Democratic Self

by Matthew Brunette - Wednesday, March 16, 2016, 9:44 PM

Mr. Palmer states that democracy needs the kind of self that
is "simultaneously independent and interdependent". I think that
he understands how discontinuity that position sounds right upon
saying it, as he elaborates very quickly on his meaning. He raises
the point that democracy needs minds that are independent "to
help get the ship back on course when ideological conformism
leads us astray". I ask the question then, that if this is the case,
how does that independent mind turn the ship of
ideologues around? It could be said that our current political
situation is due in large part to the conformity of a large portion of
our society, rigidly adhering to a single minded perspective as we
drive the ship further into the muck. Whose version of
independent mind will be the most correct mind to lead this
change? I look at what our candidates espouse in their rhetoric,
and I am left to feel that some of the them are the wrong
independent minds to change our country for the better.
Palmer goes on to say that the best kind of self to lead
democracy is one that does not seek identity and meaning in the
illusions of consumerism. I believe that we as Americans are
content to be lead to the economic alter and sacrificed with our
inability to break away from our rampant consumerism. From our
former president telling us that it was safe to go shopping after
9/11, which I believe was an ill-advised attempt to keep our overly
consumer driven economy from tanking. We have an economy
that is characterized by failure if it does not continue to grow, I
have no understanding of how this completely untenable situation
become the norm for our society. Everywhere you look, in every
media format we see proof that we are falling for the marketing
hook line and sinker. One only has to watch high school students
for a 10-minute period before school starts to see hundreds of
students that are more than happy to walk around with this
company or that logo emblazoned upon their clothing. I think
that Mr. Palmer would likely recognize that there is an uphill battle
to be fought in order to convince Americans that we do not the
things that we want.
I am also comfortable pointing out the hypocrisy of my
position, and I rattle these words out on a l laptop that I bought,
while listening to my headphones on an I-Phone that I really did
not need. But take heart, for I believe that it is those of us that
have not swallowed the bitter pill of consumerism that will have
the greatest impact in the coming years to help change the
political leaning of this country.
Sir Robinson would say that we are currently mass producing
students that are not creative thinkers, that will not reactive in a
creative way to solve the problems of the future. I for one sort of
agree with that notion. Are educational system being very square
peg round hole orientated, and is really not that good at getting
all kids what they need to be successful and useful citizens of the
future.
Logan LaPlante would add that our schools don't engender
kids to grow up and be happy. Confucius said long ago to choose
something that you enjoy doing, and you will never have to work
a day in your life, LaPlante would echo that sentiment I think, and
seems to be poised to make a life goal or decision in keeping with
that moral framework. Funny enough I can't say that I blame him.
I don't believe that corporate America would survive in the same
fashion if all people said that they wanted to be happy at
work...but then maybe it would continue on unchanged too.
There are all kinds of people in this world, and we all have unique
skills, talents, and notions, that have a place in our society
(generally speaking here), and could be used to help mankind.
Wheatley inspires me to learn to teach tenacity and
resilience to my children as well as my students. I gleaned this
notion as she discussed how life wants to happen in spite of all
odds, from bacteria that have become antibiotic resistant, to
insects that have adapted to be pesticide resistant. Think of the
metaphor for life, if we could instill that sense of overcoming odds
into our student body? The message is clear, no obstacle shall
stand in the way, no wall to high etc., etc. It sounds campy, and
trite, but we need to teach and inspire our young to rise above
the things holding them down to inspire and push for more
change. I feel that the world will not be changed by our young
people that are content to stare at their phones as they walk
happily down the sidewalk playing a stupid game. Our world will
be changed by people that are not afraid of discontent, and will
not settle for their personal best. I think that these two examples
can be the same kids, and probably are.
I see students warts and all, but I don't often see the
fantastic thinking that goes on, or the shining example of a kid
changing the world around them. And I think that this is the
message about my responsibility as well. It is my responsibility to
foster creative, and divergent thinking, as much as I can. I am
limited to be sure about many facets of my job, but I can push
students to find creative solutions to common problems, and help
make the world a better place. I will not make the claim that I do
a great job of this...but I certainly encourage students to think
their way through situations, to piece to together the larger
picture, and use the evidence at hand to make a logical
conclusion about the world around them.
I have seen hundreds of TED talks, and I will very often pull
one out when I have several minutes of downtime in my class.
My point with this is always to help enlarge my students world
view. ######## is a small town, many of my students will
likely not leave the United States, and will probably not see what
happens in the rest of the world, or see how fortunate we are in
this country. Usually I try to target something that will make them
think about a different way to do something, a different place, or
a different way to be.
I think that the most intriguing one that I recall was one
about a college inventor, who figured out that it was possible to
make an all-terrain wheel chair, for under $200, out of commonly
available inexpensive bicycle parts. I will always remember
student responses to that.... several were flabbergasted that
would be a product that would be needed, assuming that the
whole world had sidewalks and elevators for handicapped people
to use.
The one that I was personally most taken with was one by a
gentleman named Hugh Herr, talking about bionic limbs for
people. He showed mountain climbers, dancers, and runners,
taking their lives back, and doing what they formally could not do.
It is an amazing testament for my students to witness that
engineering made that possible for those people, and they too
could have an impact in the lives of others if they saw fit to do so.