In Prison Notebooks, Gramsci writes: "Mass formation has standardized individuals both psychologically and in terms of individual qualification, and has produced the same phenomena as with other standardized masses..."
Teach in India began the process of mentoring via email last week; our first batch of proteges includes among others a young engineer-turned-marketing analyst, a cub sports journalist, a grade 12 girl who says she has no idea what she wants to study in college. These are people who are, with or without their knowledge, trying to undermine the the status quo in India.
Mentoring via email is one of the many ways Teach in India is employing in the effort to reach out: we organize talks and debates in Indian high schools, we also provide career counseling. The idea is to expose kids to multiple voices and opinions so they might slowly develop the ability to analyze information by themselves. For instance, the market analyst has received inputs so far from six to eight consulting professionals; he had in his introductory email expressed a general interest in getting a job in strategic consulting. The respondents have focused on encouraging him to ask penetrating questions, questions that get past the "How do I get a job with McKinsey?" phase.
We achieved a minor breakthrough with him yesterday when he asked the question, "My boss once told me he found it hard to break into his current job because he'd worked earlier in a small company; does working in small companies contribute to prejudice against you?"
Gramsci says, "When one distinguishes between intellectuals and non-intellectuals, one is referring in reality only to the immediate social function of the professional category of the intellectuals, that is, one has in mind the direction in which their specific professional activity is weighted, whether towards intellectual elaboration or towards muscular-nervous effort... In the modern world, technical education, closely bound to industrial labor even at the most primitive and unqualified level must form the basis of the new type of intellectual."
We're trying to catch 'em young. This individual, whose example we have arbitrarily taken, has the ability to transform into an organic "intellectual" himself; in a sense he merely needs to learn how to ask the right questions.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
On Creativity
(Please click on the title above; it'll redirect you to a website.)
I hope every TII volunteer aggressively engages with what Ken Robinson has to say.
These are things that rarely get addressed in public debate, anywhere in the world. Certainly very few teachers talk about creativity in Indian classrooms. There, the teacher-student ratio is often something like 1:65 and teachers fear that if every kid is given the space to express his / her individuality, the classroom will soon grow impossible to control. It isn't common for teachers to have the training, the cultural capital, the energy or the motivation to encourage children on a daily basis. Many high school teachers are too insecure to deal with kids asking genuine or smart-alecky questions; their mindset is, if one kid is allowed to get away with that now, every kid is going to harass them on a permanent basis. We've all known those teachers -- but to be fair, knowing what brats some of us were, as kids, who can blame those teachers for trying to shut out individuality and creativity?
This much is obvious. More intriguing and worthy of debate is the assertion that so many of my engineer friends make in passing: that there is virtually no art to logic, and definitely nothing logical about aesthetics. They say there is no balance to strike.
To many, the word "creative" represents the feverish capture of emotions on some medium: canvas, paper, computer screen. When I see the word "creative", the first image that forms in my mind is this cartoon caricature in side profile of a man, who for some reason wears a brown jacket, a Fedora and the mask from V for Vendetta; he's excitedly making squiggles with a paintbrush on a canvas. As a practitioner of an art form, I should know better than to buy into the stereotype of the painter-in-a-perennial-state-of-thrall. It's also strange, in an interesting way, because I have an Master's in creative writing, not fine arts; you suppose I would instinctively connect "creativity" to the visual of a writer at his desk.
On the other hand my training and life experiences have taught me to be wary of connecting "creative" with "writing". Perhaps by creating a wedge between those two, I've tried to convince myself that I am not creative... in that way. In conversation, I sometimes self-consciously drop the "creative" and say "MA in writing". "Creative" people -- especially the ones who have cultivated a careful eccentricity -- get admiring looks and find themselves suddenly engaged in sexy conversations about the state of the world with attractive, well-dressed contemporaries. But outside those privileged social circles -- that is to say, among people like my engineer friends -- they are commonly dismissed as "arty-farty". The public generally conflates good writing with flair and large words; people are not as easily impressed by interesting ideas expressed in clear language. Presumably, if you don't fart you aren't arty enough.
For me the writing process does not involve outbursts of passion and a frantic expression of feelings. "Writing" summons the image of the Lego models that my parents bought me when I was a child. I did not grow up to be a technology expert; I nevertheless connect the process of writing to reason, logic, structure, order.
One is not a writer merely because one writes; one is a writer, by inclination, because one tries to think. Of course I believe in 'creativity', but the word strikes me as flaky. Frankly, its reputation needs some salvaging. We need to recognize that creativity is not limited to writing or pottery or advertising. It manifests equally in public administration, gardening, physical training or inorganic chemistry. Creativity is required, possibly demanded, in virtually any area (unless your job requires you to, say, enter numbers for the telephone directory, in which case you should stop reading this note now).
"Creativity" is the ability to apply a fresh perspective to a problem: sometimes, by taking a step backwards, at other times, by making a closer inspection of the problem. It should not be confused with unfettered freedom. Creativity demands energy; above all it needs to be harnessed. In this context, it might be useful to examine how creativity applies the inter-disciplinary context. A student with a Bachelor's in Mathematics will often have interesting insights to offer a graduate class in, say, ethnography (a method to study human societies, through prolonged fieldwork and interpretation). Even if this Math major has forgotten everything he ever learned about Bessel functions, he will recognize that his mind works in a particular way because of his training. Even if, at first, he asked "stupid" questions in the ethnography class -- things that are obvious to any anthropology major -- very soon you'll find that he can quickly re-calibrate his thinking. His structured approach will continue to inform the exhilaratingly "creative" questions that he has started to raise in class.
If you are inclined to think I am agonizing over semantics, and going on and on about something that seems be self-evident, you risk missing the larger point. Creativity, like critical thinking, demands steady, rigorous workout sessions -- it requires practice. Kids in India can be incredibly creative, but they have little or no exposure to concepts such as rigor. They aren't taught to think through issues; they are expected to conform. As a result, they tire themselves out before they are able to take any original idea to its logical conclusion.
In order to be productive, people need to support their creativity, like the way civil engineers use framing in building constructions. It is this framework that gives us the rigor to sequence our thoughts -- be more ambitious with our thinking, in the process learning to focus on larger patterns -- instead of congratulating ourselves for having come up with one or two isolated "creative moments".
Let me reiterate: obviously the idea isn't to throw complex ideas like "rigor" in the children's direction. Do refer to some of the discussions posted on our Google group for practical ideas; several members have made important contributions. I have offered suggestions elsewhere about how to approach a classroom session:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=43059787269
Through classroom sessions and its fledgling mentoring program, TII is trying to help children in the age group of 13-17 hit a threshold point of self-awareness; beyond that, those children will be in a position to start figuring things out for themselves -- although we would be glad to share our perspective with a few, hopefully over the period of a lifetime.
I hope every TII volunteer aggressively engages with what Ken Robinson has to say.
These are things that rarely get addressed in public debate, anywhere in the world. Certainly very few teachers talk about creativity in Indian classrooms. There, the teacher-student ratio is often something like 1:65 and teachers fear that if every kid is given the space to express his / her individuality, the classroom will soon grow impossible to control. It isn't common for teachers to have the training, the cultural capital, the energy or the motivation to encourage children on a daily basis. Many high school teachers are too insecure to deal with kids asking genuine or smart-alecky questions; their mindset is, if one kid is allowed to get away with that now, every kid is going to harass them on a permanent basis. We've all known those teachers -- but to be fair, knowing what brats some of us were, as kids, who can blame those teachers for trying to shut out individuality and creativity?
This much is obvious. More intriguing and worthy of debate is the assertion that so many of my engineer friends make in passing: that there is virtually no art to logic, and definitely nothing logical about aesthetics. They say there is no balance to strike.
To many, the word "creative" represents the feverish capture of emotions on some medium: canvas, paper, computer screen. When I see the word "creative", the first image that forms in my mind is this cartoon caricature in side profile of a man, who for some reason wears a brown jacket, a Fedora and the mask from V for Vendetta; he's excitedly making squiggles with a paintbrush on a canvas. As a practitioner of an art form, I should know better than to buy into the stereotype of the painter-in-a-perennial-state-of-thrall. It's also strange, in an interesting way, because I have an Master's in creative writing, not fine arts; you suppose I would instinctively connect "creativity" to the visual of a writer at his desk.
On the other hand my training and life experiences have taught me to be wary of connecting "creative" with "writing". Perhaps by creating a wedge between those two, I've tried to convince myself that I am not creative... in that way. In conversation, I sometimes self-consciously drop the "creative" and say "MA in writing". "Creative" people -- especially the ones who have cultivated a careful eccentricity -- get admiring looks and find themselves suddenly engaged in sexy conversations about the state of the world with attractive, well-dressed contemporaries. But outside those privileged social circles -- that is to say, among people like my engineer friends -- they are commonly dismissed as "arty-farty". The public generally conflates good writing with flair and large words; people are not as easily impressed by interesting ideas expressed in clear language. Presumably, if you don't fart you aren't arty enough.
For me the writing process does not involve outbursts of passion and a frantic expression of feelings. "Writing" summons the image of the Lego models that my parents bought me when I was a child. I did not grow up to be a technology expert; I nevertheless connect the process of writing to reason, logic, structure, order.
One is not a writer merely because one writes; one is a writer, by inclination, because one tries to think. Of course I believe in 'creativity', but the word strikes me as flaky. Frankly, its reputation needs some salvaging. We need to recognize that creativity is not limited to writing or pottery or advertising. It manifests equally in public administration, gardening, physical training or inorganic chemistry. Creativity is required, possibly demanded, in virtually any area (unless your job requires you to, say, enter numbers for the telephone directory, in which case you should stop reading this note now).
"Creativity" is the ability to apply a fresh perspective to a problem: sometimes, by taking a step backwards, at other times, by making a closer inspection of the problem. It should not be confused with unfettered freedom. Creativity demands energy; above all it needs to be harnessed. In this context, it might be useful to examine how creativity applies the inter-disciplinary context. A student with a Bachelor's in Mathematics will often have interesting insights to offer a graduate class in, say, ethnography (a method to study human societies, through prolonged fieldwork and interpretation). Even if this Math major has forgotten everything he ever learned about Bessel functions, he will recognize that his mind works in a particular way because of his training. Even if, at first, he asked "stupid" questions in the ethnography class -- things that are obvious to any anthropology major -- very soon you'll find that he can quickly re-calibrate his thinking. His structured approach will continue to inform the exhilaratingly "creative" questions that he has started to raise in class.
If you are inclined to think I am agonizing over semantics, and going on and on about something that seems be self-evident, you risk missing the larger point. Creativity, like critical thinking, demands steady, rigorous workout sessions -- it requires practice. Kids in India can be incredibly creative, but they have little or no exposure to concepts such as rigor. They aren't taught to think through issues; they are expected to conform. As a result, they tire themselves out before they are able to take any original idea to its logical conclusion.
In order to be productive, people need to support their creativity, like the way civil engineers use framing in building constructions. It is this framework that gives us the rigor to sequence our thoughts -- be more ambitious with our thinking, in the process learning to focus on larger patterns -- instead of congratulating ourselves for having come up with one or two isolated "creative moments".
Let me reiterate: obviously the idea isn't to throw complex ideas like "rigor" in the children's direction. Do refer to some of the discussions posted on our Google group for practical ideas; several members have made important contributions. I have offered suggestions elsewhere about how to approach a classroom session:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=43059787269
Through classroom sessions and its fledgling mentoring program, TII is trying to help children in the age group of 13-17 hit a threshold point of self-awareness; beyond that, those children will be in a position to start figuring things out for themselves -- although we would be glad to share our perspective with a few, hopefully over the period of a lifetime.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Suggested readings
Professor Lodis Rhodes writes:
You might be interested in the FirstMonday website, an online journal about the Internet. The articles in January issue focus on social networking applications.
A few education/learning related sources:
Patricia M. Shields:
Shields, P. M. (2004). Classical Pragmatism: Engaging Practitioner Experience. Administration Society, 36(3), 351-361. doi: 10.1177/0095399704265323.
Bennett, C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 275-294. doi: Article.
Something on Fritjof Capra's Hidden Connection...
Ecclestone, K. (1996). The reflective practitioner: Mantra or a model for... Studies in the Education of Adults, 28(2), 146. doi: Article.
You might be interested in the FirstMonday website, an online journal about the Internet. The articles in January issue focus on social networking applications.
A few education/learning related sources:
Patricia M. Shields:
Shields, P. M. (2004). Classical Pragmatism: Engaging Practitioner Experience. Administration Society, 36(3), 351-361. doi: 10.1177/0095399704265323.
Bennett, C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 275-294. doi: Article.
Something on Fritjof Capra's Hidden Connection...
Ecclestone, K. (1996). The reflective practitioner: Mantra or a model for... Studies in the Education of Adults, 28(2), 146. doi: Article.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
TII newsletter - Vol. I, Issue 1
Our membership hit four digits last week. Here's a tiny sample of the ideas that our members have jotted down over the past few months:
Facebook, networking, and social justice
"It would be naive to identify the Internet with the Enlightenment. It has the potential to diffuse knowledge beyond anything imagined by Jefferson; but while it was being constructed, link by hyperlink, commercial interests did not sit idly on the sidelines. They want to control the game, to take it over, to own it. They compete among themselves, of course, but so ferociously that they kill each other off. Their struggle for survival is leading toward an oligopoly; and whoever may win, the victory could mean a defeat for the public good."
-- Robert Darnton in "Google & the future of books"; the New York Review of Books (February 12 2009).
As Darnton observes, the Internet is not necessarily a logical extension of the Enlightenment. While there is tremendous potential, whether or not the Internet stimulates can consistently produce coherent discourse remains to be seen.
India has a peculiar relationship with the Internet; while access and usage is set to explode at exponential rates over the next couple of decades, our reading culture is taking a hit. Millions from my generation -- especially those who attended urban English medium schools -- grew up reading British children's literature. The United States has since made significant inroads into our colonial legacy. But (in my admittedly limited experience), it seems to me that fewer children of that same demographic connect with American writers such as E.B. White or Theodor Geisel -- or for that matter, those old British writers, Kipling, Wodehouse and Blyton. Indian kids today in the age group 13-17 are more likely to have caught an episode of "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" or played "Prince of Persia".
As has proven the case in many countries, Indian children's attention span is on the wane. From time to time people send me messages saying that they don't have the patience to get through the text we have put up on the Teach in India group pages. Part of this is TII's fault: we haven't yet migrated to our own website, something that could do much to make the reading experience pleasant. Instead, we are working out of our Facebook and Google group pages. But the larger point we are making is, if you don't have the inclination to read for long stretches you are likely not the sort of mentor we are looking for; after all, critical thinking requires a prolonged engagement with content.
The rule of self-selection applies: we need (in Gramsci's words) organic intellectuals, an elite group of brilliant individuals who will under no circumstance succumb to elitism.
In general, from what I have observed Facebook groups are especially successful in ramping up the rhetoric. While these groups might ultimately satisfy very different needs and gratifications, several promise much by way of words, but produce few measurable results. For instance, “Can you please take BARKHA off air!” is a popular Facebook group that has gained more than 3500 members since the terrorist attacks on Mumbai late last year. The group exists solely to excoriate Barkha Dutt, a Columbia University-trained TV journalist, who earned some criticism for her hysterical behavior on air during the army’s counter-attack, and for giving away commando and hostage positions. From the posts on the group’s wall, it is evident that users believe they are achieving something productive by drawing attention to her actions (and indeed Dutt has cited the Facebook group in her response to the criticism posted on the news channel’s website). But in practice they're only letting off a bit of steam; at worst, enjoying the entertainment.
Online networking may not be the best approach to take while launching an effort to mobilize the public. Nevertheless I am ultimately optimistic that many (if not most) of the 1000 members who have signed up for "Teach in India" are operating on the desire to actively bring about social change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
