I gave a presentation for the 2ND ANNUAL UNIVERSITY LEARNING AND TEACHING SHOWCASE at MSU.
It was part of a presentation called " Engaging Students in Online and Hybrid Courses: Ideas, Examples & Tips", along with Susan Hussein
If you go to http://chss2.montclair.edu/classics/Homepage/jeanTrueBain.mp4. The file is pretty big -- 181 MEG.
you can find the video for the presentation. My entire presentation was a video. I then answered questions.
If you go to http://chss2.montclair.edu/classics/Homepage/Handout_bain.docx
you can download the handout.
My idea is that individuals can post questions and comments on this blog, and, when enough have been posted, I will produce a 'extended director's cut' of my presentation. Please, if you can, let me know what you think of notion of the value of hybrid courses.
Thanks.
-- Jean
Friday, May 6, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
A Fantasy in Zombie Time
In this season where states are reviving doctrines of nullification, legislators have gone AWOL to avoid legislating, Republicans and Democrats to differing degrees are doubling down on dead ends and the style of American politics seems to be moving from the paranoid to the psychopathic (I pass over the roilings across the Muslim world) one can hope for teachable moments.
Or maybe a collective nervous collapse. Amid our mix of self-blinding popularism and an oligarchical capitalism hidden in a technological and cultural matrix whose obscurity challenges our critical resources, people swing between apathetic catatonia or acting out the repressed secret --– that, worse than zombie banks, we face a plague of zombie governments, undead institutions lurching around, guided by their instinct for survival, hungry consumers of human lives.
These institutions are dead because they long since lost the potential for meeting the dreams and demands placed upon them, the circumstances and technologies of their imperfect formation long withered to near unmeaning. They are kept animate by the constant, droning incantation of our collective fable of democracy and freedom and prosperity and individualism, and by our inability to visualize real alternatives and to think beyond the perceived failures of past alternatives.
But I do not yet despair. My fever dream is that some solid son or daughter of the soil or city would break the animating spell by asking some magic questions. I imagine this patriot standing up at a town hall meeting where, before the witnessing cameras, candidates are holding forth, and asking, “Sir (or Madame), you know how we Americans idolize democracy, and, judging by your words, you do too. Yet our democracy is in trouble. Before we act, first we need to know what we are talking about, what ideal we are aiming at. How not? So, you who hold democracy so dear, tell me, tell us, what you think democracy is, exactly? And what does democracy produce which makes it desirable? Surely you must know. And then tell us, tell me, with honest words, how you see democracy in our land producing this good, especially under your leadership? How can your version of democracy create the society we once aspired to? Have you anything solid to say? Or should we seek elsewhere?
I also dream that we figure out how to ask these questions with the nuance, honesty and patience needed so all our citizens will hear them. Elite-speak is not enough. For tele-ranters like Glen Beck, however disturbing, feed upon our widespread and fearful knowledge of an impaired democracy and a dysfunctional politic. And while their plans for revolution make strong souls shudder, we still need to be as willing to think critically about democracy as we are to assert our patriotism or to forge nightmares so to create blamable villains.
And as we acknowledge the structural and practical shortcomings of our democracy, we should remember the original and profound radicalism of the American experiment, and be prepared to think boldly again. Indeed, the Tea-partiers’ constitutionalist fantasies evidence the need to forget the Constitution and our recent political traditions, if only for a season, and to ask, “If we had to start over, are these the arrangements we would devise? Have all the vast changes in worldviews, in culture, in demographics, in economics, in technology over past two centuries not created contexts which demand a different political and social logic than we employ now?” By answering “Yes” we can begin a serious conversation about crafting those arrangements which can reanimate our dreams through dissolving those inequalities of rights, opportunity and justice which make hollow our claims of democracy, ‘democracy’ defined as a condition wherein the people know they have real and effective power, individually and collectively, at their disposal. We are far from that happy state, and we know it.
This situation should be intolerable, but it does not mean we need another French Revolution and lobbyists carted off in tumbrels. Gradualism can be good. But we must start demanding cogent answers from our leaders, media personalities and from ourselves. We need a living, and not just lively, discussion of democracy and society to break the unspeakable spell. Remember, it’s the zombies or us.
Or maybe a collective nervous collapse. Amid our mix of self-blinding popularism and an oligarchical capitalism hidden in a technological and cultural matrix whose obscurity challenges our critical resources, people swing between apathetic catatonia or acting out the repressed secret --– that, worse than zombie banks, we face a plague of zombie governments, undead institutions lurching around, guided by their instinct for survival, hungry consumers of human lives.
These institutions are dead because they long since lost the potential for meeting the dreams and demands placed upon them, the circumstances and technologies of their imperfect formation long withered to near unmeaning. They are kept animate by the constant, droning incantation of our collective fable of democracy and freedom and prosperity and individualism, and by our inability to visualize real alternatives and to think beyond the perceived failures of past alternatives.
But I do not yet despair. My fever dream is that some solid son or daughter of the soil or city would break the animating spell by asking some magic questions. I imagine this patriot standing up at a town hall meeting where, before the witnessing cameras, candidates are holding forth, and asking, “Sir (or Madame), you know how we Americans idolize democracy, and, judging by your words, you do too. Yet our democracy is in trouble. Before we act, first we need to know what we are talking about, what ideal we are aiming at. How not? So, you who hold democracy so dear, tell me, tell us, what you think democracy is, exactly? And what does democracy produce which makes it desirable? Surely you must know. And then tell us, tell me, with honest words, how you see democracy in our land producing this good, especially under your leadership? How can your version of democracy create the society we once aspired to? Have you anything solid to say? Or should we seek elsewhere?
I also dream that we figure out how to ask these questions with the nuance, honesty and patience needed so all our citizens will hear them. Elite-speak is not enough. For tele-ranters like Glen Beck, however disturbing, feed upon our widespread and fearful knowledge of an impaired democracy and a dysfunctional politic. And while their plans for revolution make strong souls shudder, we still need to be as willing to think critically about democracy as we are to assert our patriotism or to forge nightmares so to create blamable villains.
And as we acknowledge the structural and practical shortcomings of our democracy, we should remember the original and profound radicalism of the American experiment, and be prepared to think boldly again. Indeed, the Tea-partiers’ constitutionalist fantasies evidence the need to forget the Constitution and our recent political traditions, if only for a season, and to ask, “If we had to start over, are these the arrangements we would devise? Have all the vast changes in worldviews, in culture, in demographics, in economics, in technology over past two centuries not created contexts which demand a different political and social logic than we employ now?” By answering “Yes” we can begin a serious conversation about crafting those arrangements which can reanimate our dreams through dissolving those inequalities of rights, opportunity and justice which make hollow our claims of democracy, ‘democracy’ defined as a condition wherein the people know they have real and effective power, individually and collectively, at their disposal. We are far from that happy state, and we know it.
This situation should be intolerable, but it does not mean we need another French Revolution and lobbyists carted off in tumbrels. Gradualism can be good. But we must start demanding cogent answers from our leaders, media personalities and from ourselves. We need a living, and not just lively, discussion of democracy and society to break the unspeakable spell. Remember, it’s the zombies or us.
I wonder if this will work...
I have been a long time away from this site. I wonder if it shall work.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
On learning and ignorance.
During the past few days, I have been part of a very helpful discussion which grew out of a comment posted on a Facebook page regarding attitudes by some scientists who dismissed any consideration of the role of God in creation. My initial comments pointed out that the term ‘God’ is a far less clear term than many people realize – especially if you dig down and ask questions about exactly what people mean (or think they mean) by God. Obviously, if one looks at all the various conceptions of God offered by the various religions throughout time, plus the massive amount of output of theologians and philosophers though the millennia, not to mention the contributions of scholars of anthropology and archaeology, one sees an enormous variety of concepts and issues related to “God.”
I am preparing to teach a fully online course for the first time, GNHU 151, Inquiry into the Humanities, and this discussion has helped me think of what I wish to accomplish in the course.
When I thought about resurrecting this course, my plan was for the course to help students better understand what exactly the Humanities are and what they are useful for. I also wanted to explore a series of issues raised by various fields of the humanities, such as “What do we mean by democracy?” “What do we mean by justice?” What do we mean when we make a contrast between fact and option?” “How compatible is a meritiocratic system with democratic ideals?” and so forth.
There are many problems in our world, and one which particularly bothers me is how people (including major political figures) will offer strong and assured opinions about complex subjects without the slightest awareness of the depth of complexity of the issues at hand, or even show a willingness become more informed – especially if the truths may prove to be ‘inconvenient.” I think one of the best intellectual quality one can acquire is a sense of our own ignorance and lack of understanding – thus the well-known Socratic dictum “The only thing I know is that I do not know”. (which has it own problems, but let’s not go there…)
This, as Plato pointed out long ago, is one of the problems of making a democracy function in a complex world, democracy here being defined as a political environment in which all adult citizens, regardless of education, personal temperament, or background (excepting certain criminal or medical backgrounds, of course) have an equal right to vote, express their opinions and try to influence fellow citizens, and hold office and govern. If accept the idea that complex problems really need complex study and thought to understand and untangle, then the majority of individuals are simply not up to meaningfully engaging these questions. Thus there is a marked tendency (especially in the USA) to have a quite conflicted view of ’expert opinion’.
I do not advocate, as Plato would, rule by Philosopher kings. But one of the goals of this course is to make students more aware of the real depth of complex subjects, and less satisfied and willing to accept glib, populist answers to hard issues. I guess I want students to be more ready to ask “What do you mean by that statement? How can you know that? What are the logical consequences of that belief? What do I need to know to understand the issues better? To what extent do I know enough to have a strong opinion on this issue?”
Comments welcome!
I am preparing to teach a fully online course for the first time, GNHU 151, Inquiry into the Humanities, and this discussion has helped me think of what I wish to accomplish in the course.
When I thought about resurrecting this course, my plan was for the course to help students better understand what exactly the Humanities are and what they are useful for. I also wanted to explore a series of issues raised by various fields of the humanities, such as “What do we mean by democracy?” “What do we mean by justice?” What do we mean when we make a contrast between fact and option?” “How compatible is a meritiocratic system with democratic ideals?” and so forth.
There are many problems in our world, and one which particularly bothers me is how people (including major political figures) will offer strong and assured opinions about complex subjects without the slightest awareness of the depth of complexity of the issues at hand, or even show a willingness become more informed – especially if the truths may prove to be ‘inconvenient.” I think one of the best intellectual quality one can acquire is a sense of our own ignorance and lack of understanding – thus the well-known Socratic dictum “The only thing I know is that I do not know”. (which has it own problems, but let’s not go there…)
This, as Plato pointed out long ago, is one of the problems of making a democracy function in a complex world, democracy here being defined as a political environment in which all adult citizens, regardless of education, personal temperament, or background (excepting certain criminal or medical backgrounds, of course) have an equal right to vote, express their opinions and try to influence fellow citizens, and hold office and govern. If accept the idea that complex problems really need complex study and thought to understand and untangle, then the majority of individuals are simply not up to meaningfully engaging these questions. Thus there is a marked tendency (especially in the USA) to have a quite conflicted view of ’expert opinion’.
I do not advocate, as Plato would, rule by Philosopher kings. But one of the goals of this course is to make students more aware of the real depth of complex subjects, and less satisfied and willing to accept glib, populist answers to hard issues. I guess I want students to be more ready to ask “What do you mean by that statement? How can you know that? What are the logical consequences of that belief? What do I need to know to understand the issues better? To what extent do I know enough to have a strong opinion on this issue?”
Comments welcome!
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Thought of Day July 8
 | One definition of God which occurs to me is 'the incalculable eudaimonic potential within the universe, which, because it is incalculable, precludes us from holding despair as pure certainty, for, until Time itself is ended, there remains open the possibility of radical revision, and a end different from what we could imagine happening…’ |
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Thought of the day July 7, 2009
Does anybody think that higher education and psychology are alike in the sense that they in part distract individuals from the real source of problems? For example, I am convinced that often psychologists are asked to cure problem that arise in large part from conditions found in society and family, and thus the reason often all psychologists can help us do is to manage our distress is that the real causes and cures rest in changing society. Similarly, educators cannot solve problems which arise from a broken families, frayed social relations and the lack of decent jobs for people who do not want to work as part of the information economy. We cannot educate society out of its problems that way.
Friday, February 22, 2008
A worry about this technology
One of the problems of technology is that it functions as a multiplier of human abilities, which tends to make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I worry sometimes that this sort of technology will tend to discriminate against those who are, for whatever reason, more private, who simply do not want to give their opinions, to be asked to expose themselves, etc. We live in an increasingly exhibitionistic culture, and I wonder if we fail to respect people who are intelligent and able, but simply desire to be guarded and reticent.
Does anybody else worry about this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)