January Series Reflections: Pedro Noguera

NOTE: The content of this post was originally authored for a class I'm taking this Interim on Calvin College's January Series. This content was written to be a short, one page reflection prompted by a speaker's presentation. Therefore, this post does not have much context and has not been edited (or perhaps through out) very well. It is essentially just some of my very rough, incoherent thoughts that will not be backed or exegeted well due to the nature of the original assignment.

Being raised in the rural, remote Upper Peninsula of Michigan, thinking about inner-cities and all of the problems they face is a difficult task for me. I feel that Dr. Pedro Noguera did a wonderful job in getting me to better grasp the true depth and breadth of the problems that public inner-city educational systems face. A list of such problems is quite extensive: poor or no healthcare, overpopulation, economically depressed neighborhoods, broken families, poor and dangerous living conditions, instability, and perhaps most of all, a lack of hope.

Perhaps the greatest contributing factor to this lack of hope is the frustration that we all feel at seeing politicians and government officials make the same plans and promises as their predecessors: plans and promises that we all know will fail and be broken. Yet, I don’t think that most of us believe that the politicians and officials are stupid or purposefully being wasteful and ineffective. Rather, I think we realize that there is a large disconnect between the people and the policymakers; an abyss separating the two. Both sides wonder why they can’t reach the other while an abundance of resources is futilely thrown into the chasm. The people can’t figure out why they aren’t receiving the resources they believe they are entitled to and the policymakers are scratching their heads in bewilderment at the ineffectiveness of the resources they are distributing. If we are to begin addressing and fixing the inner-cities’ myriad of problems then we must first effectively deal with the central problem inner-cities face – providing a quality education in public schools.

To best do this I believe that policymakers need to have more direct contact with both the people they makes policies for and the environments in which such people live. Looking at reports and lists of statistics and numbers may be useful to some extent, but creating policies and solutions solely based on such figures isn’t good enough. The public education system not only needs, but deserves more. Policymakers need to spend ample time in the worst public schools and the harshest neighborhoods that such schools’ students come from. If we don’t have a full, comprehensive picture of the problem (specifically all of the problem’s factors rather than just how the factors manifest themselves) then how can we expect to have a real chance at solving the problem? Can you really expect to solve a complex math problem by only looking at the numbers and not the operations involved? Without practical, firsthand knowledge of public schools and their students our theoretical and detached knowledge becomes very limited in usage capability as we have no proper way to apply it.

Can we fix public school systems? Sure, but it’s clearly going to take a lot of work and not just on the part of policymakers. While they do need to go out and engage with schools and communities, the schools and communities need to reciprocate such engagement, opening up and joining in the difficult process of helping outsiders understand a specific brand of culture. Not only do they need to be open and helpful, but they also need to better understand the sense of entitlement that so many of them possess. What are people currently entitled to in regards to their public education and what should they be entitled to? What does such entitlement presuppose from the individuals that possess it? These are the questions that we must all come to answer if a better public education system is to be achieved. While answering them may be challenging, choosing not to answer them will only lead to greater challenges.

January Series Reflections: Eric Metaxas

NOTE: The content of this post was originally authored for a class I'm taking this Interim on Calvin College's January Series. This content was written to be a short, one page reflection prompted by a speaker's presentation. Therefore, this post does not have much context and has not been edited (or perhaps through out) very well. It is essentially just some of my very rough, incoherent thoughts that will not be backed or exegeted well due to the nature of the original assignment.

Overall I found Eric Metaxas to be the most interesting presenter/speaker of the 2012 January Series thus far. I found him to be witty, engaging, and right on the mark on the vast majority of points he made. He definitely has a fair share of charisma – something that will no doubt help him to sell piles of his books (I’m already planning on getting the Bonhoeffer book eventually). Two minor quibbles I had with him were his insistence that Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet Spy is truthfully history, free of his personal thoughts and opinions, and his statement that he doesn’t disagree with Bonhoeffer on any (major) issues. First, while it’s great (and perhaps somewhat obligatory) to say that a biographical book you write sticks to history just as it was, we all know that authoring such a book is impossible by definition. Part of history is the lens through which it’s viewed meaning that history can’t be practiced without some sort of spin being put on it. Secondly, I think we can also pretty easily realize that it’s (near) impossible to agree with someone else on every issue. So, to understand Metaxas’ statement that he agrees with Bonhoeffer on everything we must accept one of three possible conclusions: either Metaxas didn’t feel like answering the question (it was towards the end of our Q&A and perhaps he was growing tired of answering Bonhoeffer questions), or Metaxas interpreted the question as only referring to a limited number of issues and could indeed feasibly agree with Bonhoeffer on say, a dozen or so issues, or finally, Metaxas does in fact believe that he and Bonhoeffer do agree on all issues. I find this last conclusion to be rather troublesome as it indicates to me that Metaxas may have very well projected some of himself onto Bonhoeffer when interpreting Bonhoeffer’s writings and while writing his book. If this were to be the case then it would seem that Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet Spy would be greatly diminished as it would begin to slide more towards a book about how Metaxas applies Bonhoeffer’s writings and teachings rather than an actual biography on Bonhoeffer. I tend toward believing that the Metaxas’ statement falls somewhere between the first and second options – he generally agrees with Bonhoeffer and didn’t feel like picking at nitty gritty details that individuals lacking much background on Bonhoeffer (such as most of our class) probably would be unable to appreciate.

The issue I (and probably a great deal of the class) found to be most interesting was Metaxas’ handling of the kill vs. assassination vs. murder distinction. On the whole I think Metaxas handled the subject quite well, warning against “all-or-nothing” and “black-or-white” approaches so often took. Circumstances dictate what action should be taken in such scenarios, making it impossible to have a sort of general rule about when it’s ok to take another human’s life. However, I do think Metaxas could have gone further on the distinction of the great weight that results from taking another’s life versus the beautiful and amazing story that unfolds when a villain is redeemed rather than killed by a hero. Thinking about the some of the great stories that have been told in literature and cinema, while stories of vigilantism and “redemptive violence” (making things right by killing someone) are extremely popular and constitute one of America’s greatest myths (think of all of the Westerns that have been told), stories of non-violent redemption have posses the potential to have even more resonance with audiences. I think this may be a good reflection on the way God has created us. While we can take drastic, somber actions in dire circumstances, we are ultimately more satisfied with actions that reflect God’s patience, forgiveness and most of all goodness.

January Series Reflections: Edith Mirante

NOTE: The content of this post was originally authored for a class I'm taking this Interim on Calvin College's January Series. This content was written to be a short, one page reflection prompted by a speaker's presentation. Therefore, this post does not have much context and has not been edited (or perhaps through out) very well. It is essentially just some of my very rough, incoherent thoughts that will not be backed or exegeted well due to the nature of the original assignment.

After listening to Edith Mirante’s talk, “Burma on the Brink,” the thing that really struck me is how blessed and fortunate we are to live in the United States, a country with a stable, rational democracy. While it’s encouraging to hear that Burma seems to be moving towards a full-fledged democracy, I still can’t help but wonder if they will ever fully implement such a democracy in the near future. Mirante’s comparison of Burma’s fake, military democracy’s officials pretending to take up democratic roles to children pretending to be the characters they dress up as for Halloween is an area of great concern for me. While individuals sometimes truly do take up the personas or fronts that they put up, crises of faith or identity are bound to eventually occur, reawaking individuals’ previous states and beliefs. As the planned “real” democratic election begins to loom, it seems to me very likely that the powerful military officials of Burma may begin to realize what a real democracy will mean for themselves as individuals; meaning, they will finally grasp that they are on the cusp of relinquishing the tremendous power they’ve firmly grasped for so many years. When I consider some of the great historical figures whom were unwilling to relinquish their power, I begin to have serious reservations that the historically cruel Burma military leaders will be willing to simply “ride off into the sunset,” accepting menial lives and positions of little to no power.

Reinforcing this idea is the fact that the Burma military has been known to arbitrarily “gun down” and execute its own citizens in order to reinforce its power and remind the population that the government is in control. The military run government is the population’s family: father, mother, little sister and big brother. The government has gone to great lengths to establish that they are god to the population – it decides who lives and dies. Clearly the government has a history of possessing both megalomaniacal and irrational traits, a fact that bodes very poorly for the hope of a real democracy in the near future. Destructive habits and ideas are entrenched in the very fabric of the government, making it very hard for such habits and ideas to simply disappear after a couple of years of government officials pretending to be democrats. History has shown that radical government shifts rarely come peacefully. Are there exceptions to this? Sure, but they are few and far between. A (cynical) person such as myself can’t help but think that the road to a free, democratic Burma is and will continue to be a long, uphill one.

Does this all mean that Burma can’t hope and believe that it will be soon free? Not at all; as Edith Mirante mentioned in her presentation there are many hopeful signs that Burma is well on its way to a democracy. The country is, in some ways, in the best shape it’s been in for decades. What has to be remembered though is that while the signs are positive, a positive result is not guaranteed. Burma and its supporters need to stay vigilant and firm in their push towards freedom. The freedom that Burma hopes and longs for has not and will not be had easily; however, this difficult journey will only make such a freedom all the sweeter when it is finally obtained.

January Series Reflections: John Varineau

NOTE: The content of this post was originally authored for a class I'm taking this Interim on Calvin College's January Series. This content was written to be a short, one page reflection prompted by a speaker's presentation. Therefore, this post does not have much context and has not been edited (or perhaps through out) very well. It is essentially just some of my very rough, incoherent thoughts that will not be backed or exegeted well due to the nature of the original assignment.

John Varineau defined music as “the organization of sound and time to move the human soul.” His definition varies from the standard definition due to his addition of the “to move the human soul” bit. I think this addition is a very appropriate one as it makes an understated truth about music much more obvious. What piece of music hasn’t been created in an effort to influence humans? Even seemingly dull and annoying “on-hold” music was likely created and chosen in an effort to keep individuals waiting on the phone in an at least a somewhat pleasant state. One can even argue that “music” produced by birds and other animals was designed by God to help humans enjoy his creation.

With this universal “soul-moving” property of music in mind we can begin to think about how music has, is, and will continue to be used as a form of propaganda. After all, propaganda is essentially content distributed with a purpose of influencing individuals towards some idea or ideology. So then, why does Varineau believe that music is only abused when it is used as a part of propaganda? Isn’t all music suggesting and trying to influence individuals toward some idea or ideology? I think what Varineau may have not articulated clearly enough is that music falls into the realm of propaganda when it forcibly pushes its listeners to a specific idea or ideology. I think music in its purest form is something that is very open to interpretation. That isn’t to say that music shouldn’t have a message; however, it’s meaning should be something that listeners are allowed to come to on their own terms, not shoehorned into. Listeners should be free to critically and freely examine what they hear and come to a conclusion they find to be best (perhaps best in regards to a hybrid between rationality and creativity). Music when used correctly should foster creativity in its listeners, inviting them to join in a song/work’s movement.

With this in mind, Varineau’s idea of the misuse of music becomes to come into clearer focus. Misuse is just a less restrictive form of abuse. When we are given music in a controlled setting our minds often become limited by what they’re observing. Creativity is diminished and avenues that are available in an open environment begin to close, forcing us down just a few particular paths. Not just one path like propaganda’s abuse, but a number that has been reduced in comparison to the music’s original starting point. This isn’t to say though that all uses of music in movies, television shows, video games, etc. are all necessarily cases of negative misuse. Such environments can be beneficiary when they are thoughtfully and tastefully applied and used. Sometimes a completely open environment is too hard for us to work from. We may need a nudge in some direction and certain closed environments can offer an appropriate nudge that gives us an idea of purpose and direction without shoving us. Really then, the misuse of music becomes something of a grey area, up to personal interpretation as to whether or not such use is a positive or negative factor.

With these clarifications in mind I believe that we can begin to have a better understanding and grasp on how music should be created, cultivated and consumed. Music and art in general are most often at their best when they afford their audience a chance to explore and build upon the ideas and feelings that a work has exhibited. Through this practice we can all mutually participate in being human – creatively and rationally exploring and building thoughts and ideas.

January Series Reflections:

NOTE: The content of this post was originally authored for a class I'm taking this Interim on Calvin College's January Series. This content was written to be a short, one page reflection prompted by a speaker's presentation. Therefore, this post does not have much context and has not been edited (or perhaps through out) very well. It is essentially just some of my very rough, incoherent thoughts that will not be backed or exegeted well due to the nature of the original assignment.

I’m not entirely sure what to think of Dr. Sherry Turkle’s presentation. After some reflection, it seems to me that her presentation’s main thesis, “technology is most seductive when its affordances meet out human vulnerabilities,” really is just another way of saying that technology – like other areas of life – is seductive when we’d expect it to be. Anything is most seductive to us when what it offers is something we lack; so, the fact that technology exhibits this same behavior really doesn’t tell us much about what makes technology unique. In fact, Turkle’s main thesis seems to say that technology isn’t so unique. She seems to be giving a stark warning against looking towards technology as a sort of god or savior that can save humanity from its own problems and mistakes. While this sort of warning has been issued frequently over the past decade, it was refreshing to hear Turkle’s own, insightful take on the topic.

While I mostly agree with Turkle’s overall claim that technology cannot solve all of humanity’s problems, I don’t agree with her stance on individuals’ privacy. In today’s world, Mark Zuckerberg’s claim that “privacy is no longer a social norm” seems to be a perfectly reasonable observation. I don’t think Zuckerberg was necessarily arguing that privacy shouldn’t be a social norm, which Turkle implied that he was. I’ll thus be addressing Turkles two questions given in response to his claim from the observational standpoint rather than the argumental one. After all, in today’s postmodern world who are we to be telling cultures what they should and shouldn’t be doing.

Turkle’s first question in response to Zuckerberg’s claim is, “What is intimacy without privacy?” True, there definitely is some level of privacy needed for a sense of intimacy to be had in most cases. However, Turkle seems to be taking a pretty extreme interpretation of Zuckerberg’s claim. She seems to be saying that a loss of privacy means that one no longer has control over any descriptive details of his or her own life. Privacy is then an “on or off” switch. You either have it or you don’t. Zuckerberg on the other hand seems to be taking a less extreme view of privacy, suggesting that a loss of privacy isn’t flipping a switch to “off,” but rather dialing a knob down a little. Sure some privacy is lost, but not every personal, descriptive detail. Taken with Turkle’s extreme interpretation of privacy, of course Zuckerberg’s claim comes across as absurd; however, when we reexamine what privacy is, we see that Zuckerberg’s claim accurately describes the social world we live in. We have lost full privacy because of modern social conventions like cell phones (the social norm is to have one and having one entails a loss of some privacy), but we haven’t lost total privacy as it’s not the social norm (or even possible) to broadcast all of our thoughts and feelings.

Intimacy can still be had in today’s social world. Is it as prevalent as it was in other times? Probably not; however, we can still be intimate with others if we choose to be, even in times when some level of privacy is seemingly compromised. Think of scenes from romantic comedies where two star-crossed individuals finally meet in a busy place and share an intimate moment. Sure, there are other people around that may be watching and listening, but the fact of the matter is that those other people don’t know what’s going on in the minds of the two individuals and the two individuals choose to have an intimate moment regardless of what level of privacy they have or don’t have. While such an example isn’t an actual case, it does seem to suggest that we find such intimacy, in situations where privacy may be compromised, plausible.

Turkle’s second question, “What is democracy without privacy?” also seems to fall rather flat. In a true, pure democracy everyone should be able to voice his or her own views and opinions without fear of retribution. A democracy works best when individuals are openly sharing ideas and thoughts in an effort to better the lives of others. A loss of privacy means backdoor, shady dealings that are done in private to benefit only an exclusive group of individuals. Sure, people shouldn’t be afraid of others attacking them for their ideals, but such an attack wouldn’t be allowed by a true, properly functioning democracy.

All in all, I found Turkle’s presentation informative and stimulating, even if I didn’t fully agree with all of her points. While I do not know what sort of faith Turkle has (if she has any), her message is one that Christians often need to be reminded of. Jesus, not ourselves or our technological creations, is the true savior and the ultimate way to fix the problems we face in this world.