Ryan Griffis on Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:13:20 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> RE: discontents and such |
someone wrote "Now that I look back at my teachers I realise at best they were links and linkers. And that is the most a teacher as far as I am concerned should strive for - to offer many and various links to information, to offer many and various possible interpretations of information, and tools for interpretation, and questions, and doubts, and a place (classroom) where all that and more can be tested and confronted. The teacher should, IMO, in a way, maybe, be just an older student, who has spent more time on a project and so can help along someone who is only starting." i have to say that i like this... as a teacher (and, not long ago, former student) this is the comment i can relate to the most. it doesn't shirk the responsibility of teaching, but makes learning more of a relationship - which it is. at any rate, Nato's response naming "leftist intellectuals" and Kermit's response to that, i think, make some headway (maybe). the "leftist" portion is important, because it is political, even if the naming can be abused. what if "intellectual" was replaced with "autonomous citizen"? are we talking about educating "autonomous citizens" with specific political tendencies (previously termed "intellectual")? if so, that's great - it forces us to think of how our actions are inherently political (by which i mean have an impact on the material lives of others - a relationship). but it also brings up an old dilemma - political censorship. but if the arguments can be made explicitly political (i.e. how does this or that policy effect someone's autonomy/well being), at least the politics could be out in the open, as opposed to talking about the (educational) market as an autonomous entity, or "collateral damage" for that matter, which only hides the dominant political system. as for the anti/intellectualism of the US, has it not always been run by "intellectuals behind the stage?" Are not Edward Bernays and Michael Huntington considered intellectuals (and liberals at that), with their "the problem with democracy is an excess of democracy" rhetoric? again, the term "intellectual seems meaningless - it's the politics that count. in terms of new media, and providing the service of learning to those that have to "compete" in the market - there are obviously inequities in the US "meritocracy" that have to be addressed, the "digital divide" may be highly flawed way of thinking about this, but these are (in)visible borders that exist in education, which if dealt with politically could change the nature of education (and the "market") in an interesting way. and what about Fromm's universal minimum income... ryan __________________________________ # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net