Student-teaching my last semester under the Barnard Education Program has thrown into crisis my ideas of what a high school education is or should be. Teaching 9th grade Writing and 12th grade Government at the Bronx school of Law & Finance, I experienced a radically different school community and culture from what I was used to growing up under a suburban Texas school system. Given full-reign for my own curriculum planning, I was faced with a set of ideological, political, social, and cultural challenges that centered around deep reflection of what the purpose of education should be, what type of knowledge is needed for my students, how curriculum can be tailored to students’ academic as well as cultural backgrounds, and ultimately, what my responsibilities as an educator entail. These questions remain difficult and open-ended to me, questions I’d like to, need to, explore further for myself professionally as a teacher, and personally, as a human being.
Growing up in an upper middle-class suburb of a predominately White and Asian community, I attended one of the top public schools in the district. My high school English curriculum centered around reading canonical texts, all British and American classics that can be humorously categorized as Dead White Male literature. The pre-AP and AP English classes I was in prepared me well to critically analyze, think, and write. Middle school gave me quality and quantity of reading and vocabulary that prepared me for high school; high school gave me a working cultural knowledge of English literature, sophistication of syntax, and expository writing that further pushed my critical thinking abilities. Both have prepared me well for college reading and writing. Both were crucial to my academic success.
Fast-forward to this semester: as I’m choosing texts for my 9th grade writing class, I find that the canon of texts I’ve been schooled in draws blank stares from the students. Not only is the reading level difficult (and often, style antiquated), but also, to them, the literature is personally irrelevant and distant from their lives. I began to question what the purpose of a high school English education is. On a practical level, it’s for literacy and college preparation; but on a personal, cultural level, it’s a whole different story. Practical literacy can be achieved with many types of readings; the curricular texts chosen are for a more subtle purpose: cultural literacy and cultural capital.
Whose culture is it anyway? Having my predominantly Spanish-speaking, working class students be so disconnected with mainstream American culture, and even more from academia, has challenged me to find texts and lessons that can motivate and move them, and what works are stories closer to their own lives. I began to teach poetry and essays written by award-winning student writers who come from rough neighborhoods like theirs. I myself, for the first time, began to explore extensively Latino and African-American literature, texts I’ve rarely come across in high school and college. Students responded enthusiastically to Junot Diaz and Sapphire; we listened to and read the lyrics of Nina Simone and Tupac. I found points and themes of interest (hip-hop, violence, racial issues, gender, machismo) that can be used as doorways into teaching literary expression, writing styles, and narrative structure. I prioritized relevancy first, because these are students who are suspicious and cautious of the power of the white culture industry. I wanted them to realize that their own culture is important and valued, but at the same time, I want them to be able to see the problems of their own culture. Likewise, I wanted them to see the accomplishments of ‘white’ America, but also know its limitations.
My philosophy on an English, History, and Liberal Arts education is a fusion of my own schooling background and my recent experiences as a student-teacher. I found that each socio-economic and racial community, in general, sticks to itself in terms of culture, texts, histories, and stories emphasized. To a certain extent, this fosters cultural pride, confidence, and in-group cohesion. However, this type of narrowing of curriculum also holds the consequences of myopia, and to a certain degree, Essentializing and Otherizing. The upper-middle class community I grew up with lived in a cultural bubble not unlike the working class minority community my current students are a part of. The texts chosen and the themes explored go more into depth about the culture the students live in, but leave out the lives and cultures of others outside of the community bubble. Books like The Catcher In The Rye resonate well with my own high school, but prove hard to relate to (and have been made fun of by) students I teach. I currently struggle with the goal of having different communities learn about each other for a greater understanding and tolerance, but how to reach that understanding when students come from such different worlds?
These are the types of questions I’d like to explore through the Philosophy and Education program. Education should ideally lead to a greater, deeper understanding of the world and its people, the self and others, and finally be the catalyst for social change. I’ve begun my theoretical exploration of Education through the Barnard Education Program, one geared towards social justice, mutli-culturalism and constructivist teaching. Social justice to me means teaching how to critically and reflectively think about power dynamics, inequities, and more importantly, how to change such systemic failings. A multi-cultural education not only means introducing minority texts into the classroom, but also teaching the Canon through a critical and historical lens. Finally, educating through a constructivist lens is to create a democratic classroom in which teachers can learn from students as well; it’s a classroom in which students actively take steps in pursuing their own knowledge to generate deeper, more thoughtful ways of learning rather than regurgitation.
I am deeply interested in the interdisciplinary because fields in the Liberal Arts all connect to each other in fundamental ways of insight. Majoring in English and History and minoring in Psychology and Education, I’ve come to draw connections between themes I otherwise wouldn’t have seen in just one field (For example, all cultures Otherize in order to create in-group cohesion but to the detriment of others. Can Otherizing ever be stopped or is this natural process needed for progress?) The father of all liberal arts branches is Philosophy, a discipline that holds the origins of all the subsequent branches that have stemmed out under its wings. Although I do not have extensive experience in the academic discipline itself, studying under the Columbia Core program (under the course Contemporary Civilizations) has exposed me to the important texts of philosophical thought. My interest in this program stems from both a strong interest in furthering my own philosophical education as well as exploring historical and contemporary views on Education from a Liberal Arts trajectory. I want to learn and reflect on the theoretical grounds for Education so I can begin to ground my own career as an educator with a more coherent personal and political philosophy. This program will provide me with the theoretical backbone to further my career as a reflective and responsible educator.
Showing posts with label reflections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reflections. Show all posts
Monday, June 20, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
Stanford intellectual interest essay
The topic was to describe an intellectual interest, how I went about pursuing it, and why the MLA program will help.
A captivating theme that has emerged from my undergraduate studies of English, History, Education, and Psychology is the idea of essentialism. Historian Edward Said calls it Orientalism, a process in which the West deliberately essentializes the East as being traditional, exotic, backwards, in order to set itself apart as progressive, liberal, and cultured. It is a process in which the proud definition of a cohesive self and nation emerges only after and because of the deliberate exclusion of others. ‘Otherizing,’ the alternative word historians use, can be seen in all societies across time. Religious wars, gender politics, race issues, the Other is crucial to the creation of the Self. Essentialism has propelled societies forward by competition (new war technologies, philosophical debates, cultural dissemination), but it has also influenced major atrocities (Holocaust, colonial superiority, female oppression). Still highly relevant today, the question remains how we can reap its progressive benefits without falling for its consequences.
In history classes, I’ve discovered this problem over and over again, a human trend that has helped as well as hindered societal progress. Nazi Germany promised Aryan purity and economic rebuilding by scapegoating the Jews for everything that went wrong. By hijacking peoples’ innate fear of difference and change, Hitler united people on a platform of essentialism. In my Chinese Cultural Revolution class, Mao triumphed the soldiers, farmers, and workers at the expense of the intellectuals and the bourgeoisie. Progress was made in terms of valuing the proletariat but to the detriment of others.
In literature, Postmodern and Post-colonial voices try to deconstruct the monolithic narrative of the infallibility of Western, white society. Post-colonial authors use their regional language to restore battered cultures while Postmodern authors write non-linear narratives from the subaltern point of view. The dangers of a singular narrative has led to the warring destruction of Europe, existentialism, and societal implosion; authors began to construct multiple narratives and voices to reflect a multi-faceted reality.
Psychology tells us that people naturally attribute others’ behaviors as part of their intrinsic personality while they see one’s own behavior as situational. Also, stereotyping is useful as a cognitive shortcut to foster in-group cohesion and be wary of out groups. In other words, essentializing comes naturally and was/is an evolutionary advantage. However, in a contemporary, swiftly-globalizing society, is this advantage doing more harm than good? Essentialism may be the main obstacle to tolerance and understanding.
In Education, the debate is whether teachers should utilize essentialism for teaching or try to get rid of it all together. For example, statistics show that teaching African-American lit to urban black youths is more effective for student motivation and technical learning than Western Canonical lit. Should curriculum be tailored to a specific group of students? What are the benefits of teaching all black literature versus the Dead White Males? And in turn, what are its ramifications? Is the Canon still relevant and valuable?
Studying the liberal arts has helped me begin to peel open the layers of essentialist ideologies, expose the roots of its power, and see the construction of the modern world, and man, as a confluence of psychological, historical, and cultural factors that are ever-evolving and fluid. Four years of college has left me more thirsty than quenched for a greater understanding of the world and its people. Powerful ideas such as essentialism not only impact the way I understand society but also make me want to find ways to change it for the better. My career as a high school educator demands intellectual ability, a deep understanding and care of people, and a promise to teach as close to the truth as possible. Stanford’s MLA program, with its interdisciplinary approach, will help me continue on the path of self and societal exploration,for truth, and humanity. In turn, I hope to use that knowledge and wisdom to lead a better life for myself and for others.
A captivating theme that has emerged from my undergraduate studies of English, History, Education, and Psychology is the idea of essentialism. Historian Edward Said calls it Orientalism, a process in which the West deliberately essentializes the East as being traditional, exotic, backwards, in order to set itself apart as progressive, liberal, and cultured. It is a process in which the proud definition of a cohesive self and nation emerges only after and because of the deliberate exclusion of others. ‘Otherizing,’ the alternative word historians use, can be seen in all societies across time. Religious wars, gender politics, race issues, the Other is crucial to the creation of the Self. Essentialism has propelled societies forward by competition (new war technologies, philosophical debates, cultural dissemination), but it has also influenced major atrocities (Holocaust, colonial superiority, female oppression). Still highly relevant today, the question remains how we can reap its progressive benefits without falling for its consequences.
In history classes, I’ve discovered this problem over and over again, a human trend that has helped as well as hindered societal progress. Nazi Germany promised Aryan purity and economic rebuilding by scapegoating the Jews for everything that went wrong. By hijacking peoples’ innate fear of difference and change, Hitler united people on a platform of essentialism. In my Chinese Cultural Revolution class, Mao triumphed the soldiers, farmers, and workers at the expense of the intellectuals and the bourgeoisie. Progress was made in terms of valuing the proletariat but to the detriment of others.
In literature, Postmodern and Post-colonial voices try to deconstruct the monolithic narrative of the infallibility of Western, white society. Post-colonial authors use their regional language to restore battered cultures while Postmodern authors write non-linear narratives from the subaltern point of view. The dangers of a singular narrative has led to the warring destruction of Europe, existentialism, and societal implosion; authors began to construct multiple narratives and voices to reflect a multi-faceted reality.
Psychology tells us that people naturally attribute others’ behaviors as part of their intrinsic personality while they see one’s own behavior as situational. Also, stereotyping is useful as a cognitive shortcut to foster in-group cohesion and be wary of out groups. In other words, essentializing comes naturally and was/is an evolutionary advantage. However, in a contemporary, swiftly-globalizing society, is this advantage doing more harm than good? Essentialism may be the main obstacle to tolerance and understanding.
In Education, the debate is whether teachers should utilize essentialism for teaching or try to get rid of it all together. For example, statistics show that teaching African-American lit to urban black youths is more effective for student motivation and technical learning than Western Canonical lit. Should curriculum be tailored to a specific group of students? What are the benefits of teaching all black literature versus the Dead White Males? And in turn, what are its ramifications? Is the Canon still relevant and valuable?
Studying the liberal arts has helped me begin to peel open the layers of essentialist ideologies, expose the roots of its power, and see the construction of the modern world, and man, as a confluence of psychological, historical, and cultural factors that are ever-evolving and fluid. Four years of college has left me more thirsty than quenched for a greater understanding of the world and its people. Powerful ideas such as essentialism not only impact the way I understand society but also make me want to find ways to change it for the better. My career as a high school educator demands intellectual ability, a deep understanding and care of people, and a promise to teach as close to the truth as possible. Stanford’s MLA program, with its interdisciplinary approach, will help me continue on the path of self and societal exploration,for truth, and humanity. In turn, I hope to use that knowledge and wisdom to lead a better life for myself and for others.
Monday, January 3, 2011
curriculum changes
I wrote this reflective paper for my ed class. Thought it was pretty important for my own philosophy of teaching I'm planning for this semester.
Tutoring for Double Discovery for a semester really got me to think about the purpose of an English education. Double Discovery is an after-school program that caters to low-income, first-generation college bound students. I worked with high schoolers twice a week on various subjects. I will focus my paper on the subject of English, because that is what I’m most interested in. Basically, working with these students posed several challenges I’m still grappling with today.
One instance I remember very clearly was when I helped a girl with reading and explaining The Odyssey. I could tell she was deathly bored of the text, and every other sentence, she would be lost on the mythical allusions. I tried to explain to her what it all meant—Dawn, Poseidon, Hermes…etc but it just made her dislike the text even more. I read out loud to her, thinking it’ll at least get her to follow along instead of just giving up. Later, she just flat-out asked me why she has to read such a boring irrelevant text. At that point, I didn’t know the correct and non-complicated way to answer her, so I said something like it’s valued in our culture as a great text and we should explore why that is.
Anyhow, there wasn’t a way I could make the Odyssey fun in that setting, so we just trudged along. She knew she should read it for homework, so that obligation saw her through. However, I’m left with the question of curriculum selection, how to get students to be enthusiastic, or how to explain to them why a text is important even if it seems as greatly removed from their lives as ancient Greek society and contemporary African-American youth culture.
Another day, I got to select which poems I wanted these two students to read, so we all read Maya Angelou. The poem had metaphors about slavery, rising up, courage…etc and they were really into it. They immediately understood the richness of metaphor and correctly analyzed tone and mood. Most importantly, they were into it! Then, I chose another poem, this time Shakespeare, and their enthusiasm completely flopped. It was an important one too---All the world’s a stage---but they couldn’t get passed the funny language and ancientness of Shakespeare. We stumbled on all the words and didn’t even get to explore the themes, which they might have been into, if it was written another way. So I’m left with the conclusion that students will more easily embrace relevant literature to their lives, or their culture, and that literature should be in a language they can understand (which is usually less florid, arcane, and more straight-forward, concise)
My conclusion may seem obvious/like common sense; people (not just students) tend to read what speaks to them, and that varies by culture, life-stage, environment…etc. However, this is a big problem for deciding what texts to teach, which has further implications on what the ultimate goal of high school education is. On the one hand, teaching students contemporary, teen, culture-specific texts can elicit enthusiasm and thus greater in-depth literary lessons, faster and perhaps better learning, On the other, however, it does not prepare them for the rigors of AP, SATs, college curriculums, which are dominated by canonical texts, old and white, or written in scholarly or many different types of literary language styles. Some may argue that the skills learned when teaching contemporary/teen/culturally-specific texts translates over to other texts, but I definitely think that’s not true in terms of literature. No amount of anything can translate to students knowing how to read Shakespeare, Dickens, Joyce, Woolf, Austen except reading more of Shakespeare, Dickens Joyce, Woolf, and Austen. However these are the authors that are really tough to get through, boring to most students when first introduced, and without enthusiasm, will be even a harder feat.
A guest speaker at Columbia did Teach for America and now teaches in a predominately African-American high school in the Lower East Side. His students rebelled against all Dead, White, Male literature; only when he tailored his whole year’s curriculum to African-American literature, the students began to be interested. I actually found this example extremely disheartening because teaching all anything furthers the gap between races/class, otherizing, as middle class white kids read their DWM, lower class African American kids are reading their civil rights, slavery, oppression-themed black literature (and what happened to Latino lit, or Asian-American, or global/world lit?). There definitely needs to be a curriculum reform in each camp (of course my examples are extreme, but these are real cases---I came from a school that read literally all DWMs). After reading some of students’ own relevant literatures, curriculum should move on to challenge students to read ‘other’ literatures, not as immediately relevant, but when dived into its depth, show universal human nature and truths nonetheless.
Schools with all DWM lit need to get some contemporary, teen, and multi-cultural texts in. This will help expand their lives to see how others live/have lived in the real world, a world usually outside of their sheltered bubbles, but a world crucial for exposure because exposure is the first path to tolerance and compassion. Schools that are catering most curriculum to ‘ethnic’ teen or contemporary literature need to know that although it’s effective for the short-term, a lack of exposure to the Western canon will limit students academically and culturally in the end. There are many complex reasons why the Canon is the way it is, but no one will deny that it is power and cultural capital. Social justice and activism in its most effective form requires a deep understanding of the status quo, of what is in power and why, and then use that knowledge to rally for change if need be. Ideally (but not for each specific case), a slight majority of texts (maybe 60-70%) should still be canonical (which doesn’t mean they’re not subversive) and the rest should address ethnic, global, teen, and contemporary literatures. As far as interest and how to explain to students why such a system of literature is important, this exact explanation as I’ve given here should be used; students need to be exposed to the battles for power, idea of cultural capital, social justice, and literature’s role in society. This kind of conversation will help them take part in the debate of curriculum by seeing its inner workings rather than be outside of it.
Tutoring for Double Discovery for a semester really got me to think about the purpose of an English education. Double Discovery is an after-school program that caters to low-income, first-generation college bound students. I worked with high schoolers twice a week on various subjects. I will focus my paper on the subject of English, because that is what I’m most interested in. Basically, working with these students posed several challenges I’m still grappling with today.
One instance I remember very clearly was when I helped a girl with reading and explaining The Odyssey. I could tell she was deathly bored of the text, and every other sentence, she would be lost on the mythical allusions. I tried to explain to her what it all meant—Dawn, Poseidon, Hermes…etc but it just made her dislike the text even more. I read out loud to her, thinking it’ll at least get her to follow along instead of just giving up. Later, she just flat-out asked me why she has to read such a boring irrelevant text. At that point, I didn’t know the correct and non-complicated way to answer her, so I said something like it’s valued in our culture as a great text and we should explore why that is.
Anyhow, there wasn’t a way I could make the Odyssey fun in that setting, so we just trudged along. She knew she should read it for homework, so that obligation saw her through. However, I’m left with the question of curriculum selection, how to get students to be enthusiastic, or how to explain to them why a text is important even if it seems as greatly removed from their lives as ancient Greek society and contemporary African-American youth culture.
Another day, I got to select which poems I wanted these two students to read, so we all read Maya Angelou. The poem had metaphors about slavery, rising up, courage…etc and they were really into it. They immediately understood the richness of metaphor and correctly analyzed tone and mood. Most importantly, they were into it! Then, I chose another poem, this time Shakespeare, and their enthusiasm completely flopped. It was an important one too---All the world’s a stage---but they couldn’t get passed the funny language and ancientness of Shakespeare. We stumbled on all the words and didn’t even get to explore the themes, which they might have been into, if it was written another way. So I’m left with the conclusion that students will more easily embrace relevant literature to their lives, or their culture, and that literature should be in a language they can understand (which is usually less florid, arcane, and more straight-forward, concise)
My conclusion may seem obvious/like common sense; people (not just students) tend to read what speaks to them, and that varies by culture, life-stage, environment…etc. However, this is a big problem for deciding what texts to teach, which has further implications on what the ultimate goal of high school education is. On the one hand, teaching students contemporary, teen, culture-specific texts can elicit enthusiasm and thus greater in-depth literary lessons, faster and perhaps better learning, On the other, however, it does not prepare them for the rigors of AP, SATs, college curriculums, which are dominated by canonical texts, old and white, or written in scholarly or many different types of literary language styles. Some may argue that the skills learned when teaching contemporary/teen/culturally-specific texts translates over to other texts, but I definitely think that’s not true in terms of literature. No amount of anything can translate to students knowing how to read Shakespeare, Dickens, Joyce, Woolf, Austen except reading more of Shakespeare, Dickens Joyce, Woolf, and Austen. However these are the authors that are really tough to get through, boring to most students when first introduced, and without enthusiasm, will be even a harder feat.
A guest speaker at Columbia did Teach for America and now teaches in a predominately African-American high school in the Lower East Side. His students rebelled against all Dead, White, Male literature; only when he tailored his whole year’s curriculum to African-American literature, the students began to be interested. I actually found this example extremely disheartening because teaching all anything furthers the gap between races/class, otherizing, as middle class white kids read their DWM, lower class African American kids are reading their civil rights, slavery, oppression-themed black literature (and what happened to Latino lit, or Asian-American, or global/world lit?). There definitely needs to be a curriculum reform in each camp (of course my examples are extreme, but these are real cases---I came from a school that read literally all DWMs). After reading some of students’ own relevant literatures, curriculum should move on to challenge students to read ‘other’ literatures, not as immediately relevant, but when dived into its depth, show universal human nature and truths nonetheless.
Schools with all DWM lit need to get some contemporary, teen, and multi-cultural texts in. This will help expand their lives to see how others live/have lived in the real world, a world usually outside of their sheltered bubbles, but a world crucial for exposure because exposure is the first path to tolerance and compassion. Schools that are catering most curriculum to ‘ethnic’ teen or contemporary literature need to know that although it’s effective for the short-term, a lack of exposure to the Western canon will limit students academically and culturally in the end. There are many complex reasons why the Canon is the way it is, but no one will deny that it is power and cultural capital. Social justice and activism in its most effective form requires a deep understanding of the status quo, of what is in power and why, and then use that knowledge to rally for change if need be. Ideally (but not for each specific case), a slight majority of texts (maybe 60-70%) should still be canonical (which doesn’t mean they’re not subversive) and the rest should address ethnic, global, teen, and contemporary literatures. As far as interest and how to explain to students why such a system of literature is important, this exact explanation as I’ve given here should be used; students need to be exposed to the battles for power, idea of cultural capital, social justice, and literature’s role in society. This kind of conversation will help them take part in the debate of curriculum by seeing its inner workings rather than be outside of it.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Changes since high school
I've been dwelling lately on how much I've changed since high school.
I was thinking about the extent of how elastic personality can be, and I remember during my teenage years, I always thought everything can be written over and changed by sheer habituation (that's my parents view of child personality as well, to my discomfort). I used to see myself as so elastic to the point where personality was just a hat to try on and take off. Now I realize that it's because high school never allowed me reflection space or physical space to just grow and experiment. My parents' external force of focusing on school...etc and my drive to just get out of their life was too great for me to ever have considered what I would naturally be inclined to do. It's like forcing myself to go through all those god-damn science classes; by the end of high school, I still thought I could acclimate to the idea of becoming a doctor and liking it.
I felt so invincible then. The whole world of options was open and mine for the taking if I just tried hard enough. In college, I learned that that's not true; there are way more many factors that go into shaping a future life besides just trying hard. What really changed was college and space away from past friends and damaging family to finally finally give me my own breathing, thinking, living space. College, for me, was not as stressful as high school. The work load, although more, feels like play because I love what I'm learning. When I think back on the past few years here, I realized that the most important thing college has offered me was the time, and tools, to think about my own life. Humanities, especially non-grad school oriented humanities, is comparatively non-stressful and sometimes quite relaxing; classes and their knowledge have offered me the tools to think about my life through different lens: the historical, the cultural, the psychological. My own room, my own space, and staying up late at night to just think about myself, have finally paved way for a more natural, spontaneous flow of personality to take charge of my life instead of anything externally imposed.
From my own actions the past four years, I know I'm more of an observer than a doer. I take pleasure from being slightly off-center and being able to view and analyze action with a cooler perspective. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy the headiness of hot-headed action once in a while, but for the most part, yeah, I don't. I'm more and more turned off by any kind of social event beyond my close and dear relationships--and I haven't really found other people like me in this regards, which sometimes makes me question myself about being so abnormal about 'friendships'. I'm low-energied but highly organized. and I plan plan plan and get the utmost personal satisfaction by fulfilling my plans bit by bit (seriously, checking off my to-do list makes me smile bc I've accomplished what I've set out to do).
I have no sense of career ambition at all, except to hope that I find something that I can enjoy doing and learn from, but whatever that is, I know it's not as satisfying as my own little world of cultivating knowledge and hobbies and relationships with loved ones. Sadly, a career/job will always be second-best in terms of personal fulfillment. And I'm currently grappling with the ramifications of such a realization. I used to put all my happiness in searching for a perfect career, thinking that it will fulfill me in many aspects; but I know now that those aspects that I need fulfillment from: a sense of accomplishment, feeling loved, feeling needed, social interaction, meaningful work...can all be, and have been found, in other venues of my life. Where does that leave my job? It's sadly going to be second best no matter what...
I have a lot of interests (cooking, movies, fashion, home decor) but I'm against doing anything in the real world with them. It just feels wrong to subject such ideal hobbies and pleasures to the test and ultimate disillusionment of reality. So no, I won't become a cook or a writer or a scholar or a magazine editor or interior designer. Each field has its own practical real-world drawbacks and I don't want anything to taint my idealized world of pursuing these hobbies.
I'm out to make a self-imposed cozy hole that's getting smaller and smaller and more concrete. I want my own little universe full of love and little pleasures and contentment that nothing in the ever-changing, ever-challenging outside world can ever get in. I want to shut the world out and only let in what I want to let in.
And it doesn't get old. I've always wondered if I'd get bored with my little world or my hobbies or my small group of relations but it hasn't yet. I rejoice each day as I come back home because that's where I feel the most comfortable and relaxed. It's being at one with my environment to the point where I can melt into my bed and my beautiful curtains and my everyday cooking and coffeetable books; they are me, and I can be found in them. Every other public environment requires a certain formality or mask of tact that I'm just so tired of doning.
Anyway, I kinda just wanted to spell out for myself all these changes since high school. All that angst and energy have been released already through senior year of high school and early college. Now I'm a lazy-hazy homebody and lovin' it. I also would have never thought I'd like cooking that much either....but it's given me such joy!
I know myself better because NYC has been there for me. I'm the type of person to stay in and watch TV instead of going out into arguably the most vibrant, pulsing city in the world where all the energy and people are. Instead, I dream of the subsurbs and a nice neighborhood to take walks in at dusk. I used to question myself, like what's my problem when all the other people my age are still so energized...but now I see that it's finally the proof that my personality is no longer that elastic anymore--I've more or less discovered myself and I'm actively shutting out other possibilities of change.
I was thinking about the extent of how elastic personality can be, and I remember during my teenage years, I always thought everything can be written over and changed by sheer habituation (that's my parents view of child personality as well, to my discomfort). I used to see myself as so elastic to the point where personality was just a hat to try on and take off. Now I realize that it's because high school never allowed me reflection space or physical space to just grow and experiment. My parents' external force of focusing on school...etc and my drive to just get out of their life was too great for me to ever have considered what I would naturally be inclined to do. It's like forcing myself to go through all those god-damn science classes; by the end of high school, I still thought I could acclimate to the idea of becoming a doctor and liking it.
I felt so invincible then. The whole world of options was open and mine for the taking if I just tried hard enough. In college, I learned that that's not true; there are way more many factors that go into shaping a future life besides just trying hard. What really changed was college and space away from past friends and damaging family to finally finally give me my own breathing, thinking, living space. College, for me, was not as stressful as high school. The work load, although more, feels like play because I love what I'm learning. When I think back on the past few years here, I realized that the most important thing college has offered me was the time, and tools, to think about my own life. Humanities, especially non-grad school oriented humanities, is comparatively non-stressful and sometimes quite relaxing; classes and their knowledge have offered me the tools to think about my life through different lens: the historical, the cultural, the psychological. My own room, my own space, and staying up late at night to just think about myself, have finally paved way for a more natural, spontaneous flow of personality to take charge of my life instead of anything externally imposed.
From my own actions the past four years, I know I'm more of an observer than a doer. I take pleasure from being slightly off-center and being able to view and analyze action with a cooler perspective. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy the headiness of hot-headed action once in a while, but for the most part, yeah, I don't. I'm more and more turned off by any kind of social event beyond my close and dear relationships--and I haven't really found other people like me in this regards, which sometimes makes me question myself about being so abnormal about 'friendships'. I'm low-energied but highly organized. and I plan plan plan and get the utmost personal satisfaction by fulfilling my plans bit by bit (seriously, checking off my to-do list makes me smile bc I've accomplished what I've set out to do).
I have no sense of career ambition at all, except to hope that I find something that I can enjoy doing and learn from, but whatever that is, I know it's not as satisfying as my own little world of cultivating knowledge and hobbies and relationships with loved ones. Sadly, a career/job will always be second-best in terms of personal fulfillment. And I'm currently grappling with the ramifications of such a realization. I used to put all my happiness in searching for a perfect career, thinking that it will fulfill me in many aspects; but I know now that those aspects that I need fulfillment from: a sense of accomplishment, feeling loved, feeling needed, social interaction, meaningful work...can all be, and have been found, in other venues of my life. Where does that leave my job? It's sadly going to be second best no matter what...
I have a lot of interests (cooking, movies, fashion, home decor) but I'm against doing anything in the real world with them. It just feels wrong to subject such ideal hobbies and pleasures to the test and ultimate disillusionment of reality. So no, I won't become a cook or a writer or a scholar or a magazine editor or interior designer. Each field has its own practical real-world drawbacks and I don't want anything to taint my idealized world of pursuing these hobbies.
I'm out to make a self-imposed cozy hole that's getting smaller and smaller and more concrete. I want my own little universe full of love and little pleasures and contentment that nothing in the ever-changing, ever-challenging outside world can ever get in. I want to shut the world out and only let in what I want to let in.
And it doesn't get old. I've always wondered if I'd get bored with my little world or my hobbies or my small group of relations but it hasn't yet. I rejoice each day as I come back home because that's where I feel the most comfortable and relaxed. It's being at one with my environment to the point where I can melt into my bed and my beautiful curtains and my everyday cooking and coffeetable books; they are me, and I can be found in them. Every other public environment requires a certain formality or mask of tact that I'm just so tired of doning.
Anyway, I kinda just wanted to spell out for myself all these changes since high school. All that angst and energy have been released already through senior year of high school and early college. Now I'm a lazy-hazy homebody and lovin' it. I also would have never thought I'd like cooking that much either....but it's given me such joy!
I know myself better because NYC has been there for me. I'm the type of person to stay in and watch TV instead of going out into arguably the most vibrant, pulsing city in the world where all the energy and people are. Instead, I dream of the subsurbs and a nice neighborhood to take walks in at dusk. I used to question myself, like what's my problem when all the other people my age are still so energized...but now I see that it's finally the proof that my personality is no longer that elastic anymore--I've more or less discovered myself and I'm actively shutting out other possibilities of change.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Mystique demythified
I just finished reading The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan today for my Feminine Text class next semester. I've heard about this book for a while but was really surprised to see how genuinely relevant it is for people, not just women, even today. It's about the "problem that has no name," namely, that 50s housewives seep into depression because they have never had the chance to develop as individuals and max out their potential human capacities. Trapped in a world of monotonous, mundane activities, housewives did not have any creative outlet to identify themselves as autonomous beings, which further made them latch on to being so-and-so's mother or so-and-so's wife. A lack of personal identity stunts personal growth, purposeful life direction, and creates a vacuum of a mind only to be frittered away at excessive cleaning and bridge games.
Friedan's solution is education and work, both crucial to the process of self-formation. This idea of work as identity-creation is echoed from Marx to current psychological research on the benefits of finding flow (that feeling of heightened engagement and attention when working on something and getting lost in it). Finding interesting, challenging activities that utilize as much of a person's mental and creative capacity as possible is the best way to start people on the path of individualism. These are activities that are built upon years of cultivation and knowledge, that extend to a wide array of possibilities future achievement and enrichment. It makes me think about how lucky I am to have cultivated since teenhood many activities/intellectual revenues to pursue for later life. Education has definitely sharpened my knowledge and interest for everything liberal arts while beautiful things like food, style, and relationships have always been in my life and will continue to be.
My only problem with Friedan is that she proposes women to embrace only one ability in depth---devote their lives to it and contribute back to society. As grand as that sounds, I feel like some of it is unnaturally human (who's curious about just one thing??) and just the cogs of capitalism churning out vertically-driven knowledge rather than valuing anything horizonal. Capitalism efficiency is at its best when you call a company and realize people only know one niche of their own department and have no idea what other departments/the greater company is about---it's a pain to be transferred on the phone a gazillion times. I wonder what Marx would say about this...how pigeonholed nicheing of knowledge and ability damages individual capacity for humanness/greater understanding in the long run. People may not be alienated from their work, but they are alienated from what's going on in the world besides their work.
I can't choose which single interest to pursue! And even if I did, it's at the cost of all the other things I could be learning/achieving/exploring. I hope that dedicating my life to relative breadth of knowledge and not intense depth will still be as rewarding, because that's what I'm intending to do, and so far it's working. Plus, breadth and a cross-disciplinary education offer something vertically driven exploration doesn't: that's the breathtaking beauty of seeing the bigger picture, with all the senses.
P.S. Friedan based her argument on several premises that still can be debatable.
1. It's mostly due to men's insisting that women are relegated to the home and not interested in greater societal work/politics.
2. WWII men came home yearning for soft femininity and homeliness, which was the primary factor in the conservative backlash of bringing women back into the home in the 50s. In the interwar period, women were actually much more liberated, working men's jobs, smoking, flappers, the New Woman...etc
3. The Family and Home are not enough for any human being---they have to have greater work within society for self-actualization.
4. Work is the most rewarding when it's valued by society (i.e. paid for)
5. Greater sexual satisfaction is contingent upon greater individual identity and freedom (she cites the Kinsey report, which shows statistically how womens' reported orgasms increased with more education and independent work?!)
What do you think about her premises?
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Too fast, Too soon
Here is one of the most relevant poems to my life right now:
Black Oaks by Mary Oliver
Okay, not one can write a symphony, or a dictionary,
or even a letter to an old friend, full of remembrance
and comfort.
Not one can manage a single sound though the blue jays
carp and whistle all day in the branches, without
the push of the wind.
But to tell the truth after a while I'm pale with longing
for their thick bodies ruckled with lichen
and you can't keep me from the woods, from the tonnage
of their shoulders, and their shining green hair.
Today is a day like any other: twenty-four hours, a
little sunshine, a little rain.
Listen, says ambition, nervously shifting her weight from
one boot to another -- why don't you get going?
For there I am, in the mossy shadows, under the trees.
And to tell the truth I don't want to let go of the wrists
of idleness, I don't want to sell my life for money,
I don't even want to come in out of the rain.
As midsummer hits and half of this precious summer session coming to a close, I inevitably go through small fissures of freak-outs about how fast the days are slipping by. College, the best years of my life, is coming to a close, especially not including senior year's last semester where I'd have to student teach. The ability to just soak in knowledge for interest's sake is slowly waning and LIFE with its obligations start peeking pestily through the Venetian blinds of my idealist retreat of a room. I'm not ready to give up a life of luxuriating in ideas, ruminating about Life and Self with sun-spotted closed-eyes, of that kind of freedom to structure my own days and not worry about finances or deadlines, etiquette or correctness. I'm not ready to submit to the unrelenting force of Capitalism that says "you have to be niched 8-5 at a job that only reflects one aspect of your personality, if any at all." Yet sadly society rarely sees the Other aspects, only the characteristics you purport publicly, relentlessly, deliberately, as a way to reach some social goal. Personality as Capital. Charm as Seduction. Pure personality cohesion is such a myth; people react differently to different situations, yet surface others only understand if your behavior is consistent. And so the myth goes on: we are a handful of adjectives that end up haunting us by bracketing us up, and sooner or later, some of us end up believe the exact myth we pushed so hard for, a self-deceptive linear narrative, because non-linearity is just too messy to deal with. America and its crazy drive for success, of its crazy people always climbing and rejoicing exactly in that climb (albeit they don't know it; most people think they revel in the end goal, but most of the time, it's that rush of pushing and shoving people are addicted to), of ambition ambition ambition that speeds life up like one gigantic subway whoosh---only to cause a headache to sensitive eyes trying to count the number of cars going by. I've tried to find a career that satisfies my manifold interests, and teaching comes as close as careers will, but it's still not enough. I'm tired of fitting my personality into socially acceptable roles and those roles only, but those roles will come to dominate my live inevitably: teacher, daughter, mother, wife, friend. But in the hustle and bustle of role-fitting and role-adjusting, I hope to be more than the sum of the parts. I want to retain myself as everything I am now: philosopher, rebel, writer, cook, artist, decorator, stylist, dreamer, culture-connoisseur, cultivator of small things and Amelie moments. I'm not strong enough to say that I won't lose myself in the role-making and role-playing in the future, but I will try damn hard to retain that core essence of my being and not just be blown by the wind of who I'm supposed to be. There's the socially-accepted life in all its rewards and dignity, but there's also the life of the mind and spirit--a far greater life-cultivation I'm forever shaping for myself. The two worlds obviously can feed into each other, but I want to never lose my sense of being and worth when roles go wrong. Stripped naked of all people, titles, prestige, and ego, I want to still have the sense of inner peace, wisdom, worth, and beauty I've come to find and treasure as my most precious element. And in turn, I hope this inner soul emanates to the outer world, bringing a little goodness to the people and situations surrounding me.
Black Oaks by Mary Oliver
Okay, not one can write a symphony, or a dictionary,
or even a letter to an old friend, full of remembrance
and comfort.
Not one can manage a single sound though the blue jays
carp and whistle all day in the branches, without
the push of the wind.
But to tell the truth after a while I'm pale with longing
for their thick bodies ruckled with lichen
and you can't keep me from the woods, from the tonnage
of their shoulders, and their shining green hair.
Today is a day like any other: twenty-four hours, a
little sunshine, a little rain.
Listen, says ambition, nervously shifting her weight from
one boot to another -- why don't you get going?
For there I am, in the mossy shadows, under the trees.
And to tell the truth I don't want to let go of the wrists
of idleness, I don't want to sell my life for money,
I don't even want to come in out of the rain.
As midsummer hits and half of this precious summer session coming to a close, I inevitably go through small fissures of freak-outs about how fast the days are slipping by. College, the best years of my life, is coming to a close, especially not including senior year's last semester where I'd have to student teach. The ability to just soak in knowledge for interest's sake is slowly waning and LIFE with its obligations start peeking pestily through the Venetian blinds of my idealist retreat of a room. I'm not ready to give up a life of luxuriating in ideas, ruminating about Life and Self with sun-spotted closed-eyes, of that kind of freedom to structure my own days and not worry about finances or deadlines, etiquette or correctness. I'm not ready to submit to the unrelenting force of Capitalism that says "you have to be niched 8-5 at a job that only reflects one aspect of your personality, if any at all." Yet sadly society rarely sees the Other aspects, only the characteristics you purport publicly, relentlessly, deliberately, as a way to reach some social goal. Personality as Capital. Charm as Seduction. Pure personality cohesion is such a myth; people react differently to different situations, yet surface others only understand if your behavior is consistent. And so the myth goes on: we are a handful of adjectives that end up haunting us by bracketing us up, and sooner or later, some of us end up believe the exact myth we pushed so hard for, a self-deceptive linear narrative, because non-linearity is just too messy to deal with. America and its crazy drive for success, of its crazy people always climbing and rejoicing exactly in that climb (albeit they don't know it; most people think they revel in the end goal, but most of the time, it's that rush of pushing and shoving people are addicted to), of ambition ambition ambition that speeds life up like one gigantic subway whoosh---only to cause a headache to sensitive eyes trying to count the number of cars going by. I've tried to find a career that satisfies my manifold interests, and teaching comes as close as careers will, but it's still not enough. I'm tired of fitting my personality into socially acceptable roles and those roles only, but those roles will come to dominate my live inevitably: teacher, daughter, mother, wife, friend. But in the hustle and bustle of role-fitting and role-adjusting, I hope to be more than the sum of the parts. I want to retain myself as everything I am now: philosopher, rebel, writer, cook, artist, decorator, stylist, dreamer, culture-connoisseur, cultivator of small things and Amelie moments. I'm not strong enough to say that I won't lose myself in the role-making and role-playing in the future, but I will try damn hard to retain that core essence of my being and not just be blown by the wind of who I'm supposed to be. There's the socially-accepted life in all its rewards and dignity, but there's also the life of the mind and spirit--a far greater life-cultivation I'm forever shaping for myself. The two worlds obviously can feed into each other, but I want to never lose my sense of being and worth when roles go wrong. Stripped naked of all people, titles, prestige, and ego, I want to still have the sense of inner peace, wisdom, worth, and beauty I've come to find and treasure as my most precious element. And in turn, I hope this inner soul emanates to the outer world, bringing a little goodness to the people and situations surrounding me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)