Of Educated Fools and Grownup Idiots

I was at Bedok Community Library last weekend with my family. Bringing along my 8-month old daughter with me to the 2nd floor, while my 4-year old was with my wife at the 3rd floor where the toddlers’ section is, I let alone my little girl on the floor while I browsed for the titles on the shelf in the Philosophy section. She was on her knees, happily ‘browsing’ at the titles on the lower shelves, at the same time ‘talking’ to herself in a language that perhaps only those of her age would be able to comprehend.

Browsing titles

It was not long after when I realized her baby talk was getting louder to the extent that it was causing much distraction to nearby readers, some even glancing a disgruntled face at her, then at me, perhaps because their rights as the users of the library were being trampled on by the noise. Hence, before she got further excited, I thought I better get her up to the 3rd floor to join her sister at the toddlers’ section. On the way to the stairs, I passed a notice on the wall stating that those children below 2 years of age are advised to be brought to the toddlers’ section at the 3rd floor. Oops… didn’t notice that.

Once at the toddlers’ section, the atmosphere was a bit livelier, the whole floor bustling with activities as the children were happily conversing with each other, some reading loudly the books in their hands, while some others were deeply engrossed with their own reading that they seem oblivious to what was happening around them. ‘Ok girl, you can talk as much and as loudly as you want now. No one will be unhappy here.’

But I was wrong… on the latter point that is. I was the one turning extremely unhappy with what I observed on that floor. The entire 3rd floor is supposed to be dedicated to the intellectual development of the young ones, as can be seen by the colourful and safe-for-use chairs and tables and the range of children’s books available for them to explore. It makes no sense then, for adults who have no reason at all to be there to be using these furnitures and taking up the space, hence depriving the young ones of the space they need for their own development. What I was extremely perturbed and disgusted with was to see a student, whom I supposed is from Meridian Junior College (from the shirt he was wearing) taking up a considerably large area where the toddlers are supposed to be.

Hardworking... or the brain not working?

Spreading out his study materials on a toddler table, bag and books around him, he seemed to be comfortable making use of the space that is rightfully NOT for him. Opposite him on his right (on the left of the picture), another grownup could be seen using a toddler chair for her laptop.

Based on this observation, I must say there is clearly a lack or total absence of love and respect for our little ones. It is a great injustice to the young when adults are allowed to be angry when their rights are being trampled on, while not giving a damn to the rights of the little ones. And to see it coming from a college student, I just wonder to what extent the education system has been successful all these years, to produce such unthinking, non-functioning, complete idiot ‘top brain’.

The Perils of Positive Thinking

The following is extracted from an email correspondence between myself and a colleague in school. In this extract, I am stating my point that, as educators, we need to go beyond ‘changing of mindsets’ and ‘trying to be positive’ about some of the implementations in school that are obviously not in the interest of students. Too often, teachers are unable to expand their imagination to realize the long-term social implications of certain policies and initiatives pushed down from school leaders. Instead of expressing dissent for the sake of students’ well-being, these teachers are forced, by a system that lays much importance on a performance-based ranking, to stay positive and accept things as they come, so as not to affect their  own ranking, appraised by the school leaders themselves, which in turn could topple their iron rice-bowl over.

[Start of email response]

Firstly, I don’t question the need for more creative and innovative ways of teaching and learning. From a  Deweyean perspective, I strongly uphold the idea of a progressive education which involves experimental  and exploratory learning at the same time involving trial and error, design and criticism.

However, in discussing new technologies and literacies, we also need to constantly raise the questions: whose interests are these emerging technologies and pedagogies serving? Are they really helping the students in their learning? If yes, then the next question we ought to ask is: will there be any group which will be eventually excluded?

By allowing external corporate agencies such as Apple Co. to infiltrate our schools, are we actually preparing our students for their future, or are we simply reproducing existing inequalities and inequity? Do you have any idea how much the iPod touch cost? Of course students from wealthy families have no issue with this,
but how about those coming from the lower income strata?

Personally, I’m seriously and utterly disgusted by the idea that students can buy it on an installment plan. I’m not sure if we are even aware that some of these students come from families who are still grappling with their home electrical bills. These are the ones who will be excluded eventually.

I believe we need to go beyond changing of mindsets or trying to be positive about all these, and look at the bigger picture. Are we educators moulding a generation of critical thinking individuals, or are we inadvertently producing passive consumers who have constant longing for mindless consumption and entertainment?

Call me the worst ICT executive you ever met, but I’m only interested in technology that liberates the minds of the students, not those which turn them into benumbed automatons capable of only regurgitating information, simultaneously allowing some corporate agencies to rake in huge profit from it.

[End of email response]

Generation ‘P’: Pedophiliac, Perverted & Preposterous

This is a response to the recent 2 articles which appeared in the Straits Times, dated 22 March 2008. In one article, entitled “Generation ’s’: seductive, sensual & savvy”, the columnist was writing about the growing number of girls here in Singapore who are becoming sexually active at a younger age. The article also claimed that one of the reasons girls have sex at a younger age is that they generally attain ’sexual maturity’ earlier; and they also tend to have sex with older men.

The problem with this article, as well as the other one entitled “Girls behaving badly”, is that they are skewed toward a lopsided view of a larger social – or rather pathological – problem. These sort of youth-bashing media reports, I feel, are merely doing a lot more harm than good, and definitely not doing any justice to our younger generation. Why is it that when a young girl, at the age of 15, have slept with more than 50 men, she gets all the negative media spotlights and labelled as ’seductive and sensual’ and even accused as ‘behaving badly’? Why is it that the way these youths are being represented in such newspaper reports put them in a very bad light, as if they are the ones to be blamed for all the problems resulting, supposedly, from their own actions? What, then, about those ’sexual predators’, those pedophiliac, perverted & preposterous freaks who walk among us, without any moral or ethical conscience towards our youth and children? Aren’t they the ones who should be getting all the attention?

In my opinion, education for critical consciousness is still the answer to our social predicaments. Personally, I find nothing wrong in our youths attaining sexual maturity at an early age. In fact it is part of their natural development. What’s more important is for us to educate them by demystifying those sexual matters they should know and breaking whatever existing barriers that obstruct them from coming to us for advice pertaining to any problems and concerns on sexuality.

What’s more problematic in our society is that most of the time, the sexual predators are left scot-free, while the burden is always left for the victims to bear, as reflected in such newspaper reports and articles above. I don’t think it’s the Generation ‘S’ that should be of a concern – rather, those belonging in Generation ‘P’ – those pedophiles and preposterous perverts who should deserve the greatest burden, the harshest punishment and the worst ever form of humiliation.

The media certainly have an important role to play in disseminating information, and sometimes making us aware of things that are happening around us. But there is never one particular medium that is neutral – the movies and advertisements we watched on television, the various programs we hear on the radio, the reports and articles we read in the newspaper – all these media will always, for better or for worse, take a side on any particular issue or problem. Representations in the media have never been neutral – there will always be a group in society that is either over-represented or under-represented.

In the case of the two reports in the Straits Times, we can see how the youth, particularly teenage girls, are being represented. Not that I’m much hyped up with the title, but I think the term ‘generation’ in the report headline itself is very much problematic – it is in a way implying the emergence of a monolithic group in our society that has certain characteristics and ways of behaviour that, as the reports suggested, or at least alluded to, are posing threats to our societal norms and mores. These kinds of reports will consequently drive unnecessary moral panic and irrational fear into the adults’ social imagination, and as a result tighten the stranglehold on our youth and children, imposing on them oppressive regulations that only serve to make our job as adults easier, while smothering their creativity and suppressing their will and freedom to express and represent themselves.

I stand firmly by my opinion that the root of the problem is the one that has to be addressed rather than the symptom – those paedophiles and sexual predators are the ones that deserve the humiliation of being exposed and featured in the media, rather than the victims. In the case of the 15-year old girl having slept with 50 men, I believe that the real pathological problem lies in the 50 men, not the poor little girl.

Enlightenment?

Gone are those days of naivety when I used to think so highly of those graduates who have gone through years of supposedly intensive religious training from highly reputable universities from abroad. Far from the initial objective of those universities when they were first built, which is directed towards the inculcation and propagation of humanistic values, graduates of today are simply pleased with themselves after being conferred that degree, with having not a single idea what their responsibility is thenceforth towards humanity.

I simply wonder if these graduates had actually gone through any process of analysing and thinking critically about the problems of the world and the social predicaments each and every society and community are facing. Or are they actually taught (or allowed) to think at all? “Regurgitate what you were taught in the lectures, read only those pages from only those books that you are instructed to read, and resist the temptation to question.” It is no wonder then that we see disgraceful ‘products’ coming back from those institutions bringing along with them disgraceful ideas that will eventually drag the society down to the abyss of material as well as intellectual and moral poverty.

The worst of these defective ‘products’ are those who, not only without any ideology, but are bereft of self-esteem and self-motivation, only to receive ’self-enlightenment’ after listening to and reading the works (which only the sensible human mind will find disgusting and ludicrous) of those blood-sucking capitalists who have no regards for humanity or even a concern for the poor. And it is utterly disgusting to hear their simplistic analysis, along with diagnosis, of the problems faced in their own community – that the solution to family disintegration and failed marriages is by making lots of money and getting wealthy. And they even have the moral cheek to hope that they will be able to help the community bring their achievement level higher. And how? By attending motivational talks and seminars that they will organize, which cost a person a hundred over dollars to attend. Thanks to the American millionaire and the local “self-made millionaire”, these ‘enlightened’ idiots would not even know (or even care) that some people out there are still haplessly living on a $2-per day budget, struggling hard to make ends meet because of the oppressive capitalistic system they are under.

It’s the system, stupid!

It’s awfully weird how some people are easily attracted to and engrossed with theories and ideas from abroad but are not able to simply grasp the problems within his/her own society. “Blame it on the individuals!”, they say, “They are the ones who fail to see what lies ahead of them, the possibilities and numerous opportunities available everywhere. If only they can break away from their pessimistic attitude and negative mindset, they will see how anyone and everyone can succeed in life.” So, the problem lies in the individual. Or is it? What they actually need in order to succeed, just like everybody else, is just to have a positive mindset; regardless of the situation, or the social structure, they are in (?).

“Individuals are the director of their own life,” they say, “If they don’t like the script, they have the power to change it.” Oh just how wonderful this sounds. If only the people – those downtrodden, those trapped in the poverty cycle, those marginalized, those at the bottom 10% of the economic strata – are able to see this, to realize the power of a positive mind, to realize that they can actually change the situation they are in, by simply adopting a positive attitude towards life. How beautiful can life then be…

Sometimes I just wonder how much more idiotic these idiots can be…

F.A.I.T.H.

Some things really get on my nerve sometimes, especially those that are contradictory, such as education. Education ought to be liberative – it liberates people from the shackles of an oppressive structure or system. It ought to be transformative – it provides critical tools for the people to experience a structural shift in their thoughts, feelings and actions i.e. their conscientization. It empowers. The problem is when education is perceived by teachers themselves as a way to assert their authority; as a form of domination and control. Their primary concern is more on disciplining and managing the students, rather than empowering them to be critical individuals.

Disempowerment vs. Empowerment

Full commitment
Attentive in class
Innovative
Teamwork
Handing in homework on time

as against

Freedom
Autonomy
Independent
Transformative
Hope

The Sociological Imagination

“The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals. It enables him to take into account how individuals, in the welter of their daily experience, often become falsely conscious of their social positions. Within that welter, the framework of modern society is sought, and within that framework the psychologies of a variety of men and women are formulated. By such means the personal uneasiness of individuals is focused upon explicit troubles and the indifference of publics is transformed into involvement with public issues.”
[pg. 5]

 

“Perhaps the most fruitful distinction with which the sociological imagination works is between ‘the personal troubles of milieu’ and ‘the public issues of social structure.’ This distinction is an essential tool of the sociological imagination and a feature of all classic work in social science.”
[pg. 8]

“Many great public issues as well as many private troubles are described in terms of ‘the psychiatric’ – often, it seems, in a pathetic attempt to avoid the large issues and problems of modern society. Often this statement seems to rest upon a provincial narrowing of interest to the Western societies, or even to the United States – thus ignoring two-thirds of mankind; often, too, it arbitrarily divorces the individual life from the larger institutions within which that life is enacted, and which on occasion bear upon it more grievously than do the intimate environments of childhood.”
[pg. 12]

“The basic cause of grand theory is the initial choice of a level of thinking so general that its practitioners cannot logically get down to observation. They never, as grand theorists, get down from the higher generalities to problems in their historical and structural contexts. This absence of a firm sense of genuine problems, in turn, makes for the unreality so noticeable in their pages. One resulting characteristic is a seemingly arbitrary and certainly endless elaboration of distinctions, which neither enlarge our understanding nor make our experience more sensible. This in turn is revealed as a partially organized abdication of the effort to describe and explain human conduct and society plainly.”
[pg. 33]

“Those in authority attempt to justify their rule over institutions by linking it, as if it were a necessary consequence, with widely believed-in moral symbols, sacred emblems, legal formulae. These central conceptions may refer to a god or gods, the ‘vote of the majority’, ‘the will of the people’, ‘the aristocracy of talent or wealth’, to the ‘divine right of kings’, or to the allegedly extraordinary endowment of the ruler himself. Social scientists, following Weber, call such conceptions ‘legitimations’, or sometimes ’symbols of justification’.
[pg. 36]

“‘Power’, as the term is now generally used in social science, has to do with whatever decisions men make about the arrangements under which they live, and about the events which make up the history of their period. Events that are beyond human decision do happen; social arrangements do change without benefit of explicit decision. But in so far as such decisions are made (and in so far as they could be but are not) the problem of who is involved in making them (or not making them) is the basic problem of power.”
[pg. 40]

“Today, of course, many people who are disengaged from prevailing allegiances have not acquired new ones, and so are inattentive to political concerns of any kind. They are neither radical nor reactionary. They are inactionary. If we accept the Greek’s definition of the idiot as an altogether private man, then we must conclude that many citizens of many societies are indeed idiots.”

Paulo Freire

“The atmosphere of the home is prolonged in school, where students soon discover that (as in the home) in order to achieve some satisfaction they must adapt to the precepts which have been set from above. One of these precepts is not to think.”
[Paulo Freire]

Between the Powerful and the Powerless

“Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.
[Paulo Freire]

On Education

“To be changed by ideas was pure pleasure. But to learn ideas that ran counter to values and beliefs learned at home was to place oneself at risk, to enter the danger zone. Home was the place where I was forced to conform to someone else’s image of who and what I should be. School was the place where I could forget that self and, through ideas, reinvent myself.”
[bell hooks]