/she accepts his parents. But as the child gets older, the bond weakens because the child realizes that the parent will not always be there for them. The child becomes its own individual and begins his/her life without the parents. From my own experience as child I always had my parents take care of me at a young age, and then I finally realized that I did not need them as much when I aquired friends in school. But the bond between my parents and I I feel is like " I owe you" bond now because they have taken care of me for so long, and in return I should take care of them, basically mutual respect. But for my parents I don't think they see it that way, they'll always see it as them taking care of me.
My theory on friendship has to do a lot with how we choose our friends as opposed to being chose by another. I think when we choose our friends, we look for things both of us share incommon first, for example; Movies, Sports, Interests etc, all parts of a "friend" criteria. Also you choosing a friend I believe shows that you are the more dominant figure in the relationship because you have the confidence to open yourself to be affirmed by someone who might of been completely different from you. My parents always tell me "make sure you choose your friends, and not have your friends choose you," and I believe they were preparing me for how I could be the more dominant person.
Another theory I have about human relationship is how we socially try to fit in. We act in a manner that people will accept us for. It also depends on the type of people we are around too, because when we are infront of adults, our attitudes must change, to usually show that we respect them and that we acknowledge them as the dominant figure. When we are with our friends, we switch to being loud, or obnoxious, rude etc. to make sure they find us amusing. Not saying all of us are like that of course, but that is how we usually get attention.
What I wish I knew more about in human relationships would have to be the "why's and the how's" of what we do that motivates us to find affirmation from other people. How do we judge what decision is right or wrong in any given relationship, and how do we deal with it, if it was the wrong decisions. I feel that if I were to know about how we make our decisions, we would be better off making right choices instead of poor ones.
My theory about family relationships are the bonds between child and parent. Naturally the bond between a child and parent is strong because the child is being taken care of. The parents fit the child's needs so he/she accepts his parents. But as the child gets older, the bond weakens because the child realizes that the parent will not always be there for them. The child becomes its own individual and begins his/her life without the parents. From my own experience as child I always had my parents take care of me at a young age, and then I finally realized that I did not need them as much when I aquired friends in school. But the bond between my parents and I I feel is like " I owe you" bond now because they have taken care of me for so long, and in return I should take care of them, basically mutual respect. But for my parents I don't think they see it that way, they'll always see it as them taking care of me.
My theory on friendship has to do a lot with how we choose our friends as opposed to being chose by another. I think when we choose our friends, we look for things both of us share incommon first, for example; Movies, Sports, Interests etc, all parts of a "friend" criteria. Also you choosing a friend I believe shows that you are the more dominant figure in the relationship because you have the confidence to open yourself to be affirmed by someone who might of been completely different from you. My parents always tell me "make sure you choose your friends, and not have your friends choose you," and I believe they were preparing me for how I could be the more dominant person.
Another theory I have about human relationship is how we socially try to fit in. We act in a manner that people will accept us for. It also depends on the type of people we are around too, because when we are infront of adults, our attitudes must change, to usually show that we respect them and that we acknowledge them as the dominant figure. When we are with our friends, we switch to being loud, or obnoxious, rude etc. to make sure they find us amusing. Not saying all of us are like that of course, but that is how we usually get attention.
What I wish I knew more about in human relationships would have to be the "why's and the how's" of what we do that motivates us to find affirmation from other people. How do we judge what decision is right or wrong in any given relationship, and how do we deal with it, if it was the wrong decisions. I feel that if I were to know about how we make our decisions, we would be better off making right choices instead of poor ones.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Hw - 51 The School Paper
School is an institution. We come here to educate ourselves about the topics and common knowledge's we should know entering our adulthood. It is built to structure the youth into future model citizens. School is made to prepare us for a type of job we find a lot of interest in. School all together is one great big guiding line we can choose to follow to make us who we are later. Why is it failing?
Well lets' start off with the contradictions school has provided amongst what it has promised to why those promises are not working. Generally speaking, school has been a place where students go to learn, build their intellectual minds, and excel in topics decided by the school curriculum. But are we really learning? Paulo Freire, wrote in his book, "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" that the relationship between teacher and students "[are] fundamentally narrative...a narrating subject(the teacher) and patient, listening objects(the students)."(Freire, Chapter 2) In classes majority of the time, students sit down behind their desk, watching and listening to what the teacher is teaching them. The teacher narrates what is going to be taught today, and he/she makes them listen to what they have to say. We just listen. But are we listening to learn it, or are we memorizing it with actually understanding its significance. From my own experience, I agree with Freire that most of what is taught in school I do not realize the true understanding of the topic, because all I am doing in recording, memorizing and preparing myself for the next test. That is why I usually forget what I "apparently" learned because all I did was memorize it. I mean think about it, you learn ride a bike, or swim and you never forget it, even when you go back to it. If we were to memorize and not completely understand how to do these things, we would keep forgetting each time we go back to it.
Another reason why school is failing to structure good students is the conflict between teacher and student. In cases there are teachers who just teach because it is just a job and nothing more than that, and students who are not motivated about what is being taught. Lisa Delpit, a internationally known scholar and writer, has focused on this area of the struggle between teacher and students, especially students of color. She believes that every student can be motivated and brilliant, but teachers do not do enough to capture/bring out this hidden intelligence. One of her strategies to bring out the intelligence in each child is the usage of the Arts. The Arts in her perspective opens and expands the minds of the students to a level where teachers are able to see the true brilliance behind the child. In the Arts, the form of poetry and rhythm, believes can capture the intelligent mind of child, mainly African-American students because it is what they find most comfortable. So whatever makes the student comfortable, would be in the best interest of how they can demonstrate their intelligence. The only problem I have with Delpit's theory is that it would be too much to cover in the class because each individual child may have a different style of learning that may not work out with the other child, so trying to focus on each would be too much.
A similar issue that students and teachers face is the fact that both of them want they want out of the other. Teachers expect us to be these drones that will just sit and listen, and for students we expect teachers to really see who we are. Both want respect from each other, but one wants more respect then the other. It is sad to see it though because both the teacher and student minds' are clouded and unable to see how both of them could get what they want if they were to cooperate with each other on the same level. This idea will barely ever happen because the teacher will always be labeled as the dominant figure in the class, and the students will have to be the good followers. A role students just can't appreciate, and I agree, who would want to be in a following role. John Gatto, a New York State teacher wrote an article of what typically happens in a classroom structured by Six-Lessons. He writes about six lessons which are more of guide lines to how you can expect a teacher/or being a teacher could be like. In his class, the six lessons he follows are directed towards his students to keep them in order. These six lessons are more like rules students have to abide by and if they don't, they get punished. All part of the big plan, to show that the teacher is the dominant figure, and we (the students) are like sheep's to the sheep herder. Gatto also touches upon how he creates his own curriculum which helps him figure out who the good and bad students are. The idea of how students are capable of conforming to an entirely new subject to another, are labeled as the good kids, and the ones who don't appreciate it, or don't care about it, the non-conformers are the bad. And then when it is all done for today, the teacher preforms the same six lesson step again the following day. Gatto metaphorically explains that he controls his students like an on/off light switch because when he demands his students, they turn on, and when he does not, we turn off. A unequal balance of power.
Another reason why you find a lot of students failing is the type of education style that is presented on to them. E.D. Hirsch, a U.S. educator and academic literary critic theorized that you must begin with knowing enough facts and a full understanding of common knowledge's before becoming a better thinker. His idea was that if you knew enough about these common knowledge's and facts, that it would further you in the future dominant culture. "Transcendent education." Which is a type of education style that teaches students how to be successful in the dominant culture. Ted Sizer, a education-reform advocate believed that students must be given the skills and tools first to become a better learner/thinker, basically the opposite of Hirsch's theory. Sizer described the "transcendent" education as "machines that they designed and operated," which is true because Hirsch's theory was to fill students with common knowledge's and facts which Freire explained was the reason why we were not really learning. But there is a trade off between Sizer and Hirsch's theory because Hirsch's theory will supposedly helps you in the dominant culture, and Sizer's is built around how students could be helped now by learning certain skills about the now; "Immanent" education. The split between these two styles of education could either help or fail the student depending on the individual capability to adjust to either one they felt most comfortable in.
In conclusion there are many variables as to why school may be failing. The topic of individuality which complicates a school's curriculum because one individual may learn a different way then the other. The power struggle between teacher and student. All too much and not enough time, but at the end of the day it is our own responsibility to make sure we are selves learn something. Something Obama would like all students to understand.
Well lets' start off with the contradictions school has provided amongst what it has promised to why those promises are not working. Generally speaking, school has been a place where students go to learn, build their intellectual minds, and excel in topics decided by the school curriculum. But are we really learning? Paulo Freire, wrote in his book, "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" that the relationship between teacher and students "[are] fundamentally narrative...a narrating subject(the teacher) and patient, listening objects(the students)."(Freire, Chapter 2) In classes majority of the time, students sit down behind their desk, watching and listening to what the teacher is teaching them. The teacher narrates what is going to be taught today, and he/she makes them listen to what they have to say. We just listen. But are we listening to learn it, or are we memorizing it with actually understanding its significance. From my own experience, I agree with Freire that most of what is taught in school I do not realize the true understanding of the topic, because all I am doing in recording, memorizing and preparing myself for the next test. That is why I usually forget what I "apparently" learned because all I did was memorize it. I mean think about it, you learn ride a bike, or swim and you never forget it, even when you go back to it. If we were to memorize and not completely understand how to do these things, we would keep forgetting each time we go back to it.
Another reason why school is failing to structure good students is the conflict between teacher and student. In cases there are teachers who just teach because it is just a job and nothing more than that, and students who are not motivated about what is being taught. Lisa Delpit, a internationally known scholar and writer, has focused on this area of the struggle between teacher and students, especially students of color. She believes that every student can be motivated and brilliant, but teachers do not do enough to capture/bring out this hidden intelligence. One of her strategies to bring out the intelligence in each child is the usage of the Arts. The Arts in her perspective opens and expands the minds of the students to a level where teachers are able to see the true brilliance behind the child. In the Arts, the form of poetry and rhythm, believes can capture the intelligent mind of child, mainly African-American students because it is what they find most comfortable. So whatever makes the student comfortable, would be in the best interest of how they can demonstrate their intelligence. The only problem I have with Delpit's theory is that it would be too much to cover in the class because each individual child may have a different style of learning that may not work out with the other child, so trying to focus on each would be too much.
A similar issue that students and teachers face is the fact that both of them want they want out of the other. Teachers expect us to be these drones that will just sit and listen, and for students we expect teachers to really see who we are. Both want respect from each other, but one wants more respect then the other. It is sad to see it though because both the teacher and student minds' are clouded and unable to see how both of them could get what they want if they were to cooperate with each other on the same level. This idea will barely ever happen because the teacher will always be labeled as the dominant figure in the class, and the students will have to be the good followers. A role students just can't appreciate, and I agree, who would want to be in a following role. John Gatto, a New York State teacher wrote an article of what typically happens in a classroom structured by Six-Lessons. He writes about six lessons which are more of guide lines to how you can expect a teacher/or being a teacher could be like. In his class, the six lessons he follows are directed towards his students to keep them in order. These six lessons are more like rules students have to abide by and if they don't, they get punished. All part of the big plan, to show that the teacher is the dominant figure, and we (the students) are like sheep's to the sheep herder. Gatto also touches upon how he creates his own curriculum which helps him figure out who the good and bad students are. The idea of how students are capable of conforming to an entirely new subject to another, are labeled as the good kids, and the ones who don't appreciate it, or don't care about it, the non-conformers are the bad. And then when it is all done for today, the teacher preforms the same six lesson step again the following day. Gatto metaphorically explains that he controls his students like an on/off light switch because when he demands his students, they turn on, and when he does not, we turn off. A unequal balance of power.
Another reason why you find a lot of students failing is the type of education style that is presented on to them. E.D. Hirsch, a U.S. educator and academic literary critic theorized that you must begin with knowing enough facts and a full understanding of common knowledge's before becoming a better thinker. His idea was that if you knew enough about these common knowledge's and facts, that it would further you in the future dominant culture. "Transcendent education." Which is a type of education style that teaches students how to be successful in the dominant culture. Ted Sizer, a education-reform advocate believed that students must be given the skills and tools first to become a better learner/thinker, basically the opposite of Hirsch's theory. Sizer described the "transcendent" education as "machines that they designed and operated," which is true because Hirsch's theory was to fill students with common knowledge's and facts which Freire explained was the reason why we were not really learning. But there is a trade off between Sizer and Hirsch's theory because Hirsch's theory will supposedly helps you in the dominant culture, and Sizer's is built around how students could be helped now by learning certain skills about the now; "Immanent" education. The split between these two styles of education could either help or fail the student depending on the individual capability to adjust to either one they felt most comfortable in.
In conclusion there are many variables as to why school may be failing. The topic of individuality which complicates a school's curriculum because one individual may learn a different way then the other. The power struggle between teacher and student. All too much and not enough time, but at the end of the day it is our own responsibility to make sure we are selves learn something. Something Obama would like all students to understand.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Hw - 50
Gatto
Six Lessons by John Gatto is basically ideas of what teaching and school is about. In this article he critics the school curriculum and how he controls his students. He writes about six lessons which are more of guide lines to how you can expect a teacher/or being a teacher could be like. In his class, the six lessons he follows are directed towards his students to keep them in order, and that is how it should be. These six lessons are more like rules students have to abide by and if they don't, they get punished. All part of the big plan, to show that the teacher is the dominant figure, and we (the students) are like sheep's to the sheep herder. Gatto also touches upon how he creates his own curriculum which helps him figure out who the good and bad students are. The idea of how students are capable of conforming to an entirely new subject to another, are labeled as the good kids, and the ones who don't appreciate it, or don't care about it, the non-conformers are the bad. And then when it is all done for today, the teacher preforms the same six lesson step again the following day; Just like switching an on/off light switch.
This article made me feel like I was a drone being structured by the school's guiding lines. If I were to fall off these lines, I would see punishment. Which is all too true because if I were to not agree with the teacher, what would be the point of going to school in the first place? Oh yeah, to go to college, and get a job after that. It sucks to know that I'm basically a on/off light switch because when the teacher expects me, I turn on. When they don't, I just turn off.
Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
In this article, Freire articulates how we the students are listening objects to the narrative subjects made by teachers. "Education is suffering from narration sickness." Brilliant. He explains how a teachers task is to "fill" students with contents of his narration and for us to find a significance in what is being taught. And even when the students are being "filled," we are not actually learning it but memorizing it without realizing the actual significance of what we are being filled with. The issue is that students then lack creativity because our roles of being a student is becoming the depositories to whatever the teacher deposits in our unfilled minds. Our consciousness is what we are being fed by are teacher.
Amazing article by Freire, only it hurts to know that students like me are conscious individuals with a lack of creativity because we are not narrating our own education. All so true because instead of actually learning what is being taught, we are unaware of our ability to know that we just memorizing and not learning. This reminds me of how I usually take tests because before the test I memorize things that should be on the test, but I do not realize that I am also no learning it, even though subconsciously I believe I am when I do well on the test. That is why I can never remember what and how I got the answers correct when I go back to it.
Delpit - Interview with Lisa Delpit
In this interview, Delpit explains how she focuses on the progression of schooling and what teachers need to do in order to achieve in bringing out a students intelligence. Most of her focuses are directed towards students of color and the struggle between middle class teachers and the African-American students. She does not believe that a test should indicate a child's intelligence because they could wrongfully be misunderstood in some circumstance. She feels that every student is brilliant, but in order for the teachers' to see that, they must teach in a specific way. One of Delpit's strategies to bring out the intelligence in each child was the usage of the Art. The Arts in her perspective opens and expands the minds of the students to a level where teachers are able to see the true brilliance behind the child. In the Arts, the form of poetry and rythem, Delpit also believes can capture the intelligent mind of child, mainly African-American students because it is what they find most comfortable. So whatever makes the student comfortable, would be in the best interest of how they can demonstrate their intelligence.
Many of Delpit's ideas I agree with and some I'm not completely sure about. I agree that some teachers do not see or do enough to capture our brilliance. Most of them are seeing it as just a job, and there main purpose to their job is to just teach. But it is deeper then that, Delpit is correct when she insist that teachers should find a way on meeting the students need, so the struggle between teacher and student is not there. I disagree though that a teacher should be able to bring out every child's intelligence because then there would be just too much to cover. Each individual child may have a different style of learning that may not work out with the other child, so trying to focus on each would be too much.
Mr. Copeland
In our class interview with our teacher Mr. Copeland, a lot of our questions varied from the style of education he liked to teach, to the super-teacher films we've watched in class. One of the main goals he sought out that all of students would understand is social justice. Many teachers have a different way about they about teaching this topic, Copeland teaches it teaching his students about different oppressed groups. By teaching his students these different oppressed groups in the past, his students won't be quick to judge oppressed groups now. He also touched upon the style of education he likes to guide his students through. A mix of transcendent and immanent education. He believes that incorporating both of these styles would only help the students, and what would be the point of teaching a student transcendent education where the students becomes prepared for the dominant future, without knowing his/her life now(immanent education). This led to our final questions about how he felt about super-teacher films, where a student or students are being saved. And he replies "from what? These super teacher films are archetypes, and archetypes are ridiculous. If I were to say I saved someone, it would be pretentious."
To hear from a teacher, and not the one's you see in TV and movies felt more realistic because a lot of his ideas, goals and teaching styles scored higher compared to the over dramatic super teacher films. He explain the reality of teaching which I found amusing because he was sort of dissing himself, but making sure that he demonstrated his adequate teaching abilities. I mean why would he go out of his to say "Yes I saved my students. Let's be realistic here, I have a few troubled students, but not to point where I need to save them, and these super teacher films do the exact thing for these "dangerous" students." I could also see why one of his goals for students to learn would be about oppressed groups, he's clearly trying to make a difference on how his students will view oppressed groups now, and to not judge them. All centered around social justice.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Hw - 49 Class Savior/Teacher Film
A lot of the super-teacher films that are made demonstrate the similar but different ways of how a teacher can make a difference in students or a student life. The brief dramatized scenario of a teacher film Esther D's film presented i felt was the total opposite. The message that I felt was built in this film was that not all teachers like the one's on Tv, make a difference.
In this film, the teacher tries and makes attempt at teaching his class about poetry, but infact none of the students actually care. The teacher struggling in his class resorts to alchohol as an answer to get him by in his class. In regular super-teacher films, the first attempt always fails, but somehow they always manage to control the class second time around. Here, that shit is going to happen anytime soon. The students don't really care, they're not motivated to learn anything about what is being taught, and it seems more realistic because how could one day of teaching inspire students who have never cared their whole lives.
The connection between salvation and education is very complex. The students who can excell in the type of education that is being taught to them perform higher than those who suffer at the same type of education being taught. That is why the teacher is held with great responsibility to be able to teach all types of students in way they could all learn. There are two types of educations, the transcendent and the Imminant. The split between these two types of education could either help or fail at teaching specific types of students. The transcendent education helps students that like to learn about things that will help them in the dominant future, and the Imminant education that helps students deal with the "now" of life. The complexity of the individual being can be easy to teach if it was a 1 on 1 basis, but teaching happens in the masses. So trying to figure out how to inspire all students that may all find a successfull way of learning in a different way; You could imagine.
In this film, the teacher tries and makes attempt at teaching his class about poetry, but infact none of the students actually care. The teacher struggling in his class resorts to alchohol as an answer to get him by in his class. In regular super-teacher films, the first attempt always fails, but somehow they always manage to control the class second time around. Here, that shit is going to happen anytime soon. The students don't really care, they're not motivated to learn anything about what is being taught, and it seems more realistic because how could one day of teaching inspire students who have never cared their whole lives.
The connection between salvation and education is very complex. The students who can excell in the type of education that is being taught to them perform higher than those who suffer at the same type of education being taught. That is why the teacher is held with great responsibility to be able to teach all types of students in way they could all learn. There are two types of educations, the transcendent and the Imminant. The split between these two types of education could either help or fail at teaching specific types of students. The transcendent education helps students that like to learn about things that will help them in the dominant future, and the Imminant education that helps students deal with the "now" of life. The complexity of the individual being can be easy to teach if it was a 1 on 1 basis, but teaching happens in the masses. So trying to figure out how to inspire all students that may all find a successfull way of learning in a different way; You could imagine.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Extra Credit - "The Class"
From the beginning of this movie, I could already tell who the trouble makers were, and who was leading that role, just like in the other "teacher-movies." And so I interpreted it as the bad ass kid changing in the end. I was entirely wrong. Souleymane, the trouble maker had been labeled as the teen causing many of the problems teacher's had issues with and also had the potential to be a good student but lacked confidence to change it and more then likely felt comfortable as who he was labeled as. I do not hold the teacher responsible for Souleymane's expulsion but not to shy away from the fact that it was the teacher's fault that prompt the dramatic scene to happen causing harm to one of the students. If Souleymane made his choice not to act up and create a much bigger issue that did not concern him as much, he would not have been in the type of predicament he put himself into. But I'm torn because Souleymane has always been like this, and trying to change in an instant is hard. At one part it looked like Souleymane was making a difference for himself when he participated in the "Self-Portrait" homework and because it was so good, it was praised by the teacher and students, and his eyes lit up.
This also goes for the other 14 and 15 year old's who were in that class making and being responsible for their own choices. For instance Khoumba's confrontation with the teacher, being rude and non-respective of the teachers' rules lead to her being held after class and then after apologizing, yell to teacher "I didn't mean it." Which in fact made the teacher unhappy but Khoumba sensing what she did was wrong, wrote to teacher explaining how she felt in a much mature manner and the struggle between her and the teacher ended. If Souleymane could only sense what he was doing was wrong, it would have made a difference, but to have already for a period of time, be labeled as what you are and then feel comfortable as the role, in reality is difficult to change. I also believe that the teachers expected to highly of their students to be these amazing wonderful students and when they found hope in one of them (the only Asian) they expected the others to be like that as well. And the teachers questioned the other students as to why it was so hard for them to be like the model student? Basically if someone who is around your same age and can probably easily relate to you, both of the two should be able to mirror each other. Which in fact doesn't happen and that is why only Wei was praised by the teachers. What was even more interesting was how much they cared about their model student and goes as far to hold a meeting to figure how they would raise money for Wei's mother to get a lawyer to not get deported back to China.
As for the teacher being morally responsible for finding solutions to school issues that he lead his class through, yes and no. Yes, because he should know that the solutions he chooses should affect all the kids and not leave out some here and there. No, because how would you know how each kid would react to the solution if each and every individual is different from the other. Did he make good solution though? No. He chose to talk about Souleymane in the meeting where class Representatives were present which lead to Souleymane realizing where he stood in school. The harsh reality. And then the build up to the dramatic scene that caused one of the schools biggest issue. Expelling students.
This also goes for the other 14 and 15 year old's who were in that class making and being responsible for their own choices. For instance Khoumba's confrontation with the teacher, being rude and non-respective of the teachers' rules lead to her being held after class and then after apologizing, yell to teacher "I didn't mean it." Which in fact made the teacher unhappy but Khoumba sensing what she did was wrong, wrote to teacher explaining how she felt in a much mature manner and the struggle between her and the teacher ended. If Souleymane could only sense what he was doing was wrong, it would have made a difference, but to have already for a period of time, be labeled as what you are and then feel comfortable as the role, in reality is difficult to change. I also believe that the teachers expected to highly of their students to be these amazing wonderful students and when they found hope in one of them (the only Asian) they expected the others to be like that as well. And the teachers questioned the other students as to why it was so hard for them to be like the model student? Basically if someone who is around your same age and can probably easily relate to you, both of the two should be able to mirror each other. Which in fact doesn't happen and that is why only Wei was praised by the teachers. What was even more interesting was how much they cared about their model student and goes as far to hold a meeting to figure how they would raise money for Wei's mother to get a lawyer to not get deported back to China.
As for the teacher being morally responsible for finding solutions to school issues that he lead his class through, yes and no. Yes, because he should know that the solutions he chooses should affect all the kids and not leave out some here and there. No, because how would you know how each kid would react to the solution if each and every individual is different from the other. Did he make good solution though? No. He chose to talk about Souleymane in the meeting where class Representatives were present which lead to Souleymane realizing where he stood in school. The harsh reality. And then the build up to the dramatic scene that caused one of the schools biggest issue. Expelling students.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Hw - 48 Treatment for Savior/Teacher Movie
Dean Walters is a new incoming teacher with a set of goals and one of them being to improve even the most rowdiest kids. Straight out of college earning a Bachalor's degree from SUNY New Paltz with straight A's. He wants to return to the city where he believes he can make a difference.
Dean get's a call to come in for a interview at a moderate interacial urban high school which Dean feels is a perfect fit for him to apply his scholary teaching skills to the max.
Dean comes to the school the following day 15 minutes early for his interview with the princaple, Ed McKinley. Who is busy scholding the one kind of good-kid for not handing in his report paper. After McKinley is finished with scholding he prepares himself in his office for Dean's interview. The interview goes well but McKinley warns Dean of his valient attitude that every teacher he's had that tought stayed for no more then one semester. This excites Dean because this is what he has prepared himself for. He's feels that he has become an expert at teaching underprivledged kids becuase he's throughly studied 'super-teacher' movies and read enough "How to Teach" books that he will be just fine.
It's the total opposite. And these kids are smart enough to know every type of 'super-teacher' method he throws at them. Now what?
Dean get's a call to come in for a interview at a moderate interacial urban high school which Dean feels is a perfect fit for him to apply his scholary teaching skills to the max.
Dean comes to the school the following day 15 minutes early for his interview with the princaple, Ed McKinley. Who is busy scholding the one kind of good-kid for not handing in his report paper. After McKinley is finished with scholding he prepares himself in his office for Dean's interview. The interview goes well but McKinley warns Dean of his valient attitude that every teacher he's had that tought stayed for no more then one semester. This excites Dean because this is what he has prepared himself for. He's feels that he has become an expert at teaching underprivledged kids becuase he's throughly studied 'super-teacher' movies and read enough "How to Teach" books that he will be just fine.
It's the total opposite. And these kids are smart enough to know every type of 'super-teacher' method he throws at them. Now what?
Friday, April 2, 2010
Hw- 47 Class Film
- To begin with, our plot should be centered around the theme of "transcendent and immanent" education, but reverse it and have the teacher fail in the beginning starting with the Immanent style of teaching. Which in the "super-teacher films" that style always works.
- In our class, we always watch the teacher making a difference, but if we could, I think we should turn it around and have the students make a difference. I'm not sure how we'd go about doing that, because I don't really know how we would show students changing the teacher, when it should be the teachers job changing us. But who knows, maybe we'll come up with something.
- Another interesting thing that we could do is maybe add some sort of sub-plot that gets in the way of the teacher that prevents him/her from performing his/her roles as a teacher. You know, something internal, very emotional stuff.
- Another small thing we could add to it is, making it a comedy of some sort? Something as funny along the lines of Feris Bueler's Day Off, or Fast Times at Richmond High, even Superbad, just without the constant swearing.
- Just like in every movie, we should have that one climatic scene where the whole movie shifts gear and before we reach the end, put a twist on it. That shit always makes movies good. You know, something like the Sixth Sense.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Hw - 45 Thoughts on School
Reading E.D. Hirsch's Curriculum for democracy, Hirsch's theory of children/teens/adults having a full advantage in reading an article, you most begin with knowing enough facts and a full understanding of common knowledge's. His idea was that students should know a lot of common facts to begin starting the progress of becoming better thinkers. Hirsch's idea of a good school curriculum should be structured around "transcendent" education which means teaching students things that will get them further in the dominant culture. He was opposed the "Immanent" education which was helping students deal with the now/present things in their life's. Such as what many of the "teachers-making-a-difference" movies do. Hirsch's theory of having full-on understanding of common-known knowledge was spot on when a writers asked a bunch of students about the Civil War, and in return the students did not know how to reply. Because they were not sure on what the Civil War was.
Sizer's idea of how students should be learning was that students must be given the skills and tools on how to learn better, basically the opposite of what Hirsch's theory was, which was for the students to know common facts and knowledge's before becoming better learners. Sizer's first attempt on figuring out what main principles where needed to teach students, he researched on what schools did not need. Many people agreed that "students need to learn how to use their minds well" but as Sizer described the "Transcendent" education, "Machines that they designed and operated." Which most of failed, furthermore the result of why the principles were made.
In the beginning, I agreed a lot with Sizer's theory because I felt that I needed to learn and be taught the skills to become a better thinker. Something that is taught in the High School I go to. After thinking about Hirsch's theory a lot, I began to think that I was almost left behind in some of my classes because I was lacking in common-knowledge's and facts I should have known. All the while, I have these skills to allow to be this better thinker. I was at lost. Sizer's theory had a disadvantage when it came to successfully excelling in the dominant culture, because these common-knowledge's and facts I needed to know, well, I just did not know. The battle between both Sizer and Hirsch on what a successful school curriculum is will be on-going but if both of their idea's/theories blend, I mean why not? It should make for a better, more advanced student.
Sizer's idea of how students should be learning was that students must be given the skills and tools on how to learn better, basically the opposite of what Hirsch's theory was, which was for the students to know common facts and knowledge's before becoming better learners. Sizer's first attempt on figuring out what main principles where needed to teach students, he researched on what schools did not need. Many people agreed that "students need to learn how to use their minds well" but as Sizer described the "Transcendent" education, "Machines that they designed and operated." Which most of failed, furthermore the result of why the principles were made.
In the beginning, I agreed a lot with Sizer's theory because I felt that I needed to learn and be taught the skills to become a better thinker. Something that is taught in the High School I go to. After thinking about Hirsch's theory a lot, I began to think that I was almost left behind in some of my classes because I was lacking in common-knowledge's and facts I should have known. All the while, I have these skills to allow to be this better thinker. I was at lost. Sizer's theory had a disadvantage when it came to successfully excelling in the dominant culture, because these common-knowledge's and facts I needed to know, well, I just did not know. The battle between both Sizer and Hirsch on what a successful school curriculum is will be on-going but if both of their idea's/theories blend, I mean why not? It should make for a better, more advanced student.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Hw- 44 Expectations
Unlike the movies that dealt with the savages (teens) of High School (Blackboard Jungle, Dangerous Minds and Freedom Writers), they handled the students by explaining to them why education is key and never really explaining why it was so important to them. In Obama's speech he did the exact opposite by sharing his struggle for a good education in his youthful days. By doing that, he made it worth knowing that we are young adults who may have it easy to get a good education and a tribute to those who don't, all the while to make us feel appreciative that we have an education.
None the less, even though we should feel appreciative to have an education, it is our own responsibility to make sure we are selves learn something. During Obama's speech, he targets all the students by making them feel good to know that we have the ability to become someone important, such as the person who will cure cancer and aids and even becoming the most significant person in the United States, The President! "But it is all up to YOU, and how you YOU will handle your responsibilities. "
It was interesting to read the Liberal Artcs article, because most of the questions it answered relates to me for example; "How will studying Shakespeare or cell biology or modern art help me get a job?" And then being told how to see the corralations between math and business companies, the type of homework we get to improve our problem solving skills and the analysis of a certain subject. All of this is great, but it gets boring. From my own experience, it feels like "Deja Vu." We learn most of the same thing over and over again only to be explained to us that we are deepning our understanding of the topic. But it's not, it's actually unmotivating me because it something I know too well.
None the less, even though we should feel appreciative to have an education, it is our own responsibility to make sure we are selves learn something. During Obama's speech, he targets all the students by making them feel good to know that we have the ability to become someone important, such as the person who will cure cancer and aids and even becoming the most significant person in the United States, The President! "But it is all up to YOU, and how you YOU will handle your responsibilities. "
It was interesting to read the Liberal Artcs article, because most of the questions it answered relates to me for example; "How will studying Shakespeare or cell biology or modern art help me get a job?" And then being told how to see the corralations between math and business companies, the type of homework we get to improve our problem solving skills and the analysis of a certain subject. All of this is great, but it gets boring. From my own experience, it feels like "Deja Vu." We learn most of the same thing over and over again only to be explained to us that we are deepning our understanding of the topic. But it's not, it's actually unmotivating me because it something I know too well.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Hw 42- Significance
Why is it that having the highest education status is ranked so high in the workforce when social incompetence is a threat to a social interacted workforce?
School has brought us up to realize that education is a #1 priority, and indeed it is. But is challenged by social skills which is separated in school environments. Communication is also a priority which I believe should be ranked #1 because if we lack in the region of social interaction, how will we be able to initiate, maintain and end whole conversations that most of our lives depend on. From my own experience, being social wasn't a problem for me. I got along with other kids in my school, I did not have an issue starting and ending conversations. The only issue I had was getting in trouble with teachers in my early age in school. The teachers would either tell me "Be quiet while other people are working", or "take a time out" etc. All factors for eliminating social skills and making the future generation working drones.
Being able to socialize makes us Human. Our capability to talk, understand and think for ourselves makes it possible for us to adapt to our surrounding. Communication with other people furthers our ability to learn new things and having this given skill, taken from us, we suffer in the future lacking in a region that is most needed in daily life.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Hw- 41 Initial Internet Research on Schooling
Lawson, Candy, "Social Skills and School", http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/social_skills.php Center for Development and Learning. 25 February 2010
Exploring the social scenes and its affect on children at school, this article provided reasons why social interaction is key in a child's movement towards adulthood. The author, Candy Lawson, Ph.D. begins with "While school can be a positive social experience for many children, for others it can be a nightmare." A basic insight but why?
Lawson throughout the article guides her insights through the different area's of social interaction such as Social status and communication skills. The one that caught my eye while reading, was her piece on Social skills. "Social inability can be a lifelong problem...social incompetence can be more debilitating and detrimental to success in life than learning problems." Lawson is right, because a child's inability to solve an issue, initiate, maintain and end conversations would end the child's future in a very social interactive world.
http://www.familyresource.com/parenting/character-development/social-skills-and-school-age-children
This brief article also spoke about how social interaction can affect a child's comfortably within school explaining again that in the future, the child may enter the workforce more prepared and the ability to socialize.
According to this article, a child's inability to appropriately react and socialize in school has a negative affect on their learning ability and therefore struggle with the ability to feel positive about school. That's interesting, but like most teens, even for those who are very social, still seem to find school as a positive stepping stone?
http://www.nasponline.org/resources/factsheets/socialskills_fs.aspx
This article which also talked about social skills in school gave more of a brief summary about why it is good and the consequences of when there are poor social skills. Also provided in the article were helpful tips to encourage those of not so high social interaction to find social skill programs.
After numerous of sites I read, and articles that explained socialization in schools, it became all to repetitive. Each new website I clicked, all said the same thing above but differently, all referring to a child's inability to socialize at an early age. By reading these repeating articles, I started to wonder, what happens when you become to good at socializing? Can being good at socializing affect the way you act in school? Yes, it does. For myself, I find that I can socialize well, and because of that I find myself in school having a lot friends, but the addiction to socialize with everyone gets me in trouble with teachers who have the power to fail or pass me in school. In school, our goals are to pass/succeed. So should being good a socializing be an advantage when most of the teachers are always telling us to "shut up, sit down, leave the classroom?" I couldn't find any articles on things like that though.
Lawson throughout the article guides her insights through the different area's of social interaction such as Social status and communication skills. The one that caught my eye while reading, was her piece on Social skills. "Social inability can be a lifelong problem...social incompetence can be more debilitating and detrimental to success in life than learning problems." Lawson is right, because a child's inability to solve an issue, initiate, maintain and end conversations would end the child's future in a very social interactive world.
http://www.familyresource.com/parenting/character-development/social-skills-and-school-age-children
This brief article also spoke about how social interaction can affect a child's comfortably within school explaining again that in the future, the child may enter the workforce more prepared and the ability to socialize.
According to this article, a child's inability to appropriately react and socialize in school has a negative affect on their learning ability and therefore struggle with the ability to feel positive about school. That's interesting, but like most teens, even for those who are very social, still seem to find school as a positive stepping stone?
http://www.nasponline.org/resources/factsheets/socialskills_fs.aspx
This article which also talked about social skills in school gave more of a brief summary about why it is good and the consequences of when there are poor social skills. Also provided in the article were helpful tips to encourage those of not so high social interaction to find social skill programs.
After numerous of sites I read, and articles that explained socialization in schools, it became all to repetitive. Each new website I clicked, all said the same thing above but differently, all referring to a child's inability to socialize at an early age. By reading these repeating articles, I started to wonder, what happens when you become to good at socializing? Can being good at socializing affect the way you act in school? Yes, it does. For myself, I find that I can socialize well, and because of that I find myself in school having a lot friends, but the addiction to socialize with everyone gets me in trouble with teachers who have the power to fail or pass me in school. In school, our goals are to pass/succeed. So should being good a socializing be an advantage when most of the teachers are always telling us to "shut up, sit down, leave the classroom?" I couldn't find any articles on things like that though.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Hw- 40 School Interviews & Synthesis
1. Myself.
Q:What life skill should be taught in school?
A: I think learning how to interact with people on a more formal level because we need to know how to talk to people during job interviews.
2. Friend
Q: What life skill should be taught in School?
A: "umm...I think social skills should be taught in school, for example having a proper conversation or like at a interview."
3: Teacher/Counselor
Q: What life skill should be taught in School?
A: Networking, definitely networking, because I see kids everyday using a certain slang and not properly transitioning from hanging with their friends to talking to adults/teachers. Which I think should be a very important life skill that should be taught.
4: Friend
Q: What life skill should be taught in School?
A: How to interact with people. I think majority of people don't know how too.
5: Teacher
Q: What life skill should be taught in school?
A: It is really important to know how to collaborate with other people because when you get out into the workforce, you must know how to interact with people at work, even if you don't like them.
After these interesting and insightful interviews about what life skill should be taught in school, everyone said basically the same thing. Knowing how to interact with people should be the #1 life skill taught as opposed to other life skills. Majority of the people interviewed said that people lack in making the transition from talking to your friends and then talking to an adult/teacher. It was interesting to find one of my friends to say that most people just do not know how too and that he is confident in himself that he knows how too. I believe everyone lacks in some sort of way in interacting with people, especially with those who are adults because we are not use to talking that certain way.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Hw- 39 First School Assignment
Questions:
1. When/Who started School in America?
2. What's the difference in curriculum between Private Schools and Public Schools?
3.Why is a 65 a passing grade?
Ideas:
1. School is structured to build and prepare us for the workforce.
2. Like the Cool unit, we use school as a tool to build ourselves into something except it is more directional depending on the time and effort we put into it.
3. School alters our social life.
Experiences:
1. Being in a public school has more of a diversity where I feel my comfortable then compared to Private Schools where more of one race is found.
2. Going to school is a source of where I can find mixed emotions due to the pressure, friends, accomplishment, etc school has to offer.
3. Being graded and tested is a great way to build and brake a person.
School. An institution for the youth. Before, education was a privilege only given to people that came from the wealthy side of life. Now, it is available to anyone; School builds and creates futures for those who take advantage of it. A system that is teaching us how to think and make, but are we really thinking and being guided to think in a specific way. Is school a brainwashing facility to control society easily targeted towards children? Hitler, a once powerful and sadistic man controlled his entire country by manipulating the youths by guiding them in a specific path in school. He easily controlled the minds of the youths learning capabilities and structured it in a way he wanted it to be. In America, we learn a lot about the positive and right-wing history instead of the negative aspects of American history only to be brainwashed and manipulated into believing that our country is valiant and heroic. Occasionally we spend some significant time on learning it of course, but not enough to actually see that we are not so good after all. Weird.
It is great that school is a given opportunity to all to teach us how to think, but also made to teach us in one directional path? What other contradictions can we find in School?
1. When/Who started School in America?
2. What's the difference in curriculum between Private Schools and Public Schools?
3.Why is a 65 a passing grade?
Ideas:
1. School is structured to build and prepare us for the workforce.
2. Like the Cool unit, we use school as a tool to build ourselves into something except it is more directional depending on the time and effort we put into it.
3. School alters our social life.
Experiences:
1. Being in a public school has more of a diversity where I feel my comfortable then compared to Private Schools where more of one race is found.
2. Going to school is a source of where I can find mixed emotions due to the pressure, friends, accomplishment, etc school has to offer.
3. Being graded and tested is a great way to build and brake a person.
School. An institution for the youth. Before, education was a privilege only given to people that came from the wealthy side of life. Now, it is available to anyone; School builds and creates futures for those who take advantage of it. A system that is teaching us how to think and make, but are we really thinking and being guided to think in a specific way. Is school a brainwashing facility to control society easily targeted towards children? Hitler, a once powerful and sadistic man controlled his entire country by manipulating the youths by guiding them in a specific path in school. He easily controlled the minds of the youths learning capabilities and structured it in a way he wanted it to be. In America, we learn a lot about the positive and right-wing history instead of the negative aspects of American history only to be brainwashed and manipulated into believing that our country is valiant and heroic. Occasionally we spend some significant time on learning it of course, but not enough to actually see that we are not so good after all. Weird.
It is great that school is a given opportunity to all to teach us how to think, but also made to teach us in one directional path? What other contradictions can we find in School?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Hw-38 Art Project
The Coolest Video from Jin Omae on Vimeo.
For my Art project for the Cool unit, I worked in a group acting out the very possible and a bit humorous situations that happen in a school environment. Our video we put together was made to show the many "cool" poses in the school "cool" environment such as the specific "cool" handshake and teasing another to build a stronger social status. I hope people realize from watching our mini-movie that school seen through a social lens, is about building and following a specific and ever changing scene, and if one does not follow correctly, they fade back in the high social status of "cool."
The process of the project was fairly easy to make because most of what we do in this video is actually what we do even OFF camera. Acting it out was not a problem, because we perform these scenes 5 days a week. Coming up with a certain insight made by possible topics we're a bit confusing because we wanted to make sure it was funny, but also had a deeper meaning. In the group, I felt that I contributed to finding the funnier aspects of school "cool" poses and incorporating them into one scene.
Making an art project to display the "cool" poses made in our lives I feel is cool because of the many absurdities and "whys" we do perform these daily routines of building and getting to the top of this "cool" social status.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Hw 37- Cool Paper
Introduction:
What is the point of being born, if later on we find emptiness? I guess being an evolved human being is the worst thing to become. Life is a difficult topic to fully understand and planning it is even harder. In life, nothing always goes the way we ourselves want it to go. Why? Well because nothing is perfect, nothing in life is perfect even if we subconsciously believe it is. Our own personal lives hinder our own interpretation of what "Life" is because no two people are the same, so not everyone has the same motive. Now it is possible for people to have similar motives but how we get to it, is completely on our own. Is that how we fill emptiness then? Do we fill emptiness with our own individual quest or goal? I believe it is, and there are many ways of doing so. Our basic human social needs are Conformity, Desire and Popularity . We fill these needs by directing our attention to popular demand of "coolness" to help our selves fill a void of emptiness.
Argument #1:
The first way many of us seek to fill emptiness, is finding an answer to it. In many ways finding the answer to our emptiness could be on a superficial level of the popular "Coolness." We fill this void of emptiness with what being cool is, such as; being the rebel, the wealthiest, most popular, lots of friends, etc. With all these different criteria of cool, then that void of emptiness should be filled. Its many of the roles in society we try to be to fit in with every ones needs. This is where I believe being the conformist is one ultimate way of filling the empty and finding a meaning. Viktor Frankl, a theorists said that "If meaning is what we desire, then meaninglessness is a hole, an emptiness, in our lives."(Dr. C. George Boeree) People's seek out a desire to answer this meaninglessness hole that we attempt to fill in our empty lives and by the popular demand of "coolness" in our society we do this accordingly. One of Frankl's favorite metaphors to describe our consumption of finding "stuff" to fill our emptiness accurately describes conformity. "The Existential Vacuum." He explains this metaphor as "whenever you have a vacuum, of course things rush in to fill it... People go into a tailspin when they retire; students get drunk every weekend; we submerge ourselves in passive entertainment..."(Dr. C. George Boeree) We become bored with the old and so we find ourselves finding a new by focusing on something else that we find satisfaction in. Now there are downsides to becoming a full-on conformist, people will believe you are fake. People will categorize you as fake for being a conformist because you, yourself does not have a self of your own. In the "cool" societies this looked down upon because you do not bring fourth a unique and individual trait, which in the cool societies everyone wants to duplicate. So if you would like to conform, do it in a moderate fashion because almost everyone is.
Argument #2:
Another way I look at how we fill emptiness is to be desirable. To be everywhere, with everyone, doing everything. The answer to that is creating something everyone can relate too. Heroes are great examples of these characteristics because everyone idolizes them. Heroes are the type of people that are perfect and nothing could be wrong with them because everyone likes him/her. For example in the 1960's when blacks were segregated from whites, Martin Luther King Jr., a famous black activist stood up for what he and millions of other black males and females believed was right. In the black culture, they looked to Martin Luther King as a hero for ending segregation. Not all would agree, but majority would believe and even for Hitler, his near-accomplishment of taking over the world in the 1940's might of been heroic in the eyes of most Germans. Both these two individuals created a movement that captured the eyes of many, which would categorize them under heroic(depending on your belief). So I feel that they had filled most of their emptiness being the desirable ones.
Argument #3:
Popularity relates to the demand of "coolness" in our society because it is another focus we put our bodies and minds in to, to fill this entity of meaninglessness; another way to fill a void of emptiness. Popularity has always been about how an individual represents him/herself in a fashion that everyone gets some sort of pleasure or likability out of it. The many roles and characters we perform to please everyone has many identities that everyone is pleased by which gives the performer a meaning because he/she is finding popularity in it. Goffman, a great theorist said that "Everyone of us is consciously always playing a role on a daily basis. We are always presenting a personal front which is either behavioral and material...As performers we want to create the most positive impression possible to the point of being ideal."(Goffman'sPresentationofSelfinEverydayLife) This idea of being ideal is great way to fill a emptiness and by being the most popular, in every one's eyes you have accomplished being ideal.
Opposing Viewpoint:
Finding an emptiness is a question that happens early in our lives when we find our trends, desires and anything else that we can relate to "cool." So is cool the answer to why we have emptiness? The void of emptiness that we passionately fill with "stuff" as said by Viktor Frankl is the reason to why we are drawn to making these quest(s) or goal(s) so often. Do we want to abandon the thought of "cool" then because it certainly has taken over our society like a plague? No. And that is a good thing because "cool" has become a drive to create success, pleasure and happiness. "The word Emptiness or Void should not scare us. To be empty does not mean non-existent. Emptiness is the ground of everything, thanks to it, everything is possible."(TheVoidorEmptiness) We should embrace the void of emptiness that we've acquired because we use it as a map or "vacuum" to help us understand our lives. Which in the end is shaped by our interpretation of what is "cool."
Conclusion:
In conclusion, filling a void of emptiness is endless and frustrating, but there are many methods use to surface or fill it because it is something we need. Being the most desirable, the absolute conformist and the popular ideal person has all led ways to fill a void of emptiness through the social need of being "Cool." So. How are you cool?
Sites used:
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/frankl.html
Read more at Suite101: Goffman's Presentation of Self in Everyday Life: Our Understanding of the Idea of Self http://languagebooks.suite101.com/article.cfm/goffmans_presentation_of_self_in_everyday_life#ixzz0dCsgSPjF
http://www.plotinus.com/void_copy.htm
What is the point of being born, if later on we find emptiness? I guess being an evolved human being is the worst thing to become. Life is a difficult topic to fully understand and planning it is even harder. In life, nothing always goes the way we ourselves want it to go. Why? Well because nothing is perfect, nothing in life is perfect even if we subconsciously believe it is. Our own personal lives hinder our own interpretation of what "Life" is because no two people are the same, so not everyone has the same motive. Now it is possible for people to have similar motives but how we get to it, is completely on our own. Is that how we fill emptiness then? Do we fill emptiness with our own individual quest or goal? I believe it is, and there are many ways of doing so. Our basic human social needs are Conformity, Desire and Popularity . We fill these needs by directing our attention to popular demand of "coolness" to help our selves fill a void of emptiness.
Argument #1:
The first way many of us seek to fill emptiness, is finding an answer to it. In many ways finding the answer to our emptiness could be on a superficial level of the popular "Coolness." We fill this void of emptiness with what being cool is, such as; being the rebel, the wealthiest, most popular, lots of friends, etc. With all these different criteria of cool, then that void of emptiness should be filled. Its many of the roles in society we try to be to fit in with every ones needs. This is where I believe being the conformist is one ultimate way of filling the empty and finding a meaning. Viktor Frankl, a theorists said that "If meaning is what we desire, then meaninglessness is a hole, an emptiness, in our lives."(Dr. C. George Boeree) People's seek out a desire to answer this meaninglessness hole that we attempt to fill in our empty lives and by the popular demand of "coolness" in our society we do this accordingly. One of Frankl's favorite metaphors to describe our consumption of finding "stuff" to fill our emptiness accurately describes conformity. "The Existential Vacuum." He explains this metaphor as "whenever you have a vacuum, of course things rush in to fill it... People go into a tailspin when they retire; students get drunk every weekend; we submerge ourselves in passive entertainment..."(Dr. C. George Boeree) We become bored with the old and so we find ourselves finding a new by focusing on something else that we find satisfaction in. Now there are downsides to becoming a full-on conformist, people will believe you are fake. People will categorize you as fake for being a conformist because you, yourself does not have a self of your own. In the "cool" societies this looked down upon because you do not bring fourth a unique and individual trait, which in the cool societies everyone wants to duplicate. So if you would like to conform, do it in a moderate fashion because almost everyone is.
Argument #2:
Another way I look at how we fill emptiness is to be desirable. To be everywhere, with everyone, doing everything. The answer to that is creating something everyone can relate too. Heroes are great examples of these characteristics because everyone idolizes them. Heroes are the type of people that are perfect and nothing could be wrong with them because everyone likes him/her. For example in the 1960's when blacks were segregated from whites, Martin Luther King Jr., a famous black activist stood up for what he and millions of other black males and females believed was right. In the black culture, they looked to Martin Luther King as a hero for ending segregation. Not all would agree, but majority would believe and even for Hitler, his near-accomplishment of taking over the world in the 1940's might of been heroic in the eyes of most Germans. Both these two individuals created a movement that captured the eyes of many, which would categorize them under heroic(depending on your belief). So I feel that they had filled most of their emptiness being the desirable ones.
Argument #3:
Popularity relates to the demand of "coolness" in our society because it is another focus we put our bodies and minds in to, to fill this entity of meaninglessness; another way to fill a void of emptiness. Popularity has always been about how an individual represents him/herself in a fashion that everyone gets some sort of pleasure or likability out of it. The many roles and characters we perform to please everyone has many identities that everyone is pleased by which gives the performer a meaning because he/she is finding popularity in it. Goffman, a great theorist said that "Everyone of us is consciously always playing a role on a daily basis. We are always presenting a personal front which is either behavioral and material...As performers we want to create the most positive impression possible to the point of being ideal."(Goffman'sPresentationofSelfinEverydayLife) This idea of being ideal is great way to fill a emptiness and by being the most popular, in every one's eyes you have accomplished being ideal.
Opposing Viewpoint:
Finding an emptiness is a question that happens early in our lives when we find our trends, desires and anything else that we can relate to "cool." So is cool the answer to why we have emptiness? The void of emptiness that we passionately fill with "stuff" as said by Viktor Frankl is the reason to why we are drawn to making these quest(s) or goal(s) so often. Do we want to abandon the thought of "cool" then because it certainly has taken over our society like a plague? No. And that is a good thing because "cool" has become a drive to create success, pleasure and happiness. "The word Emptiness or Void should not scare us. To be empty does not mean non-existent. Emptiness is the ground of everything, thanks to it, everything is possible."(TheVoidorEmptiness) We should embrace the void of emptiness that we've acquired because we use it as a map or "vacuum" to help us understand our lives. Which in the end is shaped by our interpretation of what is "cool."
Conclusion:
In conclusion, filling a void of emptiness is endless and frustrating, but there are many methods use to surface or fill it because it is something we need. Being the most desirable, the absolute conformist and the popular ideal person has all led ways to fill a void of emptiness through the social need of being "Cool." So. How are you cool?
Sites used:
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/frankl.html
Read more at Suite101: Goffman's Presentation of Self in Everyday Life: Our Understanding of the Idea of Self http://languagebooks.suite101.com/article.cfm/goffmans_presentation_of_self_in_everyday_life#ixzz0dCsgSPjF
http://www.plotinus.com/void_copy.htm
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Hw- 36
Comment to KianaC's Blog:
Thesis: Cool is shaped and formed in various ways because "cool" has become a tool to build and structure the many differentiations in society.
Introduction:
In our society, we have come to abide by the popular trend of "how to be cool?" There are various ways on how to be cool because all "cools" are opinionated. One cool could be better than another person's cool as vice versa. These trends of cool are taken advantage of to build large corporations such as Sprite, Levi's and any other corporation that spams television directed to teens and children.[Insert Thesis I have provided here].
Race has a lot to do with the many differentiations in our society. A Black man's cool may be different then a White man's or a Latin-American to an Asians only because we all come from a different culture. Are all these different forms of cool equal though? No. Only because some cultures are viewed to dominate another. A black male who grows up in the projects typically tends to find his cool lurking the block he's grown up in and for an Asian who grew up under the pressure of parents telling him to study everyday would find his cool in school. Which one is more dominant? In reality the Asians cool would be more dominant because of our societies praise to "Success" but in the black Male's eyes, he's just another Asian who does homework with no social life. A superficial criteria of "how to be cool" is built on how well you present a social life, so the more dominant cool may be directed toward the Black male.
SHORT LIST:
If you choose to stay with my thesis or change it around to fit you, make sure to always explain after your evidence why it is connected to the thesis.
If you choose to stay with your thesis, I had some trouble finding it and then applying it to the rest of your paper. Re-phrase introduction.
Evidence you could use for Race:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/opinion/26patterson.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Comment to YurelisR.'s blog:
Thesis: People see cool as an answer to critique a way of living to fill a void of emptiness made by desires.
Desires are made in every culture and race. They are all different and all mean something significant to that person. Most desires in our society are structured around the thought of "coolness." Being cool has been a way to shape a person's mind set to fulfill that individuals needs because of this open void of emptiness we tend to fill every so often. How we fill this void is completely different then the next person because of the many different cultures and backgrounds we are built upon. The motives we assign ourselves are made by the "cultural map" we are given thanks to setting and impact we have had in our lives.
SHORT LIST:
Yurelis, if you decide to stick with your thesis, PLEASE make sure to analyze your evidence and how it relates to your thesis (In a show-don't tell manner.)
If you decide to stay with my thesis I have provided, evidence you could use are my blogs,(Hw 30,31,32,33,34)
Theorists that would go great with my thesis provided would be Viktor Frankl and Goffman (Presentation's of self and Everyday Life)
*Little things you should be aware of:
Grammar mistakes.
Structure of your arguments(You want it to flow and not sound choppy and all over the place)
For your thesis, Please try to end it as a powerful statement and not question.
Good Luck, This is the end of 1st semester. =)
Christian
Thesis: Cool is shaped and formed in various ways because "cool" has become a tool to build and structure the many differentiations in society.
Introduction:
In our society, we have come to abide by the popular trend of "how to be cool?" There are various ways on how to be cool because all "cools" are opinionated. One cool could be better than another person's cool as vice versa. These trends of cool are taken advantage of to build large corporations such as Sprite, Levi's and any other corporation that spams television directed to teens and children.[Insert Thesis I have provided here].
Race has a lot to do with the many differentiations in our society. A Black man's cool may be different then a White man's or a Latin-American to an Asians only because we all come from a different culture. Are all these different forms of cool equal though? No. Only because some cultures are viewed to dominate another. A black male who grows up in the projects typically tends to find his cool lurking the block he's grown up in and for an Asian who grew up under the pressure of parents telling him to study everyday would find his cool in school. Which one is more dominant? In reality the Asians cool would be more dominant because of our societies praise to "Success" but in the black Male's eyes, he's just another Asian who does homework with no social life. A superficial criteria of "how to be cool" is built on how well you present a social life, so the more dominant cool may be directed toward the Black male.
SHORT LIST:
If you choose to stay with my thesis or change it around to fit you, make sure to always explain after your evidence why it is connected to the thesis.
If you choose to stay with your thesis, I had some trouble finding it and then applying it to the rest of your paper. Re-phrase introduction.
Evidence you could use for Race:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/opinion/26patterson.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Comment to YurelisR.'s blog:
Thesis: People see cool as an answer to critique a way of living to fill a void of emptiness made by desires.
Desires are made in every culture and race. They are all different and all mean something significant to that person. Most desires in our society are structured around the thought of "coolness." Being cool has been a way to shape a person's mind set to fulfill that individuals needs because of this open void of emptiness we tend to fill every so often. How we fill this void is completely different then the next person because of the many different cultures and backgrounds we are built upon. The motives we assign ourselves are made by the "cultural map" we are given thanks to setting and impact we have had in our lives.
SHORT LIST:
Yurelis, if you decide to stick with your thesis, PLEASE make sure to analyze your evidence and how it relates to your thesis (In a show-don't tell manner.)
If you decide to stay with my thesis I have provided, evidence you could use are my blogs,(Hw 30,31,32,33,34)
Theorists that would go great with my thesis provided would be Viktor Frankl and Goffman (Presentation's of self and Everyday Life)
*Little things you should be aware of:
Grammar mistakes.
Structure of your arguments(You want it to flow and not sound choppy and all over the place)
For your thesis, Please try to end it as a powerful statement and not question.
Good Luck, This is the end of 1st semester. =)
Christian
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Hw- 35 Rough Draft
"How are you Cool?"
Introduction:
What is the point of being born, if later on we find emptiness? I guess being an evolved human being is the worst thing to become. Life is a difficult topic to fully understand and planning it is even harder. In life, nothing always goes the way we ourselves want it to go. Why? Well because nothing is perfect, nothing in life is perfect even if we subconsciously believe it is. Our own personal lives hinder our own interpretation of what "Life" is because no two people are the same, so not everyone has the same motive. Now it is possible for people to have similar motives but how we get to it, is completely on our own. Is that how we fill emptiness then? Do we fill emptiness with our own individual quest or goal? I believe it is, and there are many ways of doing so. Our basic human social needs are Conformity, Desire and popularity . We fill these needs by directing our attention to popular demand of "coolness" to help our selves fill a void of emptiness.
Argument #1:
The first way many of us seek to fill emptiness, is finding an answer to it. In many ways finding the answer to our emptiness could be on a superficial level of the popular "Coolness." We fill this void of emptiness with what being cool is, such as; being the rebel, the wealthiest, most popular, lots of friends, etc. With all these different criteria of cool, then that void of emptiness should be filled. Its many of the roles in society we try to be to fit in with every ones needs. This is where I believe being the conformist is one ultimate way of filling the empty and finding a meaning. Viktor Frankl, a theorists said that "If meaning is what we desire, then meaninglessness is a hole, an emptiness, in our lives."(Dr. C. George Boeree) People's seek out a desire to answer this meaninglessness hole that we attempt to fill in our empty lives and by the popular demand of "coolness" in our society we do this accordingly. One of Frankl's favorite metaphors to describe our consumption of finding "stuff" to fill our emptiness accurately describes conformity. "The Existential Vacuum." He explains this metaphor as "whenever you have a vacuum, of course things rush in to fill it... People go into a tailspin when they retire; students get drunk every weekend; we submerge ourselves in passive entertainment..."(Dr. C. George Boeree) We become bored with the old and so we find ourselves finding a new by focusing on something else that we find satisfaction in. Now there are downsides to becoming a full-on conformist, people will believe you are fake. People will categorize you as fake for being a conformist because you, yourself does not have a self of your own. In the "cool" societies this looked down upon because you do not bring fourth a unique and individual trait, which in the cool societies everyone wants to duplicate. So if you would like to conform, do it in a moderate fashion because almost everyone is.
Argument #2:
Another way I look at how we fill emptiness is to be desirable. To be everywhere, with everyone, doing everything. The answer to that is creating something everyone can relate too. Heroes are great examples of these characteristics because everyone idolizes them. Heroes are the type of people that are perfect and nothing could be wrong with them because everyone likes him/her. For example in the 1960's when blacks were segregated from whites, Martin Luther King Jr., a famous black activist stood up for what he and millions of other black males and females believed was right. In the black culture, they looked to Martin Luther King as a hero for ending segregation. Not all would agree, but majority would believe and even for Hitler, his near-accomplishment of taking over the world in the 1940's might of been heroic in the eyes of most Germans. Both these two individuals created a movement that captured the eyes of many, which would categorize them under heroic(depending on your belief). So I feel that they had filled most of their emptiness being the desirable ones.
Argument #3:
Popularity relates to the demand of "coolness" in our society because it is another focus we put our bodies and minds in to, to fill this entity of meaninglessness; another way to fill a void of emptiness. Popularity has always been about how an individual represents him/herself in a fashion that everyone gets some sort of pleasure or likability out of it. The many roles and characters we perform to please everyone has many identities that everyone is pleased by which gives the performer a meaning because he/she is finding popularity in it. Goffman, a great theorist said that "Everyone of us is consciously always playing a role on a daily basis. We are always presenting a personal front which is either behavioral and material...As performers we want to create the most positive impression possible to the point of being ideal."(Goffman'sPresentationofSelfinEverydayLife) This idea of being ideal is great way to fill a emptiness and by being the most popular, in every one's eyes you have accomplished being ideal.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, filling a void of emptiness is endless and frustrating, but there are many methods use to surface or fill it because it is something we need. Being the most desirable, the absolute conformist and the popular ideal person has all led ways to fill a void of emptiness through the social need of being "Cool." So. How are you cool?
Sites used:
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/frankl.html
Read more at Suite101: Goffman's Presentation of Self in Everyday Life: Our Understanding of the Idea of Self http://languagebooks.suite101.com/article.cfm/goffmans_presentation_of_self_in_everyday_life#ixzz0dCsgSPjF
Introduction:
What is the point of being born, if later on we find emptiness? I guess being an evolved human being is the worst thing to become. Life is a difficult topic to fully understand and planning it is even harder. In life, nothing always goes the way we ourselves want it to go. Why? Well because nothing is perfect, nothing in life is perfect even if we subconsciously believe it is. Our own personal lives hinder our own interpretation of what "Life" is because no two people are the same, so not everyone has the same motive. Now it is possible for people to have similar motives but how we get to it, is completely on our own. Is that how we fill emptiness then? Do we fill emptiness with our own individual quest or goal? I believe it is, and there are many ways of doing so. Our basic human social needs are Conformity, Desire and popularity . We fill these needs by directing our attention to popular demand of "coolness" to help our selves fill a void of emptiness.
Argument #1:
The first way many of us seek to fill emptiness, is finding an answer to it. In many ways finding the answer to our emptiness could be on a superficial level of the popular "Coolness." We fill this void of emptiness with what being cool is, such as; being the rebel, the wealthiest, most popular, lots of friends, etc. With all these different criteria of cool, then that void of emptiness should be filled. Its many of the roles in society we try to be to fit in with every ones needs. This is where I believe being the conformist is one ultimate way of filling the empty and finding a meaning. Viktor Frankl, a theorists said that "If meaning is what we desire, then meaninglessness is a hole, an emptiness, in our lives."(Dr. C. George Boeree) People's seek out a desire to answer this meaninglessness hole that we attempt to fill in our empty lives and by the popular demand of "coolness" in our society we do this accordingly. One of Frankl's favorite metaphors to describe our consumption of finding "stuff" to fill our emptiness accurately describes conformity. "The Existential Vacuum." He explains this metaphor as "whenever you have a vacuum, of course things rush in to fill it... People go into a tailspin when they retire; students get drunk every weekend; we submerge ourselves in passive entertainment..."(Dr. C. George Boeree) We become bored with the old and so we find ourselves finding a new by focusing on something else that we find satisfaction in. Now there are downsides to becoming a full-on conformist, people will believe you are fake. People will categorize you as fake for being a conformist because you, yourself does not have a self of your own. In the "cool" societies this looked down upon because you do not bring fourth a unique and individual trait, which in the cool societies everyone wants to duplicate. So if you would like to conform, do it in a moderate fashion because almost everyone is.
Argument #2:
Another way I look at how we fill emptiness is to be desirable. To be everywhere, with everyone, doing everything. The answer to that is creating something everyone can relate too. Heroes are great examples of these characteristics because everyone idolizes them. Heroes are the type of people that are perfect and nothing could be wrong with them because everyone likes him/her. For example in the 1960's when blacks were segregated from whites, Martin Luther King Jr., a famous black activist stood up for what he and millions of other black males and females believed was right. In the black culture, they looked to Martin Luther King as a hero for ending segregation. Not all would agree, but majority would believe and even for Hitler, his near-accomplishment of taking over the world in the 1940's might of been heroic in the eyes of most Germans. Both these two individuals created a movement that captured the eyes of many, which would categorize them under heroic(depending on your belief). So I feel that they had filled most of their emptiness being the desirable ones.
Argument #3:
Popularity relates to the demand of "coolness" in our society because it is another focus we put our bodies and minds in to, to fill this entity of meaninglessness; another way to fill a void of emptiness. Popularity has always been about how an individual represents him/herself in a fashion that everyone gets some sort of pleasure or likability out of it. The many roles and characters we perform to please everyone has many identities that everyone is pleased by which gives the performer a meaning because he/she is finding popularity in it. Goffman, a great theorist said that "Everyone of us is consciously always playing a role on a daily basis. We are always presenting a personal front which is either behavioral and material...As performers we want to create the most positive impression possible to the point of being ideal."(Goffman'sPresentationofSelfinEverydayLife) This idea of being ideal is great way to fill a emptiness and by being the most popular, in every one's eyes you have accomplished being ideal.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, filling a void of emptiness is endless and frustrating, but there are many methods use to surface or fill it because it is something we need. Being the most desirable, the absolute conformist and the popular ideal person has all led ways to fill a void of emptiness through the social need of being "Cool." So. How are you cool?
Sites used:
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/frankl.html
Read more at Suite101: Goffman's Presentation of Self in Everyday Life: Our Understanding of the Idea of Self http://languagebooks.suite101.com/article.cfm/goffmans_presentation_of_self_in_everyday_life#ixzz0dCsgSPjF
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Hw- 34 The Cool Pose and Various Approaches to Life Rooted in Class, Race, Gender, Age, etc.
Our life is made out of decisions and choices. How we choose is up to us. Is it really? We make decisions based on the type of background we have, the culture/sub-culture that we are most conformtable in, which are all influences. So are we really making our own decision, or is it that our influences make it for us.
A huge influence in our americanized culture is your status level of "cool" and how we get to it. There are various amounts of "cool" in our culture because of the many different cultures, religions and ethnicities that exist in our society. In each different culture we have "cultural maps" that we follow to guide us. Usually most cultures follow their route on being "cool" but the "cools" are entirely different because of the environment and background that that person grew up in. The different "cools" could be bad when looked through a lens of a dominant culture, such as a "cool" that garentee success, for others though it does not. For example, Blacks in housing projects mainly tend to feel comfortable with being on the corner, hanging out on the block, etc. because of the type of environment and what is exposed to them daily as a "cool thing." Through the lens of a dominant culture, this cool is looked down upon because it does not fit its criteria. But can you really blame the children or adults for looking at their cultural map for "their cool." No. Because the given oppertunities that these children and adults get are the only and easy oppertunities that they can have, so in that case, they direct themselves towards it. My own personal experience of being black in this society is totally different because of the type of environment and oppertunity that I was born into. I live in a good neighborhood, I go to a good school, so my "cool" is good. They way I was raised and environments I grew up in are my influences that help structure my "cultural map" of cool in a good way.
Do you call this situation luck? Is it unlucky then for these teens and children who are born into poverty having a lower chance of becoming successfull? Is it lucky for those who are born into wealth and better oppertunity? In our society we have this thing of blaming those for our loses. We look to see who we can blame for our aversions, but instead we should look to it in another light. Such as "How I can help? What can I do to make it better?" If cultures looked to it in this light, maybe there wouldn't be things such as racism or class because everyone would be looking out for each other, but we don't.
A huge influence in our americanized culture is your status level of "cool" and how we get to it. There are various amounts of "cool" in our culture because of the many different cultures, religions and ethnicities that exist in our society. In each different culture we have "cultural maps" that we follow to guide us. Usually most cultures follow their route on being "cool" but the "cools" are entirely different because of the environment and background that that person grew up in. The different "cools" could be bad when looked through a lens of a dominant culture, such as a "cool" that garentee success, for others though it does not. For example, Blacks in housing projects mainly tend to feel comfortable with being on the corner, hanging out on the block, etc. because of the type of environment and what is exposed to them daily as a "cool thing." Through the lens of a dominant culture, this cool is looked down upon because it does not fit its criteria. But can you really blame the children or adults for looking at their cultural map for "their cool." No. Because the given oppertunities that these children and adults get are the only and easy oppertunities that they can have, so in that case, they direct themselves towards it. My own personal experience of being black in this society is totally different because of the type of environment and oppertunity that I was born into. I live in a good neighborhood, I go to a good school, so my "cool" is good. They way I was raised and environments I grew up in are my influences that help structure my "cultural map" of cool in a good way.
Do you call this situation luck? Is it unlucky then for these teens and children who are born into poverty having a lower chance of becoming successfull? Is it lucky for those who are born into wealth and better oppertunity? In our society we have this thing of blaming those for our loses. We look to see who we can blame for our aversions, but instead we should look to it in another light. Such as "How I can help? What can I do to make it better?" If cultures looked to it in this light, maybe there wouldn't be things such as racism or class because everyone would be looking out for each other, but we don't.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Hw 33- Paper Outline
Thesis:Our basic human social needs are desire, Conformity and popularity . We fill these needs by directing our attention to popular demand of "coolness" to help our selves fill a void of emptiness.
Argument #1: Desire
"To be wanted and want others."
Argument #2: Conformity
"Our need to be everything, everywhere, everyone"
Argument #3: Popularity
Conclusion:
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Hw- 32 Tattoos & The Presentation of the Self
Tattoos in our culture vary because of the many styles and meanings people choose to permanently scar their body with. Usually we associate tattoo's with hardened criminals or low life's because of the tough external feature it gives someone. Many of the teen cultures are drawn to tattoos because of the unique individualism it gives them, basically a visual representation of individuality. This unique individuality is mostly accepted in the "cool" scene because it represents rebellion,(you know, fighting against the norm).
My school director who has up to at least 35 hours of tattoo work done on his arms and chest was his way of breaking the normal, right-wing private school base in Maine that almost everyone followed. Joining the punk-rock scene of the 80's, a rising sub-culture caught my school director's attention(also a popular place where tattoos are accepted). It was interesting to know that he called his tattoo's armour as he described it as a way to shield himself from the oncoming attacks made by the "normal" societies and a basic way of telling them "F U". He also talked about how tattoo's can have many different meanings depending on the person, but it can also be used to show the map of some one's life. The tattoos that he gained all meant something different and all had a significant representation of what he felt during that time of year. He also said that getting a tattoo is a painful process but an empowering one when its finished. You, your body and the tattoo become one and gives you emotional strength which is visually represented.
It's interesting to note that many people get tattoos as a method of revolting against government and religion, but what about how tattooing started. Tattooing started with cultures signifying a right of passage or a sign of religion that a society accepted. And after many decades of tattoos being copied we have gotten to a point where now tattoos have come to rebel against government or religion.
Of course not all tattoos mean to rebel against the power society is controlled by, but for the remembrance of a significant other that a lot of people get such as a "heart with the words MOM" written in it, etc but just a external way of showcasing their love and emotion towards something. Even for tattoos that do not have a meaning behind it have a high value of meaning. A student in my class who had written a great analogy of what tattoos mean in our society is much like a window, and I agree. He explains that "tattoos are like windows into a house. If the person is crying in their house, and doesn't want people outside to see them, they will close the window. If the person is sitting on the couch watching TV, they may leave the window open, but either way, the window still exists." This meaning that those who do get tattoo's are only publicly and externally showing their emotions as towards those who don't.
My school director who has up to at least 35 hours of tattoo work done on his arms and chest was his way of breaking the normal, right-wing private school base in Maine that almost everyone followed. Joining the punk-rock scene of the 80's, a rising sub-culture caught my school director's attention(also a popular place where tattoos are accepted). It was interesting to know that he called his tattoo's armour as he described it as a way to shield himself from the oncoming attacks made by the "normal" societies and a basic way of telling them "F U". He also talked about how tattoo's can have many different meanings depending on the person, but it can also be used to show the map of some one's life. The tattoos that he gained all meant something different and all had a significant representation of what he felt during that time of year. He also said that getting a tattoo is a painful process but an empowering one when its finished. You, your body and the tattoo become one and gives you emotional strength which is visually represented.
It's interesting to note that many people get tattoos as a method of revolting against government and religion, but what about how tattooing started. Tattooing started with cultures signifying a right of passage or a sign of religion that a society accepted. And after many decades of tattoos being copied we have gotten to a point where now tattoos have come to rebel against government or religion.
Of course not all tattoos mean to rebel against the power society is controlled by, but for the remembrance of a significant other that a lot of people get such as a "heart with the words MOM" written in it, etc but just a external way of showcasing their love and emotion towards something. Even for tattoos that do not have a meaning behind it have a high value of meaning. A student in my class who had written a great analogy of what tattoos mean in our society is much like a window, and I agree. He explains that "tattoos are like windows into a house. If the person is crying in their house, and doesn't want people outside to see them, they will close the window. If the person is sitting on the couch watching TV, they may leave the window open, but either way, the window still exists." This meaning that those who do get tattoo's are only publicly and externally showing their emotions as towards those who don't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)