Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
Blogs
Cacotopia
I've been thinking, and talking, about our class discussion on Utopia. My thoughts are scattered right now, and this may be a rather dull post, but I have a question I want to ask, dull or not. Is imagining a utopia (and eventually realizing it is impossible) a useful exercise? In one way, maybe. It helps us understand our place in the world to some extent--we have to learn that nothing is perfect and nothing ever will be. After all, what is perfection without imperfection? In another way, the exercise seemed pointless and upsetting to me. How will thinking about utopia--and ultimately giving up (which is how I felt after class)--lead to a better world, or a better understanding among peoples? It seems futile.
I'm reminded of an essay I read in high school, by Tolstoy. He basically says that every person who is well-off (financially) is directly responsible for one person living in poverty. I don't know how this relates to utopia, or to building a utopia, but I keep thinking about it in relation to utopia, probably because of the title of the essay: What Then Must We Do?
The proliferation of Atypical minds and the Ivory Tower of Education
Has anyone ever heard the song Frontier Psychiatrist by the Avalanches? (Here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8BWBn26bX0). Now, I'm not going to pretend to understand this song or video, but It played while I was listening to my Ratatat station on Pandora, and the opening bit seemed to connect with what I was reading in Price's "Mad at School." It goes,
"Is Dexter ill today, Mr Kirk, Dexter's in school
I'm afraid he's not, Miss Fishpaw
Dexter's truancy problem is way out of hand
The Baltimore County school board have decided to expel
Dexter from the entire public school system
Oh Mr Kirk, I'm as upset as you to learn of Dexter's truancy
But surely, expulsion is not the answer!
I'm afraid expulsion is the only answer
It's the opinion of the entire staff that Dexter is criminally insane
That boy needs therapy, psychosomatic"
This touches on the systematic connection between a child (for whatever reason) not working well within institutionalized education, and mental disease. If one is true, then the other must be also.
Price states that "atypical minds are entering academe in unprecedented numbers...or simply being noticed more often" (7). She spins this as a positive turn, an upswing. But I'm not sure it's so unambiguously good. Isn't the reason more students are open about depression and attention deficit disorder because more students are being treated for these "diseases." Is over prescribing and medicating the way to embrace these atypical minds?
Education levels "the playing field"?
Education Is What You make It.
Education is what you make it. Maybe it levels the playing field, maybe its a waste of time. In class we see the different experiences that people have from whatever education they have recieved. All of our experiences are different and in all of them we have taken things and left things behind. Therefore, my opinion is split down the middle, is education a leveling playing field- sure, for some. Is education a waste of time, it probably is for some people. Personally, I feel that we cannot put a blanket label on education.-- its a living, breathing entity that constantly changes. Yet, I feel due to peoples assumptions about education (as in people think education is a great equalizer and when its not, education is the one that is wrong, not the presumptious person) it fails in being a leveler because it didnt work for everyone. In other words, because it didnt work for everyone, its a failure to everyone. If it cant help one, then it probably cant help any of us. Of course this is a misconception that feel arises when people talk about the role of education in our society.
Education levels the playing field?
When I was a kid, my father and teachers always told me the same thing "Schooling is the only way to succeed". "Succeed" means wealth, high social status and public recognition. Newspapers were filled successful stories of people who raised themselves from poverty to opulence by studying hard, being determined and gaining advanced degrees. I believe many people in the US have the same expectation that education may help the poor overcome their situations. That's why their policies favor the diversity and finacial aids occupies a large part of the college's budget. Yes, it's true that a person, with a decent degree, can get a high-paid job and be in middle class.
However, just to some very determined and very talented people, education can level the playing field. In most cases, it can. Rich people always have better access to schooling than the rest of the community. Some educational systems favor the rich by high tuition fees. In some private schools, poor kids are somehow marginalized and forced to lose their identity (It was described by Bell Hooks). High socioeconomic status allows the rich to go to college and succeed. The successful kids can continue to maintain their social standing. Their children continue to receive the benefits of education. It can happen as a cycle. Education in this case is the tool to maintain the unfair social order.
Education levels "the playing field"? Nah....
By the way, within this response when I refer to ‘education’, I’m referring to education that one receives within school and the classroom.
Disability and representaion
In Margaret Price's Mad At School, Price brings up some interesting points regarding labeling and boxing people - especially students in academic settings- with mental disabilities. She talks about wanting to fix or cure these problems rather than working with them or embracing the idea of mental difference. I think that she makes some good points, and I started thinking further about the portrayal of this kind of different (yet brilliant) mind in movies and on TV. Temple Grandin is a recent example that Price also talked about, but I could't help relating this back to Eli Clare's "super crip" category. The movie about Temple Grandin touched millions of people and suddenly autism and aspergers became the disability du jour. Temple Grandin was celebrated (and rightfully so) for being an extraordinary person with autism. This also relates back to the ideas of visibility in media and society. In these movies about disabled minds, very well-known, attractive Hollywood stars represent these afflicted people. (Russell Crow in A Beautiful Mind and Clare Danes in Temple Grandin). It is an interesting way to look at mainstream acceptance of disabilities and their portrayal.
Education levels the playing field?
In reflecting on the various readings that we have done up to this point, it seems to me that the answer to this question is both yes and no. In the case of Luttrell’s and Shorris’s students, education certainly did “level their playing fields” in a sense, for Luttrell and Shorris gave their students the educations that they had never before had. With these educations, the students were then able to move towards higher education and attend colleges and technical schools. This is education in its idealized form - for education is, at its best, meant to level the playing field as it did for these students.
But in another sense, we must keep in mind that not everyone has access to the type of education that Shorris and Luttrell gave their students. I think about the movie “Waiting for Superman” and the children in that movie who attended school and worked hard, but did not have a level playing field simply because they did not have access to the “right” schools and the “right” teachers. With this thought in mind, education is a means of leveling the playing field, only to the extent that one has access to “good” education - education in which students and teachers engage in an active classroom and where students are encouraged to learn.
Locating Home
We talked last class about the power of calling our own bodies “home.” Clare’s book repeatedly addresses the body as home, as a habitat as important for exploration as Clare’s northwestern home forests and the factors that have influenced his growth as an individual. I have to wonder, though, if all the talk of creating a home in a body underscores a long-held and often destructive dichotomy of mind/body in western culture. This dichotomy distinguishes the body as something foreign, something to be understood and mastered by the mind (which also encompasses soul/spirit/personality/etc.).
Does calling our bodies “home” unnecessarily separate the mind (which is doing the calling/naming) from the body? I think that separating my power for naming from my body is a comforting notion. By calling my body home, I can contain the essence of my self, as a thing capable of naming and designating, into something separate and “above” the body. This naming creates an implicit hierarchy of value—as long as I still have the faculty of reason, of naming, the state of my physical body is relatively immaterial. But what if someone, for whatever reason, cannot “name” her body as home? Can she still exist as a “full” person? What does that even mean?