On 2009-Feb-21, at 20:02, Jeffrey Hergan wrote: > On Feb 21, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Arno Hautala wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 14:33, Jeffrey Hergan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I think of history as >>> always at least trying to move toward what is better. For example, >>> we want to be more civilized, more athletic, more virtuous, more >>> ethical, more prosperous and so on. And the advances we look at >>> throughout human history are always things that we say have made a >>> contribution to the good, in some way or another. But when I push >>> the issue, it strikes me that "the good" or "what is better" turns >>> out to be "what is more human". And _that_ turns out to be, for >>> example, more altruistic, more intelligent, more creative, more >>> loving, more understanding, more just, more wise. >> >> You've already picked a subject, but you could also go in the other >> direction and pick someone who has been negatively influential. > > > Yes, exactly! > The whole idea of "having an historical influence" is so vague. > There are scientific ways of measuring the amount of _time_ saved, or > wasted. > But what makes time valuable is how we use it. Right?
I think the first problem is that the student needs to understand what the teachers are asking, better than the teachers themselves understand it. A point that Robert Kegan makes is that many people in life try to help us, teach us, and make demands of us, to make us better people, but these teachers and helpers themselves often do not know what it is that they are implicitly asking and demanding, but nonetheless, they will be quite ready to judge us wrong when we come up with a different answer. It is kinda unfair, I mean, if only the teacher had told me the answer they were looking for, I'd have given it to them! Trouble is, a kid can think different, and particularly if they are a smart kid, (and have a smart parent encouraging them), they can think even more different than the teacher is willing to tolerate. So perhaps the first thing is to grok just what it is that the teachers implicitly want; their unstated assumptions and prejudices. And then assist your child with navigating that minefield. We wouldn't want your child to be told that their essay was "interesting" but basically "unhelpful" and marked down accordingly. I'll give an example of that. A friend was telling me that when he was in art class in school, they were given the brief of painting something to do with "after the match". Now from what I get about Britain and the teachers here, they probably had in mind something like a sort of gritty semi-romantic character study of the warm atmosphere and camaraderie of working class families on a cold British day. My friend, not being British, imagined a match with Bruce Lee and painted a bloodstained dojo. The teachers thought he was taking the piss and failed him. Well, what do the teachers mean by "history"? And what is it that they are implicitly hoping your daughter will learn by trying to answer this question? I assume they aren't simply interested in a historical flow chart of cause and effect. Perhaps they are looking for the child to awaken to a sense of purpose and achievement? A sense that perhaps they themselves might one day aspire to make a positive influence? That each of us are capable of making a truly great contribution, assuming we develop the right moral outlook? Or perhaps it is about acquiring a sense of respect for the nation, for those who came before us and whose sacrifices made our present freedoms possible? In other words, are these teachers politically progressive or conservative? If progressive, pick a black woman who history ignored, like Mary Seacole. And if they are ultra progressive, pick the school's gay groundskeeper who volunteers at a local homeless shelter, and interview a real homeless person in the community who was helped by him to reunite with his family. If conservative, pick any of the (usually) white male great figures from history, and emphasize their grand vision. As your daughter has picked a fiction author, we're squarely into the arts territory so I hope her teachers are progressive. Regarding the question of what constitutes "influence", there's two domains to this. There's the material domain which we can measure objectively. Like Edison and the lightbulb, there was a material change to society. We can say that his invention was influential because X years later Y people were using them and various other things we can measure were improved. For example, in Africa where there is no electricity, teachers can't set their kids homework, so the kids learn more slowly. Any number of practical material things can be measured and made to appear as a great consequence of this one man. The other domain is the one of ideas, psychology, beliefs, meanings, aesthetic expressions. It is the domain of the arts and philosophy and religion and all that stuff we carry in our heads and our hearts and our souls. And as fascinating as that domain is, we're back to the problem of whether the teachers are implicitly expecting and permitting this domain to enter into the assignment, or whether they are looking for something material, like a great battle or treaty. If the teachers will accept the domain of art, though, then there's no need to worry too much about proving material influence. When I was an Architecture student, tutors were always very interested in how architecture was culture and how culture was about social issues. The old ideas about the power of the machine aesthetic were now seen as just the delusions of fascist futurists. We PostModenists are caring, more sensitive, and so our art is about the small, the idiosyncratic, and the green. And as students we didn't *need* to quantify objectively the influence of an aesthetic idea, the aesthetic idea was itself the result. You didn't need to actually cause a reduction in say, racism. You simply gave your buildings an aesthetic of diversity, and this made them inherently better designs, for they expressed what we felt. Think of the expansive neoclassical order and formality of Rationalist architecture, and how it was favored by Mussolini. We could certainly appreciate a great cathedral, or a great French palace, but to propose such a thing today would be to rub people up the wrong way, values and aesthetic wise. So if they accept Stephen King as a subject, then they may well accept any aesthetic contribution he made, as a piece of history in itself. Quoting book sales may even be besides the point. Lastly, go Person-Centered; what's really interesting is why your daughter picked Stephen King. His books/films must have had an impact on her, and that's something to gently talk about, before writing the essay. There needs to be some kind of bridge between her insights, and what the teachers may be implicitly demanding. Figure out what kind of bridge you need to build, to span that gap. Stefano _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
