Remember when “Big Brother” was known as a super secret sect of the McCarthyist government underbelly that was constantly shadowing us? It was he who knew where we were at all times; knew what books we checked out at the library; knew our families, friends, and friend’s families; suspected that Marilyn Monroe was a communist. It was he who was suspicious of your loyalty if you did not drive a Ford and love the Yankees, like George Washington and the Statue of Liberty did. Who knew that in his most influential and omnipresent form, we would embrace him? We voluntarily tell Big Brother our most private information, and with this, he customizes to our preferences the bright array of flashing links that surround our screens (right now). He is our “secret crush” that is only a click away! He is the answer to the “Are You Smarter than Barrack Obama?” quiz. Big Brother wants us to discover the exciting savings at the Target nearest us. We have a problem with “the man” when Best Buy wants our phone number during check- out, yet we sign up for Facebook with everything but our Social Security number. There is a reason I am using the term “we.” I am no exception. In Siva Vaidhyanathan’s “Naked in the Non-Opticon,” true privacy is discussed as a delusion of the past. Siva is right. As our virtual identities expand, we volunteer this information to be bought, sold: to become the demographics that we are. When we log on to check our messages do we ask, “What new products can I compensate for my social insecurities with?” No? Your subconscious does. Big Brother knows it does too. That’s why Facebook is worth billions. He is willing to pay a finite price for infinite possibilities of making money from our information.
So how do we combat this juggernaut that is Big Brother? Do we erase our online identities and become recluses? We embrace him! We can thank him for making digital marvels like social networking and Google available for “free.” If you want to stick it to “the man,” don’t be a sucker for advertising, buy what you need (as opposed to what he says you need) and seriously,… Stop Hitting Yourself!
Stop Hitting Yourself! Stop Hitting Yourself!
The Right Thing, The Wrong Way
In my exposure to websites, blogs, and various other opinions regarding the banning of “controversial” material in schools I am noticing a disturbing tendency. It is among the views with which I essentially agree, therefore didn’t notice it at first. I am an advocate for the freedom of speech and defending any challenged material as long as there is an educational rationale for reading the book in question. Let’s call the people who agree with me “Us.” In order for this concept to exist, there must also be a “Them.” I am going to briefly discuss some basic sociology to expand on this. Let’s say (since you are reading this) you are one of “Us.” “Them’s” [sic] have an opinion different than “Us’s” [once again, sic]. Any group with a differing opinion from ours is considered an “out group.” According to the Random House Dictionary, an out group is: “people outside one’s own group, esp. as considered to be inferior or alien; a group perceived as other than one’s own.” This leads to an “in group” being “a group of people sharing similar interests and attitudes, producing feelings of solidarity, community, and exclusivity.” The stage is now set for my concern. When those who are challenging materials are referred to, there is an “Us” propensity for it to be in a smug and sarcastic tone. “Them’s”are made to be alien, antiquated, socialist, sheltering bible- bangers probably from a state the rest of us only fly over. They do not simply have a different opinion. Conversely, “Us’s” are champions of a benevolent cause, more intellectually evolved, and quite frankly, simply know better than “Them.” The truth is that this sarcasm unifies “Us,” but at the cost of objectivity. Without this objectivity, we are playing by sand lot kickball rules. Credibility in what we say comes from rational, objective reasoning. Members of “Them,” just like “Us,”make decisions based on beliefs. Clara Clemens (mentioned in my previous “Letters From the Earth” post) was not a Nazi, goose- stepping on the Constitution. She was a daughter and Mark Twain was her dad. She did not want his image to be compromised. In context, there is a justifiable reason for “Them” to challenge what their children are being taught. So on the battlefield, give “Them” a face and a story, use that to reach them. Support “Us” with logic, credibility, and objectivity… it’s like having nunchucks, a bazooka, and a hovercraft with missiles… nothing can beat that!
Amplification Through Simplification
I am going to use the topic of a previous entry “An Observation on Censorship,” as a springboard for this post. I touched a bit on the meaning of creative works being constructed by the audience. Personal views, experiences, genetics, et cetera shape the lens through which things concrete and abstract are perceived. Sociologists and psychologists would be concerned with the compelling reasons behind these perceptions. My focus is that, regardless of reason, we have more freedom to construct and imply our meanings the more abstract the subject is. If a subject is more explicit, less is required of the audience to construct its own meaning because it is designed more concretely. Therefore, the meaning is constructed for us. In Scott McCloud’s “Understanding Comics” this process is not only explained, it is illustrated. It is through this abstract illustration that McCloud is able to make palatable a topic which otherwise could be heavy and difficult to digest. He calls this “amplification through simplification.” “When we abstract an image… we are not so much eliminating details as we are focusing on specific details. By stripping down an image to its essential meaning, an artist can amplify that meaning.” To show this, he presents the same face in the form of a photograph; a realistic drawing; a comic version; a very cartoony version; and finally, a basic smiley face. The photo represents one person; the drawing can represent a few; the comic can represent thousands; the cartoon can represent millions; and the smiley face can represent nearly all of us. By making the same face more and more abstract by taking features away, it allows the face to mean more. The sequence progresses from meaning just one face, to meaning all faces. This is how we are able to turn clouds (masses of gathered water vapor) into triceratops, and ink blots into advanced delusionary schizophrenia with involuntary narcissistic rage.
An Observation on Censorship
This clip illustrates just how subjectively we, as viewers, can perceive anything taken out of context. This is all “G” rated TV footage strategically and unnecessarily edited. The only controversial material involved is that which the viewer infers. This, apart from being pure hilarity, shows that the points of view of an audience vary based on the lens through which it is observed. Imagine a 5 year old boy’s or a 90 year old woman’s reaction. They probably are not as equipped with the awful filth YOU used to fill in the blanks. Meaning is subject to perception, which is the essence of censorship.
Letters From the Earth
“Man is a marvelous curiosity. When he is at his very, very best he is a sort of low-grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm.” –Mark Twain
Let me start by saying that I’ll use the term “banned” a bit loosely here. The above excerpt is taken from Twain’s “Letters from the Earth.” The manuscript of this book sat unpublished for nearly 50 years after his death. His daughter, Clara Clemens, refused to have it published because she deemed its views controversial, and feared they might create a “distorted” portrayal of her father. The story is in the words of the archangel Satan. He reports on his observations of man in letters to archangels Michael and Gabriel. With Satan’s voice, Twain criticizes the conceit and contradictions he observes in, mainly Christian, views of God and the afterlife. Clara’s eventual observation that “Mark Twain belonged to the world,” led to “Letters From the Earth” being published in 1962. This work represents some of Twain’s finest wit and sarcasm. If Cosby Show reruns have lost their magic, there’s always reading an unconventional Classic for your entertainment.
Save Banned Books
Many people think that book banning no longer exists. They believe it is a thing of the past and nobody can take their freedoms to read, or write away. No one can censor me; is the attitude they hold. Books are still being banned, but there are things that can be done to prevent the banning.
According to Esther Lombardi from About.com here are the five easy steps to prevent your favorite books from leaving libraries forever.
- Read banned books. Support the effort to educate the public about censorship by learning more about the books that are most controversial. Do you know why Uncle Tom’s Cabin was banned? What about Of Mice and Men? The list goes on and on. Not only will you read some of the greatest classics of all time, but you may even become inspired to do more to help save these books!
- Once you’ve read a few banned books, you can start to educate others about why these books are so great! When you talk with an individual who is concerned about the content of a book, ask whether he/she has had a chance to read it. Then, you can talk about why you enjoyed the book. Keep an open mind.
- Debates over censorship can become emotional, so don’t allow yourself to become heated or upset when you’re speaking with an individual who believes that banning books is the correct course of action. He or she is entitled to have an opinion on the topic, and you may not be able to change the person’s mind. Remember: Just because you love books and have had a great experience with literature doesn’t mean that everyone else has. Speak in a calm and direct manner. Don’t become angry, and move on.
- Report any challenge that takes place at your local library, bookstore, or school. The American Library Association makes it easy to report challenges and banned books with this on-line form.
- Get involved. You can volunteer at your local library and/or school, and you may be able to make a difference (or at least offer a voice) in decisions about book challenges and banned books. You can also join the Freedom to Read Foundation.
“Discover Buried Treasure”
Banned books are just what this poster says “treasure.” Banned books are some of the best books ever written. Discover these books every day, not just on a day of banned books, or during banned book week. Reading is a freedom. Use those freedoms, read what you like whether it be banned or not. It is your freedom… Or should I say freadom.
Future
For my last post I thought I would give some thought to my future as a teacher with a education/writing arts degree. Where could this lead me someday? Well my main priorety is finding a job teaching. Hopefully kindergarten, first, or second grade. I would love teaching those grades because that it the time when reading and writing is introduced. I figure with my love for children and love for reading, what better job than teaching kids to read?
I found my love for teaching very early on. I can remember looking up to my first grade teacher and thinking that I wanted to be just like her someday. She saw my passion for helping and showing the other students what to do. As I got older, my love for reading came. In high school, I LOVED the books that were assigned, unlike the majority of other students. I read them over and over before the rest of the class could finish. At one point, I dreamed of becoming a writer. I have kept a journal since I was in high school as a starting point for things I would want to write about. Who knows what the future holds?
To wrap this up I will end with one of my favorite quotes by Henry David Thoreau
“Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined”
Banned movies in classrooms
I found a blog online that had comments from english teachers on the movies they were allowed to show in class. Here were some of their comments:
“We can show films rated PG-13 and below to high school students but we must get signed parent permission slips to show “R” rated movies. I usually send out a list of “R” rated films I plan to show at the beginning of the year and have parents give permission for their children to watch those films. Parents can edit the film list if they want. Sometimes this is a hassle, but parents and students should have the right not to view something which they think may violate their values. Their values are often challenged simply by the literature we read.”
“We have to have permission slips for PG-13, and can’t show anything rated R, which eliminates some very good films.I teach Science Fiction, so I would have difficulty teaching with any depth without including film. Literature can carry you only so far in the genre. “
“I was shocked to see this post about movies being banned from schools. As others have mentioned here, as long as a learning objective is stated, using movies can be very helpful. Not only is it sensitive to the need of teachers to appeal to as many learning styles (13 at last count?) as possible in a classroom, but it also serves as yet another interpretation of the work being studied. “
I think that as long as the teacher informs all of the parents about what their children are watching, the school should stay out of it. Especially with a subject like english. Some people are visual learners and can take away more after reading and viewing a book than just reading it. I remember I had a class in high school called history through film. In this class we watched so many movies that reflected time periods in history. One guy in my class forgot to get his permission slip signed and he was not allowed to watch the movie. He put up a fuss because he was 18 years old and did not think he needed his parents permission. The teacher said that it was the schools policy and she could do nothing about it to change the rules. Teachers have to be very careful when it comes time to things like this. We have to be able to make the student, parents, and school happy all at the same time.
Video games a waste of time??
After reading this article I was reminded of the first day of Intro to Writing Arts when I met a girl who wanted to write for video game companies. When she told me this I had to think twice. I had never considered video games a form of writing arts but now i realize it is. I am not very into video games but I can see how people can become practically addicted. However, I think this CAN, in fact, become a waste of time for some people. Video games, like any other technology can be misused and overused. Today, we have more obese children then ever before…i blame video games, computers, and lack of physical activity! Parents are so eager to throw their children in front of the tv, computer, or xbox to keep them busy. What ever happened to playing kickball outside?? I have two little cousins (seven years old and five years old) who recently got nintendo ds. Their mother decided she was not going to let them become obsessed so she limited their time on their. They have to ask permission to use them. Quickly, they became addicted. They loved their new games and would get into the zone and resemble zombies while playing. Times up! When their mom says enough they stop, put it away, and find something else to do. I think more parents need to monitor their kids video game use instead of enjoying their zombie like state for some peace and quiet.
Another aspect of video games that is overlooked is the graphic and violent nature of some games. Although it could be rated “e” it does not always mean it is appropriate for young kids. It seems like these days it is impossible to monitor what children see because of the lack of screening on television, on video games, and in movies. This seems absurd considering to outrageous price on video games today. Parents are buying children games that are effecting their psychological being. This may seem extreme, but children are highly effected by the images flashed before them. Technology allows these images to come from all different avenues and parents are turning a blind eye on these situations.
