Small caveat first - this morning on WCBE (local NPR), I heard a story about legislation a group of folks are trying to pass to include 120 additional curriculum instruction hours on american's historical documents (i.e., a greater focus on american history and engagement with "seminal" documents related to said history)... I immediately thought of Dewey ;) - how does such instruction allow students to engage in relevant problem-solving in their lives and societies? It was interesting that the major "road block" in this legislation appeared to be that it is not currently tested in Ohio's proficiency test (but the relevant folks involved claimed the proficiency test needed to be updated anyway...) - I'm sure behind all of this, was a thought that such changes in education would allows students to better understand democracy (as an object). Even as I wrote that sentence - the ideas of "trust" and "permission" and "elite" are so entrenched.... what "we" "allow" the citizenry to "know," our level of mistrust in their ability to figure out and decipher on their own was is needed, the experts know what we should be doing...
But I digress ;) - one of the biggest issues I found myself wrestling with this week was how to rectify Freud's assumptions about humanity with what is presented by Dewey/Locke/Kallen - "The idea that there are competing groups with competing interests is an illusion the groups must work towards overcoming in the process of dealing with the problem. The more individuals work together as part of different groups, where the difference are defined by the particular problem, the more they realize they have the same, or similar core human interest, and that solutions to their problems can emerge from any quarter" (p. 27-28). Within this, I am lead to a a more optimistic view of humanity, a more "humanist" - positive psychology perspective, if you will, and I find myself trying to figure out if Freud's ideas about the development and maintenance of societies fit with what is presented by these other theorists.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
take a look at this link!
Check this article on NY times. It's a project going on in India.
This looks very much like what we talked about. There is a five year project in underprevilieged areas in India, which moves from the traditional education of drilling and intensive memorizing. They let the children write thier own stories, and the children do proejcts of their own.
They have not seen a signficant increase in achievement scores yet... but seems to be promising considering what we talked today. Isn't this great, that in a part of the world, an educational experiment is going on! (and to the direction we like to see!)
This looks very much like what we talked about. There is a five year project in underprevilieged areas in India, which moves from the traditional education of drilling and intensive memorizing. They let the children write thier own stories, and the children do proejcts of their own.
They have not seen a signficant increase in achievement scores yet... but seems to be promising considering what we talked today. Isn't this great, that in a part of the world, an educational experiment is going on! (and to the direction we like to see!)
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
School as life
So.. I just got home from work and I kept thinking about Dewey all day. Especially article two in his pedagogic creed, what the school is. Thinking of school as representing present life, life as real and vital to the child. This stuck out to me and kept rolling around in my head. It made me wonder that perhaps the reason why some children are unsuccessful in school is that school isnt real and vital to them. It does not represent their present life or teach them how to live in their environment outside of school and does little to teach them how to live "community life"
Dewey states that "I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living" How different this is from our current stressing of school and the education system. We tell children they have to suceed well in school in order to have a "good" future (which is true in a sense) yet is it the case that we rush them through with such a strong emphasis on the future that we forget to help them live out the present?
Although as it was stated in other posts U.S. school system was modeled after Dewey theory I don't believe that the current public school system really follows this model. How can school be changed to represent life without a complete overhaul?
Dewey states that "I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living" How different this is from our current stressing of school and the education system. We tell children they have to suceed well in school in order to have a "good" future (which is true in a sense) yet is it the case that we rush them through with such a strong emphasis on the future that we forget to help them live out the present?
Although as it was stated in other posts U.S. school system was modeled after Dewey theory I don't believe that the current public school system really follows this model. How can school be changed to represent life without a complete overhaul?
Education system & Dewey
At first, I liked Dewey because he always considered social elements in education and the differences among individuals. Also, I strongly agree with the idea that child should learn from the LIFE of the school, not just knowledge. The developmental steps, 'home->school->society' seemed really attractive. In addition, teachers' role which tries to do constant and careful observation of interests was appealing. I thought that one of reasons that many Koreans have difficulties to express themselves or their curiosity is the education system which repress and humor students' interests. We could not discover the power!
Even though I agreed and liked Dewey, I had similar thoughts with Xiamei and Rachel that if it is realistic in our society, especially in Asia. People perceive a school as the place where children learn something which are helpful to enter the college (to get a higher score in the college entering exam). It came from the perception that people who graduate better college normally get a better job and they can finally enjoy better life. Also, the people who graduate the better college develop our society with their smart idea and brain. And the only standard tool which can evaluate people in our society is the TEST (I know it is too sad to say it). I thought that's why people are so struggling with the test in school and hard to follow Dewey's belief. If we change our whole education system as Dewey suggested, how can compromise these concerns? Is it really possible to change people's perception? As Glassman said, when the schools started to follow and accept Dewey's idea, was it successful?
I really liked to read Dewey's idea but it made me frustrated too because I thougt that it is really difficult for our society to accept those good ideas in our education system..
Even though I agreed and liked Dewey, I had similar thoughts with Xiamei and Rachel that if it is realistic in our society, especially in Asia. People perceive a school as the place where children learn something which are helpful to enter the college (to get a higher score in the college entering exam). It came from the perception that people who graduate better college normally get a better job and they can finally enjoy better life. Also, the people who graduate the better college develop our society with their smart idea and brain. And the only standard tool which can evaluate people in our society is the TEST (I know it is too sad to say it). I thought that's why people are so struggling with the test in school and hard to follow Dewey's belief. If we change our whole education system as Dewey suggested, how can compromise these concerns? Is it really possible to change people's perception? As Glassman said, when the schools started to follow and accept Dewey's idea, was it successful?
I really liked to read Dewey's idea but it made me frustrated too because I thougt that it is really difficult for our society to accept those good ideas in our education system..
Here science and art go hand in hand
I admit that Dewey's statements are very appealing. For example, school must represent present life, and educative process will be haphazard and arbitrary without insight into the psychological structure and activities of the individual. If my understand is correct, he argues that learning happens through experiencing and thinking. What we have done, sitting in the classroom absorbing the teacher's words, passively, is not real or the best learning process. The point I think is very important is that moral education should be the center of school education.
I wonder whether those points are appealing just because they are not what we have experienced, in other words, unrealistic. And why most of us feel Dewey's argument about education sounds so much sense but the education system today is still not close to what Dewey proposed. And, can education be so pure/innocent?
When I think about education, the first idea is that education is the tool that government uses to brain wash their people, starting from their childhood. The government decides which textbooks to use, what should be taught and what should not be. Yes there are private schools. But the students there still need to take the same nation-wide exam in order to get in the college. So they still need to learn what public school students learn from school. Although I think it is a very good point that moral training should be the main focus of school education, maybe more important than the nature science study, I am not clear whether and how the whole education system can be altered to a different form. Or maybe it is not necessary to change the whole system, I just wonder there is something really can be done in our life.
I love Dewey!
Okay, so I got up early in the morning to read Dewey, and I loved it!
The emphasis of school as a "community" and that the school life itself has to be worth living for rather than as a preparation of a future life.
That the teachers are members of community that helps to facilitate learning for the students with the previous experiences and wisdom.
That there are two dimensions of education - sociological and psychological - and that the psychological aspect must come first.
That learning should be in connection with the actual social life that the student is living in.
That under interest lies the power, and the education is about finding that power.
And now as a retrospect my school days, those things were never never never present in the education that I received. The teachings were far too much isolated from the life that I was living - lack of connection to what I can actually use in my daily life, I just thought that someday I might need them. Lack of respect for my interest and the social motives that I had - I had to match my interest and social motives to the ones that were imposed in order to survive.
I have two questions with those in mind.
From what background did Dewey come up with such ideas? Was the education at that time very unproductive and problematic?
Second, how is those ideas appied to real school settings? From Sara's posting below, it seems that there are people who try to appy Dewey's philosophy in the classes but without fidelity. At least they try! (I'm being optimistic this morning.)
I know some "substitute" schools in Korea which have simliar philosophy as Dewey's and I don't know if they are following his idea, but it seemed really nice and helping for the students. They emphasize the school as a community including the principal, teachers and the students, and they emphasize the interest of each child and try to match the learning environment for each student. However, they struggle also, to discipline the students (they have community rules that the students themselves establish...) and to make good standards to get in the university. I don't know how well they do in the entrance examination and how well they adjust to the university environment, (I hope they do well!) but I just was wondering as I was reading the articles, so I see that Dewey's ideas are great, but how can they be applied into the school and the classrooms? Those substitute schools are not public schools and so there are small numbers of students who go to this kind of schools. So I guess that how it is possible to have such revolutionary learning environment. However they still need to educate the students to rise to the social standards. Dewey says that th ideal schools hace reconciliation of the individualistic and the institutional ideals (Article Five, the school and Social Progress). How can this be possible? (Or even, is it at all, possible?)
The emphasis of school as a "community" and that the school life itself has to be worth living for rather than as a preparation of a future life.
That the teachers are members of community that helps to facilitate learning for the students with the previous experiences and wisdom.
That there are two dimensions of education - sociological and psychological - and that the psychological aspect must come first.
That learning should be in connection with the actual social life that the student is living in.
That under interest lies the power, and the education is about finding that power.
And now as a retrospect my school days, those things were never never never present in the education that I received. The teachings were far too much isolated from the life that I was living - lack of connection to what I can actually use in my daily life, I just thought that someday I might need them. Lack of respect for my interest and the social motives that I had - I had to match my interest and social motives to the ones that were imposed in order to survive.
I have two questions with those in mind.
From what background did Dewey come up with such ideas? Was the education at that time very unproductive and problematic?
Second, how is those ideas appied to real school settings? From Sara's posting below, it seems that there are people who try to appy Dewey's philosophy in the classes but without fidelity. At least they try! (I'm being optimistic this morning.)
I know some "substitute" schools in Korea which have simliar philosophy as Dewey's and I don't know if they are following his idea, but it seemed really nice and helping for the students. They emphasize the school as a community including the principal, teachers and the students, and they emphasize the interest of each child and try to match the learning environment for each student. However, they struggle also, to discipline the students (they have community rules that the students themselves establish...) and to make good standards to get in the university. I don't know how well they do in the entrance examination and how well they adjust to the university environment, (I hope they do well!) but I just was wondering as I was reading the articles, so I see that Dewey's ideas are great, but how can they be applied into the school and the classrooms? Those substitute schools are not public schools and so there are small numbers of students who go to this kind of schools. So I guess that how it is possible to have such revolutionary learning environment. However they still need to educate the students to rise to the social standards. Dewey says that th ideal schools hace reconciliation of the individualistic and the institutional ideals (Article Five, the school and Social Progress). How can this be possible? (Or even, is it at all, possible?)
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Dewey...
As I was reading Dewey and finding myself at home in his writing, I began to think about how his "ideas" are sometimes "utilized" in education. Like the other theorists we have read this quarter, it appears that pieces of his writing are often taken out of context and applied in a way that is counterproductive to the rest of his message.
A little story to explain. In undergrad I took a class about "mind and body" going to school - exploring the need to connect the mind and the body in educational exploration. However, as I look back on the experiences my classmates and I created, these "active learning" lessons were devoid of the children's interests... so in a way, while they incorporated movement (i.e., the body), they were not born out of the social life of the school community -so how were we really capitalizing on the whole idea of experience, thinking and learning? Our work was tied back to Dewey (among others), but I'm left here wondering what we created... and ultimately, the value in teacher training as it is currently structured. To create "lessons" in isolation, is not to take advantage of the all the knowledge (the data) of the particular classroom and group of students with who you wish to work - then how can your really be "thinking" in this endeavor, you could not begin to predict or for hypotheses about how your work with them will flow?
A little story to explain. In undergrad I took a class about "mind and body" going to school - exploring the need to connect the mind and the body in educational exploration. However, as I look back on the experiences my classmates and I created, these "active learning" lessons were devoid of the children's interests... so in a way, while they incorporated movement (i.e., the body), they were not born out of the social life of the school community -so how were we really capitalizing on the whole idea of experience, thinking and learning? Our work was tied back to Dewey (among others), but I'm left here wondering what we created... and ultimately, the value in teacher training as it is currently structured. To create "lessons" in isolation, is not to take advantage of the all the knowledge (the data) of the particular classroom and group of students with who you wish to work - then how can your really be "thinking" in this endeavor, you could not begin to predict or for hypotheses about how your work with them will flow?
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Freud-Erikson
Erikson's theory was more comfortable and reasonable for me than Freud's one. Freud's theory was surprisingly applied for most situations and human's characteristics, however, it was really hard to accept for me because of it's determinants (maybe it is from cultural background). I liked Erikson's arguments because he considered the future and adulthood too while Freud has concentrated on the previous experiences in childhood.
Also, I liked the concept of "identity crisis" even though this concept is still abstract. I had a conversation with my friend several days ago and we talked about continuous stressful events and anxiety in the whole life. We both agreed with the advantages of stress because we thought that human can be continuously developed by overcoming the stress until the death. When I read Erikson's identity crisis, I felt the similar thing (human is developed via each crisis stage). I focused on understanding the process during the crisis and I was curious about the difference between Freud's concept of anxiety and guilty and Erikson's anxiety and guilty during the formation of identity.
In the last week, I imagined the argument between Freud and Skinner (maybe never compromised discussion?). However, I realized that the discussion between Freud and Erikson would be more interesting! It is still hard to catch subtle distinctions between them because there is definitely Freud's basic assumptions in Erikson's theory but I felt that Erikson developed Freud's theory to adapt it for broader and normal people with new concepts. I'm wondering how Freud would argue about it.
Also, I liked the concept of "identity crisis" even though this concept is still abstract. I had a conversation with my friend several days ago and we talked about continuous stressful events and anxiety in the whole life. We both agreed with the advantages of stress because we thought that human can be continuously developed by overcoming the stress until the death. When I read Erikson's identity crisis, I felt the similar thing (human is developed via each crisis stage). I focused on understanding the process during the crisis and I was curious about the difference between Freud's concept of anxiety and guilty and Erikson's anxiety and guilty during the formation of identity.
In the last week, I imagined the argument between Freud and Skinner (maybe never compromised discussion?). However, I realized that the discussion between Freud and Erikson would be more interesting! It is still hard to catch subtle distinctions between them because there is definitely Freud's basic assumptions in Erikson's theory but I felt that Erikson developed Freud's theory to adapt it for broader and normal people with new concepts. I'm wondering how Freud would argue about it.
reading Erikson
As i was reading Erikson, some of the sentences were interesting...
'
Identity is "central control over oneself, for which only the inner agency of the ego could be held responsible."
Some of the concepts that are used to indicate identity are wrong such as self-conception, self-imagery, self-etseem, role ambiguity, role conflict, and role ross.
Identity is "never established as an ahcevement in the form of a personality armor, or of anything static and unchangeable."
So WHAT IS IDENTITY?
As Jennifer wrote below, reading Erikson is quite boring which I think is due to his indirect way of explaining things. He never really defines or directlly states what he is trying to say! (seems to me...)
So I went on to the early developmental stages, which I thought was his version of explaining Freud's psychosexual development using the oral, anal, and phallic stages. I thought that he was adding some social terms and relatoinship attributes to Freud's theory.
It was when he said that the sense of initiative is important in childhood, and that the great governor of initiative is conscious, the "inner voice" that when I thought this was interesting. However, again, what is "initiative" and "who intiaties"? What is inner voice?
I was thinking that he might be emphasizing the role of Ego in balancing between the id and the superego. He elaborates how a baby makes contact to the mother in each stages, and how the baby increasingly moves away from the mother as he/she grows up.
I'm quite confused of what he wants to indicate by identity (partly because my understanding of identity was through those concepts that he categorized as wrong ones to indicate identity.), and how this is different from or the same as Ego in Freud's theory.
'
Identity is "central control over oneself, for which only the inner agency of the ego could be held responsible."
Some of the concepts that are used to indicate identity are wrong such as self-conception, self-imagery, self-etseem, role ambiguity, role conflict, and role ross.
Identity is "never established as an ahcevement in the form of a personality armor, or of anything static and unchangeable."
So WHAT IS IDENTITY?
As Jennifer wrote below, reading Erikson is quite boring which I think is due to his indirect way of explaining things. He never really defines or directlly states what he is trying to say! (seems to me...)
So I went on to the early developmental stages, which I thought was his version of explaining Freud's psychosexual development using the oral, anal, and phallic stages. I thought that he was adding some social terms and relatoinship attributes to Freud's theory.
It was when he said that the sense of initiative is important in childhood, and that the great governor of initiative is conscious, the "inner voice" that when I thought this was interesting. However, again, what is "initiative" and "who intiaties"? What is inner voice?
I was thinking that he might be emphasizing the role of Ego in balancing between the id and the superego. He elaborates how a baby makes contact to the mother in each stages, and how the baby increasingly moves away from the mother as he/she grows up.
I'm quite confused of what he wants to indicate by identity (partly because my understanding of identity was through those concepts that he categorized as wrong ones to indicate identity.), and how this is different from or the same as Ego in Freud's theory.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Erickson
So I am on p. 20 of the prologue and I am so bored reading this after having read Freud for 2 weeks. I expect riveting discussion from pro-Ericksons after having to forgo more Freud for this!
Monday, February 7, 2011
So I'm still stuck on Freud...
I was in NYC this weekend and went to this Sushi restaurant Morimoto. I went to the restroom and there were these toilets like I had never seen before! These toilets can pulsate, wash you, dry you, etc! How is this not evidence of the importance of genitalia (and therefore Freud being right)? Why would someone create such a thing if this was not the case? And these are considered luxury toilets!
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Very late randome thoughts
I've been reading the posts as people post and post and post and didn't understand why there was so many posts for this week... then I got it.
First the religious view quite struck me. (Never did we learn about what Freud thought of religion..)
It was fascinating (as other people mentioned) to see he said that religious attitudes compes from the feeling of infantile helplessness. I agree to this except for the fact that Freud treats religion as a feeling or an attitude rather than a real thing (because I believe in it). However, the part that I couldn't quite get was the mention of the father figure. "I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection" (on page 19.) Why would he say "father"'s protection rather than the caregiver or the mother? I mean everytime I learn or discuss about the infant development, the mother figure is more often mentioned because the mother is (and was in Freud's time) the primary caregiver not because of the cultural bias but because the mother feeds the baby. From the baby's perspective, the presence of the person who feeds him/her, and who takes care of him/her will matter, not specifically mother or father. So, why would Freud indicate a father? I don't mean to disappoint Letisha, I too think that the father's parenting is and should be very much important for child development. But I just can't get off the feeling that once again, Freud is all about male rather than females.
Then I went on to read more of his thoughts about religion. He mentions again that the religion is "patently infantile". Again I can't disagree with this remark. Religion IS based on the humans helplessness in saving thier souls. So there comes God who saves the world, and the souls of all humans.
I don't want to go deeper into the Christian principles, but I do want to mention that I hate it when people at church make the people feel unnecesarilly infantile and make them depend on external things rather than to hold onto one's faith.
Another interesting things is that he talks about happiness. (never knew that he talked about such area!) "What decides the purpose of life is simply the program of the pleasure principle" (23p). Is he arguing that even though the humans are built to be happy (when they follow the id by the pleasure principle)? But that the civilization is what makes such limitations and rules to follow against the id that makes us unhappy (and thus suffer from the superior natural power, the bodily limiations, and the relationships with others...)? I was thinking that why the society exists, and why does it confer so much boundaries and limiations to our behaviors (and the realization of the id)? What does it get from doing that? What good does it do?
First the religious view quite struck me. (Never did we learn about what Freud thought of religion..)
It was fascinating (as other people mentioned) to see he said that religious attitudes compes from the feeling of infantile helplessness. I agree to this except for the fact that Freud treats religion as a feeling or an attitude rather than a real thing (because I believe in it). However, the part that I couldn't quite get was the mention of the father figure. "I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection" (on page 19.) Why would he say "father"'s protection rather than the caregiver or the mother? I mean everytime I learn or discuss about the infant development, the mother figure is more often mentioned because the mother is (and was in Freud's time) the primary caregiver not because of the cultural bias but because the mother feeds the baby. From the baby's perspective, the presence of the person who feeds him/her, and who takes care of him/her will matter, not specifically mother or father. So, why would Freud indicate a father? I don't mean to disappoint Letisha, I too think that the father's parenting is and should be very much important for child development. But I just can't get off the feeling that once again, Freud is all about male rather than females.
Then I went on to read more of his thoughts about religion. He mentions again that the religion is "patently infantile". Again I can't disagree with this remark. Religion IS based on the humans helplessness in saving thier souls. So there comes God who saves the world, and the souls of all humans.
I don't want to go deeper into the Christian principles, but I do want to mention that I hate it when people at church make the people feel unnecesarilly infantile and make them depend on external things rather than to hold onto one's faith.
Another interesting things is that he talks about happiness. (never knew that he talked about such area!) "What decides the purpose of life is simply the program of the pleasure principle" (23p). Is he arguing that even though the humans are built to be happy (when they follow the id by the pleasure principle)? But that the civilization is what makes such limitations and rules to follow against the id that makes us unhappy (and thus suffer from the superior natural power, the bodily limiations, and the relationships with others...)? I was thinking that why the society exists, and why does it confer so much boundaries and limiations to our behaviors (and the realization of the id)? What does it get from doing that? What good does it do?
Freud and Guilt
So as I was thinking about Freud I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion about his concept of guilt. I know that we talked about it at the beginning of our discussion on Freud but seeing as how he returns to it toward the end of his essay I thought we could as well. It is my understanding of Freud that one's feeling of guilt in regards to an action is a consequence of the super ego's aggression toward the ego (or in other words how the super ego keeps the ego in check). That is to say that regardless of whether or not an action is bad or not morally if the individual thinks it is bad then it is and it produces guilt and even anxiety within an individual.
I think that this arguement is true to a ceratin extent that if someone thinks they have done something wrong even if other do not share their same belief they do experience a feeling of guilt within themselves. Still I wonder if the demands of the super ego are what produces guilt within an individual and the internalized super ego developed as a result of the banding together of brothers who killed their dominant male leader (or patriach) how then did that feeling of guilt come to be in existence?
I know that Freud argues that the super ego developed as a result of the intense remorse felt by those who originally killed their patriach and this feeling of guilt has continued throughout the evolution of men, but why did the guilt or remorse occur initially? Is his arguement that guilt is an inherrent part of human nature? Is it simply that, the aggression that resulted in the murder of the father figure what brought forth guilt? I guess my thought is if they agreed to kill the patriarchial figure why would they then feel bad after they completed the act (remorse) especially if they are driven by aggression and libido?
Maybe I am thinking too much about this but these are my thoughts? Anyone else have any ideas?
I think that this arguement is true to a ceratin extent that if someone thinks they have done something wrong even if other do not share their same belief they do experience a feeling of guilt within themselves. Still I wonder if the demands of the super ego are what produces guilt within an individual and the internalized super ego developed as a result of the banding together of brothers who killed their dominant male leader (or patriach) how then did that feeling of guilt come to be in existence?
I know that Freud argues that the super ego developed as a result of the intense remorse felt by those who originally killed their patriach and this feeling of guilt has continued throughout the evolution of men, but why did the guilt or remorse occur initially? Is his arguement that guilt is an inherrent part of human nature? Is it simply that, the aggression that resulted in the murder of the father figure what brought forth guilt? I guess my thought is if they agreed to kill the patriarchial figure why would they then feel bad after they completed the act (remorse) especially if they are driven by aggression and libido?
Maybe I am thinking too much about this but these are my thoughts? Anyone else have any ideas?
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Contention among groups and issues with portrayal of women
So, I decided to start with a "positive" - I find Freud's discussion of us vs. our neighbor (and subsequently us vs. them) enlightening. It makes intuitive sense that you can strengthen the cohesion of the group by directing aggression towards an other. I can think of many examples where this plays out and as we eluded to in our last discussion, how aggressive acts against "the other" are not seen as "bad" - and in some cases just. To some extent I am willing to accept the idea that we have some aggressive instinct (perhaps that "fight or flight" mechanism that we so often refer to). I guess I have a hard time following how this relates to our "death instinct" - it makes more sense to me to relate aggression to a "survival" or "life" instinct. This part of Freud's argument was particularly hard for me to understand.
Okay - so now the "negative" - I know I brought this up last time, and I guess I'm displaying my own neuroticism, but I have major issues with Freud's assumptions of women. I realize he writes this from a particular point in history and is thus affected by the sociocultural context - however, the idea that women get their satisfaction from the care of their children (or protection/love of their children), is to me frustrating. I enjoy being a parent, but I am not comfortable with defining myself purely from this role and would argue that solely confined to life with my children would not bring happiness - I am happier having a balance and participating in some of the aspects of civilization that Freud connects to males. Can it not bring me satisfaction to "hold my love object" (i.e., keep him/her close to me)? Also to beat a dead horse, I would argue women can derive just as much satisfaction from sex as men, even if this satisfaction is now diminished by the presence of societal constraints.
Okay - so now the "negative" - I know I brought this up last time, and I guess I'm displaying my own neuroticism, but I have major issues with Freud's assumptions of women. I realize he writes this from a particular point in history and is thus affected by the sociocultural context - however, the idea that women get their satisfaction from the care of their children (or protection/love of their children), is to me frustrating. I enjoy being a parent, but I am not comfortable with defining myself purely from this role and would argue that solely confined to life with my children would not bring happiness - I am happier having a balance and participating in some of the aspects of civilization that Freud connects to males. Can it not bring me satisfaction to "hold my love object" (i.e., keep him/her close to me)? Also to beat a dead horse, I would argue women can derive just as much satisfaction from sex as men, even if this satisfaction is now diminished by the presence of societal constraints.
I just really like Freud but...
I just want to say that I really like Freud. One of the reasons I like him so much is because I feel like he explains why fathers should be - and in my opinion are -the most important person in a child's life. It makes me get a nice feeling inside since it validates my work. :)
BUT... I really like Bandura too!! Are we going to get to a point in the quarter where we can think about these ideas in conjunction with one another? There are so many parallels that I can see, but yet so many intricate differences that really are the essence of what these men are getting at with their ideas. How can we, or simply can we, use these ideas together in order to think about our work, our position in education (both as students and teachers), and how can we use them to guide our decisions? Since my writing assignment is how to apply what we're learning to my class, I guess that's why I am interested in how it all fits together :)
BUT... I really like Bandura too!! Are we going to get to a point in the quarter where we can think about these ideas in conjunction with one another? There are so many parallels that I can see, but yet so many intricate differences that really are the essence of what these men are getting at with their ideas. How can we, or simply can we, use these ideas together in order to think about our work, our position in education (both as students and teachers), and how can we use them to guide our decisions? Since my writing assignment is how to apply what we're learning to my class, I guess that's why I am interested in how it all fits together :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)