Frogs

  • Greenfrog_1

  • Frogs and Ravens 1.0
    The original version of this blog.

Animal

  • Feet as Landscape
    Studies in animal life, including human.

Vegetable

  • Blue-Grey Mushrooms
    Visual explorations of the botanical world

Food

  • Krispy Kremes
    That which nourishes us

Curios

  • Name Tag
    A miscellany of oddities, not unlike an old-fashioned curiosity cabinet.

Sun, Moon, Stars

  • Twilight
    The celestial bodies that surround our planet

Mineral

  • Sandstone Steps
    Representatives from the geological world.

Crafts

  • Plied Tencel Yarn
    When creativity strikes...

Motion

  • Shisa Plane
    The technologies of movement

Shelter

  • Pinecone Lamps
    The spaces we inhabit

Scape

  • Marsh
    Landscape, vista, place... this category is meant to contain them all.

Air, Fire, Water

  • Monsoon
    The forces of entropy and beauty at work

Travel

  • Fleece Fair 2007 - Booty
    Whereever you go, there you are...

« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »

March 2008

2008.03.28

A Question for My Colleagues in the Teaching Professions

I was having a discussion with some of my colleagues the other day about something we've all noticed in our current crop of students (yeah, I climbed back into the adjunct tree - helps with the bills, you know?).

It is this - as a group, they seem remarkably blind when it comes to seeing arguments in the stuff they read/view/discuss, and when it comes to thinking about their own arguments. 

They write reviews that enumerate everything that an author "discusses" - but they never seem to see what the author has to say about a given subject or source, or even why the author might be discussing that topic or source in the first place. 

I point out the ways that an author is taking a stance on an issue, and ask them to look at what he or she is trying to claim and defend, and I get blank stares.

They will happily talk at length about the implications of the subjects that form the basis of an author's examination, but not of the author's own position on the issue.

They do not like being asked to write papers that require them to state an opinion and defend it.  They want to write narrative "and then this happened" descriptions of events, not to analyze them or interpret them.  They do not seem to understand why vague generalities are not effective claims, nor effective evidence.

They are also more confused about the differences between primary and secondary sources than any other cohort I've taught.

Continue reading "A Question for My Colleagues in the Teaching Professions" »

2008.03.18

Stuff Rana Likes

I've been thinking about race lately.  Partly it's because when one teaches post-Civil War history, it's pretty hard to ignore.  Partly it's been in the context of the current political season, and the on-going question of whether racism or sexism is the bigger unsolved problem.  Certainly Obama's recent Speech offers powerful commentary on the experience of race in this country.

Right now I am getting the most pleasure and having the most thoughts provoked by the site Stuff White People Like.

The site works well enough on the surface, as a collection of observations about stereotypical behavior displayed by a certain category of white Americans.  As a number of commenters note, it also engages with issues of class and regional identity, and ethnicity.  Where it really works for me is in the way it cleverly and quietly satirizes the larger social activity of reducing a given racial group to a stereotype based on a small, not necessarily representative, subset of that racial group.  Such stereotyping has typically been done to racial groups that lack power and numbers, and typically such stereotypes are negative; even the positive ones, though - think "blacks are good at sports" or "Asians are good at math" - carry within them a dialogue about who gets to say what about whom, and whose stereotypes are given the weight of social approval and whose are not.

So it is both hilarious and intriguing to see white people reduced down to a bunch of liberal neo-yuppies of the sort typically found in the Style section of the New York Times.

It is also productive to read the comments, some because they are in fact insightful and often funny, others because they illustrate the dynamics of race in our society so well.  Not least is the way that white commenters often fail to recognize the ways privilege has operated (and still operates) to protect them from more malicious stereotyping with the weight of our legal and social institutions behind it.  (Making fun of white people in this country simply is not the same as making fun of other racial groups, despite the surface similiarities - and that's part of the joke.)

There are the white people who are offended because the site appears to be mocking white people in general (many assume that the site author is a non-white person - which is not the case). 

There are the white people who are offended because they don't fit the stereotype and resent having it applied to them. 

There are the white people who express enthusiastic recognition of themselves in the posts; there are those who express rueful recognition of themselves in some of the posts (I'm in this camp, as I sit here on my Patagonia-clad ass while typing on my blog on my Apple iBook and drinking Britta-filtered water from my Sigg water bottle). 

There are the self-identified people belonging to other racial groups expressing their enthusiasm at seeing white people being given this all-too-familiar treatment.  Sometimes this produces angry rejoinders from the offended white people - but this is surprisingly rare.

There are others who want to add their own observations about what white people like. 

A few express a certain chagrin at how much they themselves resemble these stereotypes when it comes to their own choices in food, clothing, etc.

And there are a very few (belonging to a variety of racial groups, at least when self-identified - not everyone does) who understand what the author of the blog is doing with these stereotypes - though the more aware are cognizant of the possibility that this sort of meta-reading may itself be part of what "white people like" and that what we're seeing as satire may be more a massive joke on all of us. 

(Hence perhaps the calls from a regular contingent for a post about how one of the things that white people like is reading and commenting on Stuff White People Like.)

In the end, the reason why I like it is that it does a nice job embodying the complexities of the issue and how challenging it is to think about them clearly.

That, and it makes me laugh. 

2008.03.12

Time Rushing Past

Spring is upon us.  The trees are budding and blossoming and swelling with the promise of summer.  Grackels and robins swirl around the neighborhood in great clouds, their voices clanging from the branches, their beaks bobbing up and down in the grass.  Squirrels are attempting to remember where they hid all those acorns.  Sparrows are squabbling over prime nesting spots inside clothesline pipes and atop porch lanterns.  Inside the house, flies spontaneously generate out of air and dust and drifting cat hair; I have become a leaping samurai warrior, armed with a blue-tipped flyswatter, declaring death to these buzzing black concentrations of matter.

I pass among this bustling whirl of growth and energy, and I look at it, and remark upon it - and yet I fail to set it down in words and images, in pixels and megabytes and photons glowing through the screen.  Teaching is sprawling through my life like a massive underground fungus; the classes and lectures are only the fruiting bodies peeking up between the leaves.  Below the surface the tendrils reach out and infiltrate all parts of my life, waking and sleeping.  I find myself dreaming in PowerPoint slides.  I struggle to find clear ground, bare rock upon which I can stand and contemplate the changes around me.

In other words, I've been too busy to write.  Forgive me.