In my last blog, I discussed some of the merits of my fellow English 225 classmates blogs. However, rather than just appreciating their blogs, it's time to learn from them! How can I improve my own blogs?
First off, I think that one way to improve my blogs would be to try to be more creative with my titles. I really do try my best to make my titles seem interesting and draw in the reader, but sometimes they fall flat. Rather than just saying what I am going to write about, perhaps I should try to put funny quotes or phrases, or even something more serious in the titles.
Additionally, I think that some of the time, my titles get too long and offer too much information. For instance, in my blog “Low-income schools + many students - motivated Teachers = A need for someone like you” I tried to incorporate visuals. I thought my title was clever, and obviously it did bring in some readers (thanks Payel for your input!), I think it may have been a little bit on the long side. Perhaps in some cases I should even put just one or two words that are particularly controversial or funny, or stand out in some other way; that way, the reader will be interested, and will need to actually read the blog, not just the title, to know where the blog will be going.
Be succinct! Oh, this is a problem I don’t know if I will ever be able to overcome. I try really hard to be straight to the point, but I know I often am not. I do feel that it is important to explain my reasoning and the ways in which I interpret something because others may not see the concept the same way and will not understand my logic. But, being long winded can keep some readers from starting to read the article, or once they have started, they may stop reading. I know that my schedule can often get hectic, and although I may find someone’s blog title and first paragraph interesting, I may only skim the rest of the blog if I don’t have the time to commit to reading it in depth. Therefore, I will try to be a little more condensed so that others who are turned off by the length of my blog will be more likely to read it.
And, if I don’t make my overall blogs shorter, I will try to at least break them into shorter paragraphs to keep the mind from wandering!
Use visuals, James! I think the blog that I enjoyed writing the most, and the one that perhaps also had the most impact, was the one in which I used visuals from Teach for America and other sources. Visuals can attract the audience, or they can make their own statements, sometimes even in closing the argument. As they say, a pic is worth a thousand words...often, it’s worth much more! Although I can throw statistics at my readers until the cows come home (or yes, I did use that phrase, lol), it’s more likely they will remember the visuals at the end of the day.
Who are you? OK, this will be the last improvement I will mention. In reading Matt’s and Lauren’s blogs, I didn’t even have to actually know them outside of the class to know their personalities: I could “see” them just by reading their writing. Their comedic effects, short sentences, bold arguments, and controversial issues helped me know who they were. I often think of writing this blog as one thing: an assignment. In forgetting to have a little fun with the blog, I think I often lose my voice, and I will try to bring more of who I am and what I am feeling to my blog, whether that be my current feelings of despair (3 exams next week, ugh!) or my fun loving, sarcastic personality.
Thanks for reading! Make sure you keep me in line in future blogs…if I’m too long winded or dry, feel free to tell me!
Friday, November 13, 2009
As Matt puts it, our group is the "bees knees"
So, for this blog, for once I'm not gonna talk about myself and my interests...hope you enjoy it! This week, I will analyze my favorite English 225 student blogs and why they stick out to me.
First up to the plate...Matt McCrary's Rad Rhetorical Reasoning. One of my favorite things about Matt's blog is the titles that he uses, whether those titles are for his individual posts or even for his blog as a whole. The overall blog title uses alliteration, yet is informal and kinda makes me laugh a little (rhetorical reasoning...rad...really? Oh how I wish rhetorical reasoning was rad. Well, Matt's reasoning seems pretty "rad" most of the time...so, I'll go with it). Then, Matt's personality and fun nature continues beyond the titles of the posts to the content of the posts themselves. In one post, "If Somebody Told Me All I Needed Was Axe," Matt discusses the visual argument made by a picture of a "nerdy" guy at the top and a periodic table full of beautiful women, and how Axe body spray allows this nerd to unlock the gateway to a periodic table of women. Again, not only is the visual intriguing and interesting, but the comedic effect of the title, text, and image fit perfectly with one another and help you understand Matt's arguments, but also allow you to see his personality.
Additionally, Matt's blogs are generally fairly short (well, at least compared to my ridiculously long ones), and straight to the point. I admire this aspect because I know, that as a busy college student, leisure time to thoroughly read a long blog is not probably often attainable. Additionally, I know that I often have a short attention span, and if an article is too long, I likely won't finish the whole thing. One example of the succinct, straight to the point format of his sentence structure is, "Yes, this ad is over the top. Yes, it’s blatantly sexual. But if I wasn’t a Right Guard man, I might just go get myself some Axe." I appreciate that I don't have to meddle through long sentences, and the short sentences really drive the message home. Therefore, for the personality and straightforward nature of his writing, I appreciate Matt's blog (http://matt-mccrary.blogspot.com/).
Another blog that I appreciate is Lauren's blog. Now, in evaluating her blog, I see that it has many of the same characteristics that I liked in Matt's blog. Like in Matt's blog, I really liked the titles of the posts and of the blog as a whole. Titles of posts include, "Halloween: Slutty Nurse, Slutty Cop or Just Plain Slut?" and "Hi, my name is Bill and I have Cancer!" Then, the title of her overall blog is "blogging my way to my identity..." Any of these titles grab the attention of the reader (at least, they got my attention), and made me want to read the blog without already knowing the whole point of the post. I didn't know where the "Hi, my name is Bill and I have Cancer!" post was going to go, but I knew that I wanted to read to find out. Grabbing the readers attention is huge, and Lauren definitely does this, although I believe her titles are a little more controversial than Matt's.
Additionally, I really liked the spacing/paragraph"ing" of Lauren's blog. Her paragraphs were short and succinct. In making the paragraphs short, it made it hard to get lost in the text (AKA, not knowing which line comes next). Additionally, the paragraphs seem very well structured and thought out. In her post "Hitler: can he convince you" Lauren even goes so far as to start out paragraphs with bold titles, thereby making it easy to see the organization of her blog.
Don't worry, Nehal, Angela, or the newest addition to our group, Gilad, I appreciate your blogs too (and the rest of Eng 225, of course)! Everyone in our class writes great blogs, but I particularly appreciate the straightforward, honest, succinct, and often comedic writings of Matt & Lauren.
First up to the plate...Matt McCrary's Rad Rhetorical Reasoning. One of my favorite things about Matt's blog is the titles that he uses, whether those titles are for his individual posts or even for his blog as a whole. The overall blog title uses alliteration, yet is informal and kinda makes me laugh a little (rhetorical reasoning...rad...really? Oh how I wish rhetorical reasoning was rad. Well, Matt's reasoning seems pretty "rad" most of the time...so, I'll go with it). Then, Matt's personality and fun nature continues beyond the titles of the posts to the content of the posts themselves. In one post, "If Somebody Told Me All I Needed Was Axe," Matt discusses the visual argument made by a picture of a "nerdy" guy at the top and a periodic table full of beautiful women, and how Axe body spray allows this nerd to unlock the gateway to a periodic table of women. Again, not only is the visual intriguing and interesting, but the comedic effect of the title, text, and image fit perfectly with one another and help you understand Matt's arguments, but also allow you to see his personality.
Additionally, Matt's blogs are generally fairly short (well, at least compared to my ridiculously long ones), and straight to the point. I admire this aspect because I know, that as a busy college student, leisure time to thoroughly read a long blog is not probably often attainable. Additionally, I know that I often have a short attention span, and if an article is too long, I likely won't finish the whole thing. One example of the succinct, straight to the point format of his sentence structure is, "Yes, this ad is over the top. Yes, it’s blatantly sexual. But if I wasn’t a Right Guard man, I might just go get myself some Axe." I appreciate that I don't have to meddle through long sentences, and the short sentences really drive the message home. Therefore, for the personality and straightforward nature of his writing, I appreciate Matt's blog (http://matt-mccrary.blogspot.com/).
Another blog that I appreciate is Lauren's blog. Now, in evaluating her blog, I see that it has many of the same characteristics that I liked in Matt's blog. Like in Matt's blog, I really liked the titles of the posts and of the blog as a whole. Titles of posts include, "Halloween: Slutty Nurse, Slutty Cop or Just Plain Slut?" and "Hi, my name is Bill and I have Cancer!" Then, the title of her overall blog is "blogging my way to my identity..." Any of these titles grab the attention of the reader (at least, they got my attention), and made me want to read the blog without already knowing the whole point of the post. I didn't know where the "Hi, my name is Bill and I have Cancer!" post was going to go, but I knew that I wanted to read to find out. Grabbing the readers attention is huge, and Lauren definitely does this, although I believe her titles are a little more controversial than Matt's.
Additionally, I really liked the spacing/paragraph"ing" of Lauren's blog. Her paragraphs were short and succinct. In making the paragraphs short, it made it hard to get lost in the text (AKA, not knowing which line comes next). Additionally, the paragraphs seem very well structured and thought out. In her post "Hitler: can he convince you" Lauren even goes so far as to start out paragraphs with bold titles, thereby making it easy to see the organization of her blog.
Don't worry, Nehal, Angela, or the newest addition to our group, Gilad, I appreciate your blogs too (and the rest of Eng 225, of course)! Everyone in our class writes great blogs, but I particularly appreciate the straightforward, honest, succinct, and often comedic writings of Matt & Lauren.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Low-income schools + many students - motivated Teachers = A need for someone like you
(http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs009/1101793155518/archive/1102563242266.html)
We constantly hear in the news (at least I do as a metro Detroit resident) that schools are closing because they just can’t afford to stay open. When I hear that more schools are closing, this makes me think of all the students that need to be bused further away from their home schools if they want to continue their education. It also makes me think of how hard it must be if these kids must then be crammed into other classes like the one below, where some students don’t even get a desk because classes are so overcrowded.
(http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ed-cuts20-2009sep20,0,2312077.story)
But, despite the fact that some classes become overcrowded, this is not really the norm, especially in low income districts. And, even more, especially not in higher level grades like 12th grade. By then, most of the students will have already dropped out. When I think of high school graduation, I think of it being a necessity in order to get a decent job. Hell, when I think of getting a good job, I wonder if an undergraduate degree is even sufficient. Right now, I am on the verge of graduating from college and wonder what it is that I will do once I graduate. So, why aren’t high schoolers getting it? Why don’t they push themselves to get to graduation? Do they just not care? From what I have learned in the Teach for America application process and in reading numerous articles in developmental psychology as well as on the news on this subject, these kids do care, or at least want to care. The problem is that the kids either aren’t challenged enough, and when they are challenged, they are not given the support they need to reach those high expectations. When they aren’t challenged they either know it and feel that they are being treated like kids; they feel that they are undermined. Or, they think that they are up to par, and then they find out when they get a difficult teacher, that they have been betrayed all these years, that they really don’t know what they thought they knew, and then they start to feel like they aren’t smart enough to make it any further. They feel that they are too far behind, and begin to think that it’s not worth pushing forward if they are going to keep failing. So, they quit. Like many of their parents, they end up dropping out of high school, getting a minimum wage job, and live pay check to paycheck like much of the rest of America.
But, is this what they want? No. Who wants to struggle? I’m going to venture to say, no one. Therefore, these kids need to be challenged every step of the way. And, when they fail, someone needs to be there for them to say, “it’s alright. We’ll work together on this. You can do it.” Therefore, motivated, dedicated, caring teachers need to go into the classroom and turn things around. But many question whether it’s really worth becoming a teacher.
Sure, being a teacher can be difficult. That’s why so many teachers drop out of the field within the first few years of teaching. According to Mei-Lin Chang of Ohio State University (UM fans, don’t hate me for using an OSU scholar’s argument!), studies have shown that as many as 40% of teachers will completely change professions within 5 years of starting teaching. This phenomenon of joining the profession and feeling the need to leave is referred to as burnout. So, why do teachers leave the profession? My family argues that teachers don’t get paid enough to deal with “those” rude kids who don’t value education. Madeline Justice & Sue Espinoza argue in their article “Emotional Intelligence and Beginning Teacher Candidates” in the scholarly journal Education. that reasons for burnout include “low salaries,…working conditions, classroom discipline, administrative support, extensive paperwork, lack of respect, lack of parental involvement, and…few career advancement opportunities” (Justice & Espinosa, 2007).
But, beyond the difficulties, there are benefits to being a teacher. If you agree with my coworker Marc, one of the greatest perks of being a teacher is getting that all that vacation time. If you get a run-of-the-mill job, expect 2-3 weeks of vacation a year. If you are a teacher, expect about 3 months of vacation a year. Then, there is the perk that you get health, dental, and vision benefits, not to mention paid leave. But, as most teachers will probably tell you, money and benefits are not the best benefits of being a teacher. If a teacher has the right attitude and emotional abilities, positive emotions are often the best reward. As found by Izhar Oplatka in his June 2007 journal article in The Teaching Record, “[w]hen teachers were asked about what they find satisfying in their jobs, they spontaneously refer to emotions of joy, wonder, and excitement.” One of the reason Teach for America targets the top college students is because they are passionate about the fields they went to college for, and when they get to instruct about what they love, their satisfaction and their students motivation both rise substantially. Therefore, if you have want the highest paying, easiest job in the world, don’t teach. But if you want to make a difference in the world and see graduation ceremonies with seats filled for all students, not just half of them, teach. If you want other students to have the same options that you had, teach. If you want to make a difference in the world, and make a decent (albeit, not rich) living, teach. Otherwise, without your passion and dedication, students will continue to fall behind, and graduation ceremonies will continue to look like the one in the image shown below.
(http://who-will-kiss-the-pig.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html)
We constantly hear in the news (at least I do as a metro Detroit resident) that schools are closing because they just can’t afford to stay open. When I hear that more schools are closing, this makes me think of all the students that need to be bused further away from their home schools if they want to continue their education. It also makes me think of how hard it must be if these kids must then be crammed into other classes like the one below, where some students don’t even get a desk because classes are so overcrowded.
(http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ed-cuts20-2009sep20,0,2312077.story)
But, despite the fact that some classes become overcrowded, this is not really the norm, especially in low income districts. And, even more, especially not in higher level grades like 12th grade. By then, most of the students will have already dropped out. When I think of high school graduation, I think of it being a necessity in order to get a decent job. Hell, when I think of getting a good job, I wonder if an undergraduate degree is even sufficient. Right now, I am on the verge of graduating from college and wonder what it is that I will do once I graduate. So, why aren’t high schoolers getting it? Why don’t they push themselves to get to graduation? Do they just not care? From what I have learned in the Teach for America application process and in reading numerous articles in developmental psychology as well as on the news on this subject, these kids do care, or at least want to care. The problem is that the kids either aren’t challenged enough, and when they are challenged, they are not given the support they need to reach those high expectations. When they aren’t challenged they either know it and feel that they are being treated like kids; they feel that they are undermined. Or, they think that they are up to par, and then they find out when they get a difficult teacher, that they have been betrayed all these years, that they really don’t know what they thought they knew, and then they start to feel like they aren’t smart enough to make it any further. They feel that they are too far behind, and begin to think that it’s not worth pushing forward if they are going to keep failing. So, they quit. Like many of their parents, they end up dropping out of high school, getting a minimum wage job, and live pay check to paycheck like much of the rest of America.
But, is this what they want? No. Who wants to struggle? I’m going to venture to say, no one. Therefore, these kids need to be challenged every step of the way. And, when they fail, someone needs to be there for them to say, “it’s alright. We’ll work together on this. You can do it.” Therefore, motivated, dedicated, caring teachers need to go into the classroom and turn things around. But many question whether it’s really worth becoming a teacher.
Sure, being a teacher can be difficult. That’s why so many teachers drop out of the field within the first few years of teaching. According to Mei-Lin Chang of Ohio State University (UM fans, don’t hate me for using an OSU scholar’s argument!), studies have shown that as many as 40% of teachers will completely change professions within 5 years of starting teaching. This phenomenon of joining the profession and feeling the need to leave is referred to as burnout. So, why do teachers leave the profession? My family argues that teachers don’t get paid enough to deal with “those” rude kids who don’t value education. Madeline Justice & Sue Espinoza argue in their article “Emotional Intelligence and Beginning Teacher Candidates” in the scholarly journal Education. that reasons for burnout include “low salaries,…working conditions, classroom discipline, administrative support, extensive paperwork, lack of respect, lack of parental involvement, and…few career advancement opportunities” (Justice & Espinosa, 2007).
But, beyond the difficulties, there are benefits to being a teacher. If you agree with my coworker Marc, one of the greatest perks of being a teacher is getting that all that vacation time. If you get a run-of-the-mill job, expect 2-3 weeks of vacation a year. If you are a teacher, expect about 3 months of vacation a year. Then, there is the perk that you get health, dental, and vision benefits, not to mention paid leave. But, as most teachers will probably tell you, money and benefits are not the best benefits of being a teacher. If a teacher has the right attitude and emotional abilities, positive emotions are often the best reward. As found by Izhar Oplatka in his June 2007 journal article in The Teaching Record, “[w]hen teachers were asked about what they find satisfying in their jobs, they spontaneously refer to emotions of joy, wonder, and excitement.” One of the reason Teach for America targets the top college students is because they are passionate about the fields they went to college for, and when they get to instruct about what they love, their satisfaction and their students motivation both rise substantially. Therefore, if you have want the highest paying, easiest job in the world, don’t teach. But if you want to make a difference in the world and see graduation ceremonies with seats filled for all students, not just half of them, teach. If you want other students to have the same options that you had, teach. If you want to make a difference in the world, and make a decent (albeit, not rich) living, teach. Otherwise, without your passion and dedication, students will continue to fall behind, and graduation ceremonies will continue to look like the one in the image shown below.
(http://who-will-kiss-the-pig.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html)
Easier said than done
Think back to 1934, as Hitler is continuing to gain power in Germany. Now, imagine that you were a German, and all of your friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. were steadfast dedicated to the goals and means of the National Party. Your friends would look at Hitler, idolize him, and wanted nothing more than your country to be brought together, and saw that Hitler was bringing the nation together. Would you be able to see beyond the desirable front that was being put up, and know to leave the country before the Party gained too much power? From our perspective, and knowing all of the cruel things that Hitler did, sure, you might think it would be easy to identify that Hitler’s schemes were not to be trusted. But, what if you didn’t know about the Holocaust? What if you didn’t know about Hitler’s dirty laundry? My English class explored this idea recently, and have come to conclude that many of us would have just gone with the flow. So, how can we ensure that something similar doesn’t happen again? Perhaps that’s the whole point of taking a class on argument; to understand what makes an argument good, and how to see past the desirable exterior.
In class on Monday, my teacher showed us a film called Triumph of the Will. This black-and-white film was produced by Leni Riefenstahl in 1934 under the funding/guidance of Adolf Hitler. If you are not a history buff, that was 5 years before Germany invaded Poland, and many years before the Holocaust. There were already camps in 1933 for those “undesireables” who broke the laws and fought against those in power, but these camps weren’t limited to one race or group like the Jews. Also, this was following WWI, and Germany didn’t look that desirable to the rest of the world. Therefore, Germany had to build up its image, build up its national character, and make the Germans themselves as well as the rest of the world respect Germany. This is where Hitler came in, and the film made by Riefenstahl aided in that mission.
In the movie, right from the beginning, what you see is desireable. The film starts from a plane floating in the clouds, a scenic view. Then, as the plane landed, a crowd awaited, cheering, happy and content. How could anything be wrong? Hitler was shown in his car driving down the streets. It seemed impossible to fathom that anyone was still in their homes because the sidewalks were so crowded, but no one seemed annoyed by this fact. At night, there were parties, fireworks, live music. During the day, the movie showed women with baskets of food, children eating apples; it seemed like a bountiful time. All of these visuals were arguments that as Hitler was rising to power, people were happy, they were well-fed, and they were united as one people supporting one person. Hitler appealed to people’s ethos by showing that other people gave him the power, and that he was willing and able to accept it. At the same time, there were constant appeals to pathos, in that people were just shown loving Hitler. Hitler was shown holding babies, people were fed; no one had to worry about pain or famine, so people were happy. People were brainwashed by this.
How could you say, “no” this is not OK? If you were brainwashed into thinking that Hitler is equated with food and prosperity and a united nation, wouldn’t you want him to stay in power? If you decided that Hitler was too radical, you would probably be shunned. Think of going to a football game where you’re not welcomed. For example, one of my classmates said how they went to the University of Michigan – Michigan State football game a few weeks ago, and how people booed her, harassed her, and even threw things at her. This would be emotionally difficult for one day; would you really want to deal with this harassment every day, even if you really did love the opposing team? Probably not. Maybe you would fake it and say that you loved State, maybe you’d just keep quiet, or maybe you’d just leave if you could. But if East Lansing was home to you, and the city was prosperous, it seems that it would be difficult to uproot. This may be similar to why even those people who knew something was up stayed in Germany and kept their mouths shut. However, although those people who go against the grain may be ridiculed, those are the people who make the greatest impact in history. Martin Luther King, Jr. , Rosa Parks, Thomas Edison, Amelia Earhart: these people all did what everyone else told them was crazy, wasn’t normal, and they were ridiculed. Sometimes we have to step back and say, maybe the extremists have a point worth examining; I really need to try to see both sides of the story: that’s what argument is. Objectively examining both sides, and coming to a conclusion, that’s the best option. That’s perhaps one reason why pathos is avoided in academic writing: because pathos has a tendency to pull on the heartstrings and make you forget logic.
So, argument can be used to develop an identity for both parties involved: those you are viewing and those that are being viewed. People liked Hitler, because he argued that people liked him; or at least, that’s what Leni Riefenstahl argued in the film she produced. At the same time, the visual and verbal arguments in the movie argued that Germans were united, and that everyone wanted the same thing. Using Riesman’s theory of the conforming self, people were other-directed, worrying about the needs of the other. But, by doing what everyone else was doing, the Germans were convinced that they were really looking out for themselves because the images they saw showed that being other-directed meant being prosperous.
In the end, I guess my point is that although it sometimes may seem easiest or the most logical to go with the flow, we need to step back, reevaluate why we are thinking the things we are thinking, and ask objectively whether the situation we are in really is for the best. It is easy to become brainwashed into thinking that something is the best option or the best way of doing things, but we should always balance our view with the opposing view and underlying reasons for their argument, and decide if we really do respect the side that we argue for. This is easier said than done, but it’s worth the fight.
In class on Monday, my teacher showed us a film called Triumph of the Will. This black-and-white film was produced by Leni Riefenstahl in 1934 under the funding/guidance of Adolf Hitler. If you are not a history buff, that was 5 years before Germany invaded Poland, and many years before the Holocaust. There were already camps in 1933 for those “undesireables” who broke the laws and fought against those in power, but these camps weren’t limited to one race or group like the Jews. Also, this was following WWI, and Germany didn’t look that desirable to the rest of the world. Therefore, Germany had to build up its image, build up its national character, and make the Germans themselves as well as the rest of the world respect Germany. This is where Hitler came in, and the film made by Riefenstahl aided in that mission.
In the movie, right from the beginning, what you see is desireable. The film starts from a plane floating in the clouds, a scenic view. Then, as the plane landed, a crowd awaited, cheering, happy and content. How could anything be wrong? Hitler was shown in his car driving down the streets. It seemed impossible to fathom that anyone was still in their homes because the sidewalks were so crowded, but no one seemed annoyed by this fact. At night, there were parties, fireworks, live music. During the day, the movie showed women with baskets of food, children eating apples; it seemed like a bountiful time. All of these visuals were arguments that as Hitler was rising to power, people were happy, they were well-fed, and they were united as one people supporting one person. Hitler appealed to people’s ethos by showing that other people gave him the power, and that he was willing and able to accept it. At the same time, there were constant appeals to pathos, in that people were just shown loving Hitler. Hitler was shown holding babies, people were fed; no one had to worry about pain or famine, so people were happy. People were brainwashed by this.
How could you say, “no” this is not OK? If you were brainwashed into thinking that Hitler is equated with food and prosperity and a united nation, wouldn’t you want him to stay in power? If you decided that Hitler was too radical, you would probably be shunned. Think of going to a football game where you’re not welcomed. For example, one of my classmates said how they went to the University of Michigan – Michigan State football game a few weeks ago, and how people booed her, harassed her, and even threw things at her. This would be emotionally difficult for one day; would you really want to deal with this harassment every day, even if you really did love the opposing team? Probably not. Maybe you would fake it and say that you loved State, maybe you’d just keep quiet, or maybe you’d just leave if you could. But if East Lansing was home to you, and the city was prosperous, it seems that it would be difficult to uproot. This may be similar to why even those people who knew something was up stayed in Germany and kept their mouths shut. However, although those people who go against the grain may be ridiculed, those are the people who make the greatest impact in history. Martin Luther King, Jr. , Rosa Parks, Thomas Edison, Amelia Earhart: these people all did what everyone else told them was crazy, wasn’t normal, and they were ridiculed. Sometimes we have to step back and say, maybe the extremists have a point worth examining; I really need to try to see both sides of the story: that’s what argument is. Objectively examining both sides, and coming to a conclusion, that’s the best option. That’s perhaps one reason why pathos is avoided in academic writing: because pathos has a tendency to pull on the heartstrings and make you forget logic.
So, argument can be used to develop an identity for both parties involved: those you are viewing and those that are being viewed. People liked Hitler, because he argued that people liked him; or at least, that’s what Leni Riefenstahl argued in the film she produced. At the same time, the visual and verbal arguments in the movie argued that Germans were united, and that everyone wanted the same thing. Using Riesman’s theory of the conforming self, people were other-directed, worrying about the needs of the other. But, by doing what everyone else was doing, the Germans were convinced that they were really looking out for themselves because the images they saw showed that being other-directed meant being prosperous.
In the end, I guess my point is that although it sometimes may seem easiest or the most logical to go with the flow, we need to step back, reevaluate why we are thinking the things we are thinking, and ask objectively whether the situation we are in really is for the best. It is easy to become brainwashed into thinking that something is the best option or the best way of doing things, but we should always balance our view with the opposing view and underlying reasons for their argument, and decide if we really do respect the side that we argue for. This is easier said than done, but it’s worth the fight.
Friday, October 30, 2009
What the other side may say: focus on students, not teachers
I just want to start out by saying that the following is not my position, but rather is a response to the following prompt provided by my Argumentative Writing teacher (I just don’t want you to think I am eternally confused and have completely changed my mind, especially if you compare this blog to prior entries).
"Figure out what the opposite claim would be to the paper you are working to write during class. For your blog readers, write a well‐supported, reasonable, and fair articulation of the OPPOSITE argument using the standard 5 paragraph essay format you used in high school or some variation of that format (4‐7 paragraphs, primary claim in the first paragraph, topic sentences articulating criteria/ reasons for support, etc..)"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the education system finds it necessary to focus on the needs of the students. We are constantly performing research to determine how different teaching techniques affect students, what the importance of student-teacher connection is for the student, and how it would be best to integrate more information into the curriculum to prepare students for their future in our fast paced society. If we don’t focus on the current students, the future will be grim. Therefore, we shouldn’t dedicate any funds to the professional development of teachers beyond learning new material to present to students. These teachers will either take the incentive to reach out to their students, or they won’t, and no amount of “emotion training” will help in this arena. Therefore, education reform needs to continue focusing on student’s learning needs and let teachers learn about emotions from experience.
One of the first reasons to not divert funds to teacher “emotion training” is that by doing so, you are taking funds away from students. After all, the education system is constantly being compromised as it is. Schools are constantly closing, students are getting bused further from home, and children often don’t even have the resources they need such as books. The system needs to find ways to generate more funds, but until then, we need to focus all efforts on our students.
Also, teacher emotion work is not something that we can train. There are way too many experiences that our teachers may experience in the field for us to truly be able to understand or determine which ones we should teach about. In some districts, teachers discuss how their 7th graders already have infants. In other situations, some kids are dealing with the difficulties of raising their siblings while their parents are at work. These are home situations that the students may discuss with their teachers, but there is no way for us to address all the different emotional stresses these students could bring to the class. Also, we could try to simulate experiences like these, but as we all know, simulations and role playing are never as helpful as real practice.
Additionally, by spending time on teacher emotion work, we would keep more teachers from getting out into the field because they would be spending more time in the class. As standards are currently set, teachers often need bachelor’s degrees, and if their degree isn’t in education, they need to take courses and/or exams to become certified. Currently, there is no way for us to increase the pay of teachers. Therefore, our prized members of society who may have been likely to enter the educational arena will avoid it if they think they are going to have to spend an excessive amount of time learning about how to teach. People like a profession that is quick to get into and pays well. Since we can’t change the latter, we definitely don’t want to make the former even worse. By adding more “emotion training” to the curriculum, we would make the teacher preparation process too long. This is not to mention the fact that we need teachers! There is a dire shortage in many states for teachers, and if we add more time to the programs, that means we won’t be able to get more teachers in the field for even more time.
Finally, we can develop learning practices that truly help students, and teacher training isn’t that necessary for. We can teach students many skills by having them work in small groups more often. This would encourage participation, and active engagement in their learning, and wouldn’t require any additional training of teachers. Also, we could dedicate more money to student counseling programs, something that would reduce the need of teachers to learn how to address students’ emotional needs because if we had an adequate system, teachers could just refer their students to the counselor. After all, we don’t have doctors who do the billing, appointment scheduling, and diagnosing; doctors decide what is worth their time and expertise, and teachers need to do the same.
In conclusion, there is not enough of a demand to start focusing on the emotional needs of our teachers. Currently, there is not enough funds to even think about how we can spend more money on teacher training. Also, although we agree that teachers need to be emotionally stable, skills of emotion work are something that are learned in the field, not something that we should be teaching in a classroom. Also, we have a shortage of teacher, and adding “emotion training” programs aren’t going to solve that need. Finally, emotion work is the job of the counselor, instruction is the job of teacher. Teachers need to do what they are good at: teaching; not counseling.
"Figure out what the opposite claim would be to the paper you are working to write during class. For your blog readers, write a well‐supported, reasonable, and fair articulation of the OPPOSITE argument using the standard 5 paragraph essay format you used in high school or some variation of that format (4‐7 paragraphs, primary claim in the first paragraph, topic sentences articulating criteria/ reasons for support, etc..)"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the education system finds it necessary to focus on the needs of the students. We are constantly performing research to determine how different teaching techniques affect students, what the importance of student-teacher connection is for the student, and how it would be best to integrate more information into the curriculum to prepare students for their future in our fast paced society. If we don’t focus on the current students, the future will be grim. Therefore, we shouldn’t dedicate any funds to the professional development of teachers beyond learning new material to present to students. These teachers will either take the incentive to reach out to their students, or they won’t, and no amount of “emotion training” will help in this arena. Therefore, education reform needs to continue focusing on student’s learning needs and let teachers learn about emotions from experience.
One of the first reasons to not divert funds to teacher “emotion training” is that by doing so, you are taking funds away from students. After all, the education system is constantly being compromised as it is. Schools are constantly closing, students are getting bused further from home, and children often don’t even have the resources they need such as books. The system needs to find ways to generate more funds, but until then, we need to focus all efforts on our students.
Also, teacher emotion work is not something that we can train. There are way too many experiences that our teachers may experience in the field for us to truly be able to understand or determine which ones we should teach about. In some districts, teachers discuss how their 7th graders already have infants. In other situations, some kids are dealing with the difficulties of raising their siblings while their parents are at work. These are home situations that the students may discuss with their teachers, but there is no way for us to address all the different emotional stresses these students could bring to the class. Also, we could try to simulate experiences like these, but as we all know, simulations and role playing are never as helpful as real practice.
Additionally, by spending time on teacher emotion work, we would keep more teachers from getting out into the field because they would be spending more time in the class. As standards are currently set, teachers often need bachelor’s degrees, and if their degree isn’t in education, they need to take courses and/or exams to become certified. Currently, there is no way for us to increase the pay of teachers. Therefore, our prized members of society who may have been likely to enter the educational arena will avoid it if they think they are going to have to spend an excessive amount of time learning about how to teach. People like a profession that is quick to get into and pays well. Since we can’t change the latter, we definitely don’t want to make the former even worse. By adding more “emotion training” to the curriculum, we would make the teacher preparation process too long. This is not to mention the fact that we need teachers! There is a dire shortage in many states for teachers, and if we add more time to the programs, that means we won’t be able to get more teachers in the field for even more time.
Finally, we can develop learning practices that truly help students, and teacher training isn’t that necessary for. We can teach students many skills by having them work in small groups more often. This would encourage participation, and active engagement in their learning, and wouldn’t require any additional training of teachers. Also, we could dedicate more money to student counseling programs, something that would reduce the need of teachers to learn how to address students’ emotional needs because if we had an adequate system, teachers could just refer their students to the counselor. After all, we don’t have doctors who do the billing, appointment scheduling, and diagnosing; doctors decide what is worth their time and expertise, and teachers need to do the same.
In conclusion, there is not enough of a demand to start focusing on the emotional needs of our teachers. Currently, there is not enough funds to even think about how we can spend more money on teacher training. Also, although we agree that teachers need to be emotionally stable, skills of emotion work are something that are learned in the field, not something that we should be teaching in a classroom. Also, we have a shortage of teacher, and adding “emotion training” programs aren’t going to solve that need. Finally, emotion work is the job of the counselor, instruction is the job of teacher. Teachers need to do what they are good at: teaching; not counseling.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
James's development of arguments on teacher identity: from arguing to inquire to arguing to convince
My first idea of the Hochschild concept was the limited one provided by Holstein & Gubrium. In this presentation of Hochschild’s theory, the authors explained that Hochschild believes that there are two components to identity: the true self and the false self. The true self is the self that would be revealed if not under any external pressures. Alternatively, a person can have many false selves and these are the identities that they present in multiple social situations would be those false selves. Hochschild claims that the false self performs emotion work, the act of presenting emotions that are completely opposite of what the person is truly feeling. Again, she claimed that these false emotions would have no effect on, or influence from, the true self. Hochschild’s theory was thought by Holstein and Gubrium (authors of The Self We Live By) to be important in preventing the true self from being inundated and overly influenced by the social. Other theories of the self, like Riesman’s conforming self, are more grim in that they see peoples’ identities as being completely shaped by the social, and that they don’t really have an identity beyond that which society creates for them. In contrast, Hochschild’s theory was seen as grim, but more positive than Riesman’s theory of the self because Hochschild’s theory said that there was a portion of identity that wasn’t subject to the pressures of the social. However, at least from my initial understanding of Hochschild’s theory, I felt that there was no interaction between the true and false selves.
Additionally, my initial concepts of teacher identity was that it was a direct representation of this concept of identity: that a teacher’s identity in the classroom had no influence on who they really were. However, as I have continued to contemplate these concepts, my opinion has changed. This has been influenced not only by my research for my Argumentative writing class, but also by my application/interview process for Teach for America. As I have learned more about the Hochschild type identity, I have found that there are conflicting views on the subject. Some people feel that the identity they present in the classroom is completely false and not representative of their true feelings. From sources other than the assigned text in our class, The Self We Live By, I found that Hochschild would call this surface acting. Other teachers profess that they also do “emotion work” . However, there are others that feel that they perform is more influenced by their true personality, and that they actively shape their current emotions by trying to change the emotions they are feeling, not just faking them. This is what Hochschild called deep acting.
Then, there are others who say that Hochschild’s emotion work and false selves at no level can truly apply to their profession. In the UK, they praise what they call philanthropic emotion work, an emotion work that is not exploitative at all, but truly loves what they do and don’t feel obliged to do their work. They feel that the only time they do Hochschild type work is when they are forced by the education system to follow a prescribed lesson plan and force all their class time into instruction, never being able to truly relate to their students. From this point, I started to see that when teachers do Hochschild work, they feel an emotional conflict, and often leave the profession or just feel overwhelmingly stressed. This made me think of the concept of teacher burnout, the idea that many teachers leave the profession shortly after starting, and as I believe some sources have cited, can occur at rates of 40% or higher in educators’ first 5 years in the profession. Other sources have actually determine that in large school districts, like in Chicago, the turnover of one teacher can cost about $18,000.
In my developmental psychology class, I have been reading about the importance of a safe learning environment, one in which the student feels comfortable, on the child’s development. The appropriateness of the material to their developmental stage (grade-level/age for instance) or personal traits (gender, culture, local community) is important in developing lesson plans. In my Teach for America application process, I read numerous article about how students are suffering from the short comings of the school system and how teachers need to stress improvement and do “assessment for learning,” a technique in which teachers show at-risk children with poor grades that their grades don’t show that the kids’ efforts are futile, but that they are just making minor mistakes or have minor shortcomings in their understanding, and then giving them the chance to improve. Therefore, I am constantly being inundated by the importance of the student. But, what about the teacher? Don’t they have needs to? And, if we want to teach students more properly, shouldn’t we first make sure that our educators are well adapted and prepared?
This is the point where I have transitioned to my “arguing to convince paper.” I always thought that it was important to worry about the needs of the students; however, if the teachers aren’t prepared for the situations they will encounter (not just the academic ones, but the emotional and psychological situations), how can they reach out to their students. Although some teachers don’t need what I would call “emotion training,” some do. And, this training is more important that some situations in contrast to others. For instance, in Teach for America, these corps members are placed in low-income communities. Some of these kids come from families where there parents work multiple jobs, and then the children must take the role of “parent” for their siblings. Others become parents extremely early. In blogs on teachfor.us, a site of Teach for America corps members’ blogs, one teacher mentioned how when she asked her 7th grade student about a picture of a baby boy he was holding, that the student told her that the picture was of his son! That’s right, a 7th grader with a son! How about the corps member who had to react to a student who talked about how good the popcorn was at the prison he had to visit where his brother is. Some of these kids don’t have any positive male role models because they have single moms, or their dad, uncles, etc. are in prison. Therefore, teachers need to be able to know how to properly respond to these kids emotional needs. But, if the teachers aren’t taught how to do this, they will shy away. Therefore, education reform needs to start focusing solely on the needs of the students, and instead focus on developing positive teacher emotions and identity.
If we can successfully help teachers prepare emotionally to connect with, and respond to their students in difficult situations, burnout rates may decrease. This not only helps the emotional state of the teacher, it would save the districts money by decreasing turnover rates! Also, when teachers don’t feel as stressed, they are less likely to miss work, and therefore don’t have to spend money on substitute teachers, who probably compromise students’ educational opportunities anyway in most cases. If people are worried about diverting money away from students needs, it seems from my arguments, at least, that by helping teachers, we will not only save the districts more money to spend on students, but it will help students connect with their material more and really learn, whether that means increased comprehension (what really matters) or just higher test scores (what the educational system emphasizes). In the end, I believe this is the direction that work on teacher identity research needs to take.
Additionally, my initial concepts of teacher identity was that it was a direct representation of this concept of identity: that a teacher’s identity in the classroom had no influence on who they really were. However, as I have continued to contemplate these concepts, my opinion has changed. This has been influenced not only by my research for my Argumentative writing class, but also by my application/interview process for Teach for America. As I have learned more about the Hochschild type identity, I have found that there are conflicting views on the subject. Some people feel that the identity they present in the classroom is completely false and not representative of their true feelings. From sources other than the assigned text in our class, The Self We Live By, I found that Hochschild would call this surface acting. Other teachers profess that they also do “emotion work” . However, there are others that feel that they perform is more influenced by their true personality, and that they actively shape their current emotions by trying to change the emotions they are feeling, not just faking them. This is what Hochschild called deep acting.
Then, there are others who say that Hochschild’s emotion work and false selves at no level can truly apply to their profession. In the UK, they praise what they call philanthropic emotion work, an emotion work that is not exploitative at all, but truly loves what they do and don’t feel obliged to do their work. They feel that the only time they do Hochschild type work is when they are forced by the education system to follow a prescribed lesson plan and force all their class time into instruction, never being able to truly relate to their students. From this point, I started to see that when teachers do Hochschild work, they feel an emotional conflict, and often leave the profession or just feel overwhelmingly stressed. This made me think of the concept of teacher burnout, the idea that many teachers leave the profession shortly after starting, and as I believe some sources have cited, can occur at rates of 40% or higher in educators’ first 5 years in the profession. Other sources have actually determine that in large school districts, like in Chicago, the turnover of one teacher can cost about $18,000.
In my developmental psychology class, I have been reading about the importance of a safe learning environment, one in which the student feels comfortable, on the child’s development. The appropriateness of the material to their developmental stage (grade-level/age for instance) or personal traits (gender, culture, local community) is important in developing lesson plans. In my Teach for America application process, I read numerous article about how students are suffering from the short comings of the school system and how teachers need to stress improvement and do “assessment for learning,” a technique in which teachers show at-risk children with poor grades that their grades don’t show that the kids’ efforts are futile, but that they are just making minor mistakes or have minor shortcomings in their understanding, and then giving them the chance to improve. Therefore, I am constantly being inundated by the importance of the student. But, what about the teacher? Don’t they have needs to? And, if we want to teach students more properly, shouldn’t we first make sure that our educators are well adapted and prepared?
This is the point where I have transitioned to my “arguing to convince paper.” I always thought that it was important to worry about the needs of the students; however, if the teachers aren’t prepared for the situations they will encounter (not just the academic ones, but the emotional and psychological situations), how can they reach out to their students. Although some teachers don’t need what I would call “emotion training,” some do. And, this training is more important that some situations in contrast to others. For instance, in Teach for America, these corps members are placed in low-income communities. Some of these kids come from families where there parents work multiple jobs, and then the children must take the role of “parent” for their siblings. Others become parents extremely early. In blogs on teachfor.us, a site of Teach for America corps members’ blogs, one teacher mentioned how when she asked her 7th grade student about a picture of a baby boy he was holding, that the student told her that the picture was of his son! That’s right, a 7th grader with a son! How about the corps member who had to react to a student who talked about how good the popcorn was at the prison he had to visit where his brother is. Some of these kids don’t have any positive male role models because they have single moms, or their dad, uncles, etc. are in prison. Therefore, teachers need to be able to know how to properly respond to these kids emotional needs. But, if the teachers aren’t taught how to do this, they will shy away. Therefore, education reform needs to start focusing solely on the needs of the students, and instead focus on developing positive teacher emotions and identity.
If we can successfully help teachers prepare emotionally to connect with, and respond to their students in difficult situations, burnout rates may decrease. This not only helps the emotional state of the teacher, it would save the districts money by decreasing turnover rates! Also, when teachers don’t feel as stressed, they are less likely to miss work, and therefore don’t have to spend money on substitute teachers, who probably compromise students’ educational opportunities anyway in most cases. If people are worried about diverting money away from students needs, it seems from my arguments, at least, that by helping teachers, we will not only save the districts more money to spend on students, but it will help students connect with their material more and really learn, whether that means increased comprehension (what really matters) or just higher test scores (what the educational system emphasizes). In the end, I believe this is the direction that work on teacher identity research needs to take.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Interviewing: Are you who you say you are?
So, this Monday, I did my final interview for Teach for America, also known as TFA (Brett, does an acronym count as nominalization?). Although I can’t actually disclose any of the questions that were asked or any of the details beyond those that TFA presents on its website, I must say that the overall format of interviews made me think about the identities of the interviewer and the interviewee.
Honestly, as I think most people who meet me already know, I am a quiet person, overall. However, there are some instances in which my persona changes and I try to be loud and outgoing, perhaps even authoritative at times. One of these instances would be when I lead study group. As a study group leader, I have to command attention and bring motivation to my members. When I do these things, it makes me wonder, is this outgoing nature just a different aspect of my personality? Or am I just completely faking who I am because the situation demands it? The more complications I see with theories of the self, the more I am confused about who I am. Because of Hochschild's theory of the self, I thought what I presented was a false self, but I'm not completely sure. But, getting to the point in time where I can actually say I'm a teacher, first requires that I interview to be offered a position as a teacher, as is the case with any other job.
During an interview, you would to repress some emotions and present false ones. One of the parts of my TFA interview was that I had to present a 5-minute teaching lesson for your fellow interviewees. When I did my 5-minute teacher lesson, I kind of thought that I had failed. The college students in the room seemed like they didn’t understand what I had just taught them, and they already had taken chemistry as high school students! How could I be an effective chemistry teacher to students who had never seen this material before if I couldn’t even reach college students. In this case, I felt a lot of emotional stress. But, was the emotional stress that I felt because I was repressing my emotions of nervousness so that the interviewers and other interviewees wouldn’t pick up on it, or was it just because of the fact that I was stressed. Am I perhaps reading too far into the emotions? Maybe it’s not the repression of emotions that’s painful, maybe it’s just the act of experiencing those emotions.
Not even discussing emotion work, Hochschild says that flight attendants and others in the service community present multiple false identities. But, after this interview, it made me think that maybe it’s not just the service industries or teaching that involves false identities, it’s almost every aspect of everyone’s life that involves these false presentations. When you interview, are you really yourself? I think the best answer to this is most often, “not if you want to get the job.” I often hear that the whole point of interviewing is so that the company can learn who you are. The same is true of the medical school application process. But, most people don’t really present who they are. I know many people who volunteer because they have to if they want to get into the medical profession, not because they want to. Then, they come up with scripted reasons of how volunteering touched them and why it is so important to help the community. Interviews don’t tell the interviewer who the person they are interviewing is; interviews tell these people how good you are at faking who you should be. Can you present a domineering self that can succeed in the classroom? Can you pretend like you really care about a patient, even though you may not?
I’m not saying that we are all heartless, don’t really care about other people, or that some of the things we say in interviews aren’t true, but they definitely don’t evaluate who we really are. The interview should be just another factor in the process. It seems that our personal recommendations should bear more weight, since they are written by people who supposedly actually know who we are. But then again, we choose who we want to write our letters. Have you ever gone to office hours to get help, and instead had to wait while some annoying person asked 80 ridiculously detailed questions, not because they really wanted to know the answers, but because they want the professor to think that they want to know the answers? Then, after we fake who we are to get the letters, and we fake who we are in the interview, if we get the job, we fake some more. Teachers do it, flight attendants, doctors, you name it. It seems like a kind of depressing concept to me the more I think about it; is there even such a thing as the true self, or are we always trying to fulfill roles? Perhaps there is a true self, but are the emotions we feel even from the true self, or are from another false self that society has made that we are trying to present? How can we ever know that the feelings that we feel are really ours? After all, what we define as our morals or our beliefs are often imposed by other people and other social constructs. Perhaps these complications are the reason why Hochschild said that at some point we present so many false selves that we lose the real self. When I first wrote my inquiry paper, I thought that the emotions I felt inside were from my true self, but now I’m starting to wonder if they really are mine, or are just what I think are mine.
I am also thinking more about the dramaturgic self. It seems that this whole concept of presenting a false self is really just acting and presenting false characters. Hochschild tried to look at the bright side of things and say that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that there is a true self though we have trouble finding it sometimes, yet she was in “The Dark Side” chapter. In The Self We Live By (TSWLB), Goffman (who described the self as dramaturgic and socially situated) is quoted as saying that the “self itself does not derive from its possessor, but from the whole scene of his action.” I have trouble seeing the difference between the self Goffman describes and the one Hochschild describes. Both theories say that we all have many selves, and that they all depend on the situation at hand. Is Goffman’s self in the “Formulating a Social Self” chapter while Hochschild’s self is in the “The Dark Side” chapter because Goffman thinks that each socially presented self is a reflection of an aspect of the self, while Hochschild’s false selves are completely fake? In TSWLB, the authors say that “Time and again, Goffman reveals that each and every one of us has many selves, pertinent to the purposes of daily living, always part of, yet also reflexively separate from, the moral orders we share with others.” So Goffman says that we have many selves, but they are not false? But, if they are meeting up to the expectations of the situation, and we are molding them to meet the demands of that situation, how is that not fake? Perhaps it is because I am now brainwashed by the ideas of Hochschild that I don’t understand how the selves we can present can be real selves. Alas, I am lost again in TSWLB. Tell me your thoughts :-D
Honestly, as I think most people who meet me already know, I am a quiet person, overall. However, there are some instances in which my persona changes and I try to be loud and outgoing, perhaps even authoritative at times. One of these instances would be when I lead study group. As a study group leader, I have to command attention and bring motivation to my members. When I do these things, it makes me wonder, is this outgoing nature just a different aspect of my personality? Or am I just completely faking who I am because the situation demands it? The more complications I see with theories of the self, the more I am confused about who I am. Because of Hochschild's theory of the self, I thought what I presented was a false self, but I'm not completely sure. But, getting to the point in time where I can actually say I'm a teacher, first requires that I interview to be offered a position as a teacher, as is the case with any other job.
During an interview, you would to repress some emotions and present false ones. One of the parts of my TFA interview was that I had to present a 5-minute teaching lesson for your fellow interviewees. When I did my 5-minute teacher lesson, I kind of thought that I had failed. The college students in the room seemed like they didn’t understand what I had just taught them, and they already had taken chemistry as high school students! How could I be an effective chemistry teacher to students who had never seen this material before if I couldn’t even reach college students. In this case, I felt a lot of emotional stress. But, was the emotional stress that I felt because I was repressing my emotions of nervousness so that the interviewers and other interviewees wouldn’t pick up on it, or was it just because of the fact that I was stressed. Am I perhaps reading too far into the emotions? Maybe it’s not the repression of emotions that’s painful, maybe it’s just the act of experiencing those emotions.
Not even discussing emotion work, Hochschild says that flight attendants and others in the service community present multiple false identities. But, after this interview, it made me think that maybe it’s not just the service industries or teaching that involves false identities, it’s almost every aspect of everyone’s life that involves these false presentations. When you interview, are you really yourself? I think the best answer to this is most often, “not if you want to get the job.” I often hear that the whole point of interviewing is so that the company can learn who you are. The same is true of the medical school application process. But, most people don’t really present who they are. I know many people who volunteer because they have to if they want to get into the medical profession, not because they want to. Then, they come up with scripted reasons of how volunteering touched them and why it is so important to help the community. Interviews don’t tell the interviewer who the person they are interviewing is; interviews tell these people how good you are at faking who you should be. Can you present a domineering self that can succeed in the classroom? Can you pretend like you really care about a patient, even though you may not?
I’m not saying that we are all heartless, don’t really care about other people, or that some of the things we say in interviews aren’t true, but they definitely don’t evaluate who we really are. The interview should be just another factor in the process. It seems that our personal recommendations should bear more weight, since they are written by people who supposedly actually know who we are. But then again, we choose who we want to write our letters. Have you ever gone to office hours to get help, and instead had to wait while some annoying person asked 80 ridiculously detailed questions, not because they really wanted to know the answers, but because they want the professor to think that they want to know the answers? Then, after we fake who we are to get the letters, and we fake who we are in the interview, if we get the job, we fake some more. Teachers do it, flight attendants, doctors, you name it. It seems like a kind of depressing concept to me the more I think about it; is there even such a thing as the true self, or are we always trying to fulfill roles? Perhaps there is a true self, but are the emotions we feel even from the true self, or are from another false self that society has made that we are trying to present? How can we ever know that the feelings that we feel are really ours? After all, what we define as our morals or our beliefs are often imposed by other people and other social constructs. Perhaps these complications are the reason why Hochschild said that at some point we present so many false selves that we lose the real self. When I first wrote my inquiry paper, I thought that the emotions I felt inside were from my true self, but now I’m starting to wonder if they really are mine, or are just what I think are mine.
I am also thinking more about the dramaturgic self. It seems that this whole concept of presenting a false self is really just acting and presenting false characters. Hochschild tried to look at the bright side of things and say that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that there is a true self though we have trouble finding it sometimes, yet she was in “The Dark Side” chapter. In The Self We Live By (TSWLB), Goffman (who described the self as dramaturgic and socially situated) is quoted as saying that the “self itself does not derive from its possessor, but from the whole scene of his action.” I have trouble seeing the difference between the self Goffman describes and the one Hochschild describes. Both theories say that we all have many selves, and that they all depend on the situation at hand. Is Goffman’s self in the “Formulating a Social Self” chapter while Hochschild’s self is in the “The Dark Side” chapter because Goffman thinks that each socially presented self is a reflection of an aspect of the self, while Hochschild’s false selves are completely fake? In TSWLB, the authors say that “Time and again, Goffman reveals that each and every one of us has many selves, pertinent to the purposes of daily living, always part of, yet also reflexively separate from, the moral orders we share with others.” So Goffman says that we have many selves, but they are not false? But, if they are meeting up to the expectations of the situation, and we are molding them to meet the demands of that situation, how is that not fake? Perhaps it is because I am now brainwashed by the ideas of Hochschild that I don’t understand how the selves we can present can be real selves. Alas, I am lost again in TSWLB. Tell me your thoughts :-D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)