Last week, I finished tutoring early at the I Have A Dream Foundation; usually I would just go home to fix dinner, but instead I decided to go upstairs and look around. One of the girls took me into a room and started working on an art project. The assignment was to draw/color a poster board, including sticky notes with either quotes or descriptions, to represent a book. In the process, she invited me to make a Valentine's Day card. These children had been making cards to take to the children's ward in Mission hospital.
This takes me to remember elementary school on Valentine's Day. Does anyone else remember turning milk cartons and shoe boxes into "mail boxes" to receive the little cards all the parents would buy in various grocery stores and tell us children to make sure we gave everybody one?
When did going to school become about writing papers and learning the tests and, as one girl said in my class this morning, "playing the system," and even as many people refer to it as "bullshitting"? Think really hard about the last time you were given an assignment that actually related to real life or was enjoyable in any way.
I know most teachers/professors will give any excuse for assigning papers, including that it will improve students' communication skills. Excuse the bluntness, but I find that to be a load of crap. If writing improved our communication skills, people would actually be able to, well, communicate. Instead of communication, what we have is everyone talking at once, nobody listening, and everyone wondering why nothing is getting done.
This is what I feel academic discourse has come to. Everyone learns how to write. It does NOT lead to being able to communicate. Communication requires for one person to talk while the other person/people actively listen. Then the roles switch. Its something we've all learned since our early childhood development years.
When academic discussion turns into "Everybody talk, nobody listen," nothing is achieved other than people's patience being worn extremely thin. This is what happened last week. What was supposed to be an academic discussion among peers turned into an interruption-filled argument. When people spoke, some tried to actively listen to what they were saying and really understand where they were coming from. Yet others seemed intent on only arguing their point and not allowing anyone else to finish what they were saying. Not only does this make a conversation extremely difficult to follow as a bystander, but even harder for those trying to follow the conversation to jump in with their own opinions.
To complicate the matter of academic discussion even more, you must take into consideration personality differences. When you simply assume that those who aren't speaking either haven't read the material being discussed or don't understand the material being discussed and take action against this assumption by saying that they should talk (but then leave no silent space for them to start speaking), it singles out people who may just be an introvert rather than an extrovert.
Introverts will typically have a difficult time joining in a conversation among many people if they feel they can't even start a sentence without being interrupted.
While I don't consider myself an introvert, I do find it difficult to put my thoughts into spoken comprehensible words. I also find myself very easily frustrated when I am trying to speak and being constantly interrupted. Just ask my boyfriend how many arguments we've had or come close to having in this area of life. Or ask my family why I don't try to have conversations with them; most of them will most likely have no clue (my father is the exception, since he is an introvert among my family of extroverts).
This is where blogging comes in handy. People (like me) are able to complete their thoughts on a topic without being interrupted. They are able to move logically from one topic of discussion to another. And they don't have to deal with everyone trying to talk over each other while no one listens.
How does this tie into fun school projects? Well, if the people in charge of the educational system will actually think and listen instead of just arguing, they may begin to figure out a way to change schools for the better. And if teachers will realize that while some students love to write and communicate their ideas effectively that way, other students may be able to communicate in more creative manners, such as drawing and coloring on the poster board.
Growing up in a small-town dance studio, I was rarely exposed to anyone with a disability, much less a dancer with a disability. There was one small boy at the church I grew up in that was later diagnosed with autism, but I don't know that he did any sort of art. There was a teenage boy I went to high school that I knew was different, but wasn't sure what was "wrong" with him. My mother speculated that he had asperger's syndrome, which I didn't know existed until later in my school career.
The only dancer I came in contact with who had any sort of obvious disability was a young girl I taught my last two years at my home dance studio. I'm not sure whether she had some sort of syndrome or was in an accident, but she had braces on her legs. It took her some time to get her shoes on and off over the braces, and she couldn't move as easily as the others. For a long time, I felt sorry for her; I didn't know how to relate to her. Now, I look back and remember how sweet she always was, how hard she tried, and how her spirit soared every time she came into the studio. She would smile at me as she showed me a step she had made up and practiced at home. Most of the time, it didn't seem very "dance-ish," a concept that has changed drastically for me since my dance career started at UNC Asheville. One of my dance professors challenged me multiple times with the question "What is dance?" (She once gave an example of a man giving a dance performance in which he sat onstage and ate an apple - that was the entire routine).
The next time I was exposed to a dancer with disability was the summer after my sophomore year of college. I came home after work one day and sat down to watch an early audition episode of So You Think You Can Dance and saw this:
Every time I go back and watch that, I can't help but have a huge smile on my face. Later that same season, they featured a duet from a dance company called AXIS. AXIS is a company that incorporates dancers both with and without disabilities. It was founded by Judith Smith after she decided to discover how she could move with disability after she broke her neck in a car accident.
I didn't give arts within the disabled community much thought again until I watched ARTS: A Film About Possibilities, Disabilities, and the Arts, a documentary focusing on how people with disabilities use the arts to communicate, as well as the discourse around the terms "disability" and "art."
People who have various disabilities use art in order to communicate to the world around them. One lady with autism used painting to mourn for her husband who had passed. Another used painting to figure out and work through whatever emotions she was feeling.
A question most people ask is whether or not these paintings, songs, dances, etc. that the disabled create are truly art. To these people, I want to pose the question of how this art is any different from the art I may create. Most times, when I am choreographing, there is some emotion spurring my creativity. There are days when I can find no other release from the anxiety or anger I'm feeling other than to dance. Most will consider that art. So how is this different from the art created from people with disability working through an emotion? To me, there is no difference at all. The disabled artists I saw in the documentary even said that they see themselves first and foremost as an artist, then as a disabled person.
The word "disabled," when applied to many examples leaves me questioning why these people are considered disabled. They can usually create more beautiful and/or amazing pieces of work than most "normal" people. While they may be disabled in the way the normal people see them, they certainly are enhanced in other areas of their lives. Stephen Wiltshire, a young man with autism, is a prime example of someone considered to be disabled, while being enhanced in his own way. People call him the human camera; at age 10 or 11, he drew pictures of London accurately from memory. One of his most recent endeavors was drawing Brisbane, Australia from memory after seeing it for only a few minutes.
Another similarity between art from so-called "normal" people and people with "disabilities" is the issue that Kwame Anthony Appiah talks about in his book Cosmopolitanism. Who does this art belong to? Does it belong to the people who create it, the state or nation in which it is created, the people who purchase it, a museum? Or does it belong to all of humankind? If all art were to contribute to a global community, would the world be better off? Would people find ways to communicate and understand each other through art despite cultural and language differences?
This is the issue presented in Cosmopolitanism. The idea of cosmopolitanism itself is to communicate and understand cultures other than our own. It is not to decide who or what is right or wrong. It is to understand the different ways different cultures give to various similar or different practices. One of the examples he gives is that of female circumcision. Because it is foreign to my mind and I see it as a mutilation of the female body does not mean they see it as the same way. And my logic may not make sense to whoever is an advocate for it. The point is not to come to a consensus of what is right and wrong; the point is, in simplistic terms, to agree to disagree.
In order to agree to disagree, some sort of communication must take place so that people are able to know how the others feel on certain topics. Just as people with various disabilities learn to use art to communicate, people could very well use art to communicate through different communication difficulties. It has already worked in the past: just see what all we have learned about other civilizations due to art found in archaeological digs.
Since I didn't really put a full-length blog up this past Monday, I figure I should probably do so now. (Yes, I feel better rested at this point . . . in case anyone was wondering).
Last week, I watched Waiting for Superman. Some of the ideas mentioned in this movie reminded me of my own school experience:
I remember sitting with a high school guidance counselor close to the end of the eighth grade discussing what path I was going to take. I could either take the college/university route in high school or a career route. She basically looked at my grades and asked me what I wanted to do when I grew up. I told her I wanted to be a dancer (by this point, I had been dancing for eight years and absolutely loved it). She glanced up at me, then down to the folder holding my grades, then back up at me, then asked something along the lines of, "Are you sure you don't want to be a doctor or a lawyer?" Even being young, I was highly offended that this lady who didn't know anything about me would assume that, just because I had really good grades, I would want to be a doctor or lawyer. I was even more offended that she treated dancing as a repulsive career choice.
During that session, we decided that I would take the college/university route. There were no options for kids like me in the career route. The choices ran along the lines of carpenter, mechanic, etc. When I came to UNC Asheville, I found it so strange that so many people seemed so much more prepared than I did. I found it strange that the school system made a huge deal out of the few of us going to college. I used to jokingly tell my friends that it seemed like our schools didn't expect anyone to go to a community college, much less a university. Now, it makes sense. If our school systems still use the same system as it did in the 50's, how do we expect to supply an ample work force in future generations? The approach it seems this country has taken seems to be standardized testing.
Notice the kids' faces. Does anyone else remember the stress level of the school on the week of standardized testing? Does anyone else remember not learning the skills that were applicable to solve all sorts of problems because it wouldn't be on the test? Or having homework marked off on because we didn't do it the way the teacher told us to, even though our own reasoning skills got us the right answer consistently?
Its not wonder those of us growing up today don't know how to take care of things in the real world. Some of us may have learned problem-solving skills in school, but many of the children coming through school today aren't learning those necessary skills. I know the standardized tests mean well, but they've done as much, if not more, harm than good. I know a young girl who can read, but she can't "comprehend" the material . . . which, in my eyes, boils down to the point that she can read, but she can't answer standardized test questions correctly. She may "comprehend" just fine if the pressure for reading for comprehension is taken away and she could just read for fun.
These children, as well as their parents and teachers, may spend days or weeks worrying about the standardized tests instead of actually teaching and learning. Part of learning requires for whoever is learning to feel safe. This often involves the condition of the schools as well as a relationship with the teacher (which can only happen when there is a decent ratio of students to teachers - a ratio that does not exist in many public schools).
The unsafe and impersonal environment goes against Martha Nussbaum's central capabilities.
She has ten very specific central capabilities that she believes all people should have:
Life
Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prematurely,
or before one's life is so reduced as to be not worth living.
Bodily health
Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be adequately
nourished; to have adequate shelter.
Bodily integrity
Being able to move freely from place to place; to be secure against violent assault,
including sexual assault and domestic violence; having
opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction.
Senses, imagination, and thought
Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason - and to do these
things in a "truly human" way, a way informed and cultivated by an
adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic
mathematical and scientific training. Being able to use imagination and thought
in connection with experiencing and producing works and events of one's own choice,
religious, literary, musical, and so forth. Being able to use one's mind in ways
protected by guarantees of freedom of expression with respect to both political
and artistic speech, and freedom of religious exercise. Being able to have
pleasurable experiences and to avoid nonbeneficial pain.
Emotions
Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to
love those who love and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general,
to love, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude, and justified anger. Not having
one's emotional development blighted by fear and anxiety.
Practical reason
Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical
reflection about the planning of one's life.
Affiliation
(A) Being able to live with and towards others, to recognize and show concern for
other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to
be able to imagine the situation of another.
(B) Having the social bases of self-respect and nonhumiliation; being able
to be treated as a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of others. This
entails provisions of nondiscrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual
orientation, ethnicity, caste, religion, and national origin.
Other species
Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the
world of nature.
Play
Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.
Control over one's environment
(A) Political. Being able to participate effectively in political choices that
govern one's life; having the right of political participation, protections
of free speech and association.
(B) Material. Being able to hold property (both land and movable goods), and
having property rights on an equal basis with others; having the right to seek
employment on an equal basis with others; having the freedom from unwarrented
search and seizure. In work, being able to work as a human being, exercising
practical reason and entering into meaningful relationships of mutual
recognition with other workers.
In my time with the I Have a Dream foundation, I've found that many of these children seem to have many of these capabilities. They have the option to live a life of normal human length. The only reason that may be threatened is because of the neighborhood in which they live. Here is a story of a four-year-old boy who was killed by his mother's boyfriend in the Pisgah View Apartments. Since the families of these children are often in poverty, they have access to government health care, which means they have the capability to be healthy. Imagination is another big one they may have access to. However, I have no way of actually knowing to what extent they have the capability of imagination, since much of this occurs at home. These children are very capable of emotion; however, depending on the child, they may be fearful because of where they live.
The only two of Nussbaum's central capabilites that I feel these children do not have access to (and if they do, its most likely very limited access) are bodily integrity and control over one's environment. I feel that their bodily integrity could very much be in danger due to the community environment, where drugs and domestic violence are a norm to the point that police patrol through the apartment complex every 30 minutes. It may be argued that the children are too young to have control over their environment politically (I at least don't remember learning about politics until late high school, and still have trouble understanding them) and too young to own their own property. But I would argue back that their parents are old enough, yet because they live in poverty, this is not an accessible capability.
If the adults could have control over the environment, the children, I believe, would be much safer all around.
As of right now (9 pm), I'm going to focus on two of Martha Nussbaum's central capabilities of all humans, as she lists in her book:
"2. Bodily health. Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter.
. . .
9. Play. Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities."
I'm focusing on these two in particular for two reasons: partially so I can have something to write tonight and partially so I can give a somewhat decent reason for not writing a full-length blog on time. (I plan to actually write tomorrow afternoon at the latest).
I'll start with number nine. This morning, I woke up late (after yet another dream-filled night that doesn't leave me feeling rested), rushed to get ready for work, then rushed to work. I then worked a seven-hour shift with no break. For employees like me, we are entitled to a 30-minute break every time we work. For most, breaks are protected time of rest and nourishment. They are, in a sense, a protected time of leisure. For me, they rarely happen. I was not able to eat for the seven and a half hours between my rushed breakfast and my sneak-bites-of-food-when-I-can lunch.
The rest of my day was filled with to's and from's up to this point. I've had no leisure time. Actually, what I consider my leisure time will be when I go to sleep in a few minutes. So, there went my number nine central capability.
I'm sure you've figured out by now why I also chose number two. Last week, I was sick (which is the opposite of bodily health) and I'm still trying to get my health back under control. Not getting adequate good sleep is a part of that issue. I certainly am not adequately nourished at this point . . . unless you count the multivitamin I try to remember to take each day. While I have decent shelter, it isn't the healthiest place to live since I haven't had a chance to clean in over a week. Even when it is clean, its an old drafty trailer next to a field, so I often get field mice inside. Its a roof over my head, but drafty windows and mice mixed with inadequate nourishment and inadequate sleep lead to staying sick most of the time.
Long story short, I'm going to publish this little bit tonight. And, unusually for me (I was always the kid who freaked out when they didn't finish a homework assignment), I'm not going to feel guilty about it. Martha Nussbaum has helped me realize that my health and sanity are more important than school or work.
I always have troubles trying to start a blog about something that completely pisses me off. When I rant, I usually start in the middle of the story since I'm usually talking to someone who knows everything that has been going on. However, with this, I know I need to start at the beginning. But where is the beginning?
Perhaps the beginning would be the beginning of this semester and the first book I read for my senior colloquium class. On the first day of class, I learned I would be helping tutor low-income children in Asheville, NC through the I Have a Dream Foundation. Before this, I knew that this foundation gives children a chance to go to college by paying their way if they graduate high school. I figured this was simply because the children, nor the parents, have any way of paying for it themselves. Little did I think, little did I know, and little do I still know about the real circumstances behind these children's lives.
Keep in mind, I never had any reason to think about what low-income children go through in school. I was raised by middle-class parents who have been together since marriage, grew up in church, lived in the country, went to decent schools out in the country, and my college experience is paid for, without too much strain on their financials, by my parents. I knew about places called “the ghetto,” but didn’t really understand the concept of low-income housing. When I moved to Asheville, I still didn’t understand the concept of low-income housing, despite these housing opportunities are scattered throughout (mostly) west-Asheville. I only began to learn when I started working at McDonald’s, where many of my coworkers used to or still live in either Pisgah View or Hillcrest Apartments. My knowledge of public housing deepened further when I started dating someone who lived in Pisgah View. I knew I was taught to be extremely cautious around areas like these when I was younger, but I didn’t know why until about a year ago. All I’ve heard about are fights, gun shots, muggings, murders, etc. The first good thing I’ve heard about that community is the I Have a Dream Foundation.
Without the knowledge that I have of low-income housing opportunities, Jonathan Kozol’s book The Shame of the Nation wouldn’t have affected me as much as it did. In fact, the state of public education Kozol preaches about probably wouldn’t make much sense to me. It may make me sad for some of these children, but my main reaction would either be along the lines of “Surely, things can’t be this bad” or “Why should I care?”
Kozol focuses mainly on inner-city schools in places like New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts. His concern is that children of inner-city schools are deemed by the state “cheap children” because they come from low-income backgrounds. Because of this viewpoint, less is spent on these children’s education than children from higher-income families. It just so happens that most children in the decent schools that come from middle- and high-income neighborhoods are Caucasian. On the opposite end of the spectrum, it just so happens that most children in the schools that Kozol points out are either black or Hispanic. Because of this coincidence of the different races having unequal educational experiences, Kozol blames the majority of the problems on the racial aspect of the children.
I agree that no child should have to deal with rotting buildings, overcrowded classrooms, and standardized teaching (no teacher should have to either). However, I don’t think this can be blamed simply on the race of the children. The problems go back way farther than this. The problem most likely starts at the cycle of poverty that started back before the Civil War.
I’m sure you’ve all had a history lesson at some point in your life, but just so you can see it as I see it (and I’m sure my history and current politics needs much brushing up on, but this will hopefully at least get the point across): African-American slaves were brought over to America and bought by white people (not just in the south either). The slaves were freed thanks to good ole Abraham Lincoln. However, many of them had no place to go, so they stayed in a system called sharecropping, which isn’t much better than slavery. Fast forward through history. I’m not really sure how the concept of public housing was started, but they did start. People of low-income status, or poverty, went to public housing as an affordable option to live in. Those who tried to move to a suburban area soon found their white neighbors moving away because they were afraid that their property value would decline (or so they said). So that area would soon most likely become an area of public housing again. Getting out of poverty isn’t easy, especially when race is a factor that no one will admit is a factor.
Fast-forward to today and just imagine for a moment: your great-grandparents were in poverty, your grandparents were in poverty, your parents are in poverty, and now you as a child are in poverty. After generations of your family being in poverty, along with all the families around you being in poverty, and not having the education to get out, it isn’t hard to imagine why the crime rate would go up: people get desperate to feel better and to have more, even if they can’t achieve it by natural means. So they go to drugs and alcohol, which can easily lead to violence. They steal the things they want.
This reminds me of a little piece of Thomas More's Utopia, which I first heard mentioned in the movie Ever After. Fast-forward to approximately 6:30 on this clip:
The children of inner-city schools end up going to an institution in which they are treated as no different than anyone else. They came from poverty, they will stay in poverty. They have no special knowledge and no special talents. They barely get to learn the basic skills that most people in America deem necessary. Without a decent education, the likelihood that they will get a decent job is diminished, leaving them in poverty and low-income housing. It simply continues the cycle.
While I agree with Kozol that the state these schools are in is horrible to the children, I have to say that it’s also damaging to the society in which these children live. Also, the solution does not start within the school systems, but with the ways in which public housing and property taxes are set up. Perhaps if public housing is spread throughout middle- and high-income neighborhoods without the fear that the property value will go down, the children will be exposed to decent education, leading to decent jobs, which could lead to the ending of at least on poverty cycle.
Is there a better way to start out a post about the meaning of life than with a little bit of humor? I don't think so.
On a more serious and personal note, I grew up in church from the time I was born. I've heard people try to define the meaning of life as anything from doing good deeds to simply believing in God. Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life, suggests that the purpose of life is to love God since He made us simply to love us. Some believe that there is no purpose to life. I have entertained this option and decided that, if there is no purpose to life, I might as well go walk out onto a busy interstate and get killed by a car. Why not?
I would hope that many would agree with me when I say that is a depressing way to look at life. So I choose to have a purpose.
What other opinions are there on the meaning of life, though? I would imagine it is a question that has lasted throughout the history of human life. Also, how do you find the meaning of life, if there is one? What questions do you have to ask? Who do you have to ask? Plato said, "The unexamined life in not worth living." So perhaps to find the meaning of life, you must start with examining your own life, as well as life around you.
In search of other opinions on this subject, I watched a movie called Examined Life. This film features several philosophers from around the world. They speak on giving life meaning, as well as many other issues that may come up as you examine your life.
The film starts out with Cornel West. However, I will save what he had to say until last, mainly since he was one of my favorite philosophers in this film. Next was Avital Ronell. I will start by saying that, out of all the philosophers featured, I had the hardest time following her train of though. She spoke in terms of the abstract, with little concrete evidence; however, she did reference meaning in life the most. She said she is skeptical about meaning because she views meaning as a way of covering up the wounds of non-meaning. (As I said, she was the hardest to follow). The craving for meaning often leads to grasping for a belief in God, patriotism, or some other form of greater being than the individual self. She believes that if there is no meaning, you have to do more work to define your own ethics because you aren't following what someone else has decided is right or wrong. She continues by saying that if you have a good conscious, you're not responsible and that the responsible being is the one who feels they've never been responsible enough.
This all leads well into what Peter Singer spoke about. He defines ethics as how a person chooses to spend their lives (a more concrete way of seeing how someone spends their lives is to look at what they spend money on - as well as what they don't - which is a principle I've heard many other places before). He uses specific examples, which he is very fluent in describing.
He finishes by saying that we make our lives most meaningful when we contribute to important causes (such as sending money to organizations to help children). If we do this, we have made at least a small difference in life around us.
Kwame Anthony Appiah continues this thought by saying that we are in a virtual relationship with millions of people. His main approach to life is cosmopolitanism. He says that, in today's world, we will care about everyone . . . but only if they are like us. Cosmopolitans care about everyone, and it is perfectly okay for everyone to be different. That included behaving differently, having different beliefs, and having different morals.
I think Slavoj Zizek follows this up the best in his discussion of love. He says that love is not the idealization of another person. It is accepting their whole person with their stupidities. It is finding perfection in the imperfection. We should learn to love the world like this, with its imperfections. He thinks that meaning is a common ideology because meanings make catastrophes feel a little bit better. If there is a reason this happened, it has meaning, therefore there is a sort of silver lining around the catastrophe. This is an important ideology because nature is a big series of unimaginable catastrophes. Think about our biggest source of energy: oil. Oil is a reminder of the catastrophe that caused all those prehistoric creatures to die and be compressed over millions of years, thus creating our oil.
Speaking more on the terms of nature than of catastrophe, though, is Michael Hardt when he talks about human nature. He talks about the transformation of human nature being revolution. How do we change human nature, though, especially when so many just go through the day without paying much attention to what effect they have on the world?
Now, to talk about my favorite philosopher in this entire film: Cornel West. He asks the questions that really can get you thinking. What do you do once you start examining your life? What happens when you start interrogating yourself? What happens when you call into question assumptions that you've never questioned before? And begin to become a different kind of person?
Let me pause here to say that these are very relevant questions, at least in my life. Especially the last one: what do I do if and when I begin to become a different kind of person because I start examining my life? Will I perhaps like myself better? How will others react? Will I be supported in any kind of changes I make to how I spend my time or my energy?
Cornel West introduced a quote to me which helped me face those worries. William Butler Yeats said, "It takes more courage to examine the dark corners of your own soul than it does for a soldier to fight on the battlefield." West continued to say that courage is the main virtue for any human being in the end.
So, with all this in mind, I suppose it is time for me to decide for myself what my purpose in life really is. I'm beginning to piece together perhaps all the different aspects of what my own purpose is, thanks to the help of philosophers I've never met. They give me more ideas to bounce around in my head in my process of graduating college and heading out into the world. This outta be fun.
