Sunday, March 5, 2017

Thinking Aloud...

So.

Seamus Heaney found this word a suitable opener for his (incredible) translation of the epic Beowulf. If Seamus Heaney (SEAMUS HEANEY, GUYS!) found it a suitable opening, well then!

In his words:

"Conventional renderings of hwaet, the first word of the poem, tend towards the archaic literary, with 'lo' and 'hark' and 'behold' and 'attend' and—more colloquially—'listen' being some of the solutions offered previously. But in Hiberno-English Scullionspeak, the particle 'so' came naturally to the rescue, because in that idiom 'so' operates as an expression which obliterates all previous discourse and narrative, and at the same time functions as an exclamation calling for immediate attention. So, 'so' it was..."

I don’t pretend my musings are as important or impressive as Beowulf. Rather, I loved the idea of such a small word "obliterat[ing] all previous discourse and narrative" and "calling for immediate attention." That’s where my head is today. I want to articulate some thoughts that’ve been slithering around in my brain for some months now. Many of those thoughts call for a reconsideration/reframing of my previously-held beliefs (huzzah for paradigm shifts!). Therefore, "so" it is.

So.

Recently, I've been reading a lot. Here's a sample of what's been on my bedside table over the past months (most of these I've read; three I'm in the process of reading; one is next on my list):

American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America 
Colin Woodard

Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business 
Neil Postman 

Brave New World 
Aldous Huxley 

Breakfast of Champions 
Kurt Vonnegut

Cat’s Cradle 
Kurt Vonnegut

Daring Greatly 
Brené Brown

Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation 
Joseph J. Ellis

Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think 
George Lakoff 

Navigating Mormon Faith Crisis: A Simple Developmental Map 
Thomas Wirthlin McConkie

Planted 
Patrick Q. Mason

The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations 
Jonathan Sacks 

The Little Book of Skin Care: Korean Beauty Secrets for Healthy, Glowing Skin 
Charlotte Cho

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion 
Jonathan Haidt

Things Fall Apart
            Chinua Achebe


Noticing anything?

YES! I now have soft, dewy, radiant skin. (Seriously, though, y’all should try the 10 step Korean skin care rituals. My skin is the best it’s ever been! I make people feel my face, so watch out.)

In addition to my improved complexion, I’ve been chewing on some big ideas that frame public discourse. I’ve had a lot of questions about WHY we are the way that we are in our public spaces right now (specifically those spaces that house our political ideologies and moral convictions) and what I can do differently to effect some change in the current reality of engagement.

See, I believe in the redeemability of the human condition. I subscribe to a world view that understands people as inherently good yet deeply flawed, and ultimately worthy of redemption. I believe that people do hurtful, even hateful things out of a place of fear or insecurity (at least initially). MOST human beings don't go around trying to be assess just for the sake of being contrary. Are there some people like that? Sure. (Are they still redeemable? Yes. But, those folks are a special set that I'm not going to address in my musings today.) I'm looking at the run-of-the-mill, everyday sort of folk who are just doing the best that they can with what they have. I'm one of those people, and therein lay my interest.

After that preamble, let's settle in to the meat of my thoughts, shall we? 

What are they again?

Yes, the human condition and public discourse. 

More and more, I am struck by the vital role of civil discourse in preserving society (specifically, OUR society). 

First things first, what is civil discourse? Well, according to Wikipedia (which actually has a wonderfully robust definition, y'all):

Civil discourse is engagement in discourse intended to enhance understanding.”

Isn’t that lovely? Civil discourse has as its aim understanding. One who engages in it does so with the intent of listening to understanding rather listening to respond. When I approach conversations with the desire to get behind others' views (a desire born of a humility devoid of smug certainty), I find those conversations to be fruitful and humanizing. I always come away with a deeper appreciation of the individual in front of me and the group(s) that person may represent. I hope my partners come away just as enriched. (Though, I can't control that, NOR SHOULD I TRY. Once that becomes my sole focus, I'm back in the realm of smug certainty and nothing comes of the intercourse save for further entrenchment.)

This leads me to ideas I've bumped into about first principles. As an educator, I've learned the importance of defining my intended outcomes for my lessons (in eduspeak: objectives). When I have a clear idea of what I want my students to be able to do, know, or love by the end of a lesson, I'm better prepared to make decisions about how to get them there than I would otherwise be. Because education is, at heart, conversation between students and teachers, I can't pretend to control all the outcomes. That's just silly. I'm not that powerful. Rather, I do what I can to intentionally set the conditions which will increase the probability that certain outcomes will result. With an idea of where I want to go with my students, I can frame our activities, my questions, and my responses to students in a way that will point us toward my intentions. It's all about framing intentions.

The same intention-framing comes into play as I engage in public discourse (especially on divisive topics). If my aim in engaging others is to persuade, I make certain decisions along the course of the conversation. If my aim in engaging others is to understand and humanize, well, I make different decisions along the course of the conversation. Additionally, I'm finding it more and more important for me to articulate my own beliefs about and desires for the communities of which I'm a part. That's the purpose of taking to my keyboard today—to give shape and form to my beliefs and, eventually my desires, so that I may better engage with the world.

What do I believe?

1.      Human beings are worthy of redemption.
2.      The worth of a human soul is not contingent on circumstance or choice.
3.      The vast majority of people want good things for the whole of their communities.
4.      Human beings are complex and function both as individuals and members of groups.
5.      Engaging the individual as an individual (rather than a representative of a group) is the best way to lead out in productive conversations.
6.      Vulnerable engagement on my part creates safe spaces for connection.
7.      Human endeavors are fraught with unintended consequences, and therefore, should be treated as difficulties to navigate rather than problems to be solved.
8.      Human flourishing is the ultimate good and with an eye toward that, other goods fall into place.
9.      Deep truths about what it is to be human are nuanced, complex, and sometimes seem at odds with one another. Morality, therefore, is a nuanced and complex issue. (The principle of complementarity in physics may be a good analogy.) 
10. We need each other. Those around me have important roles to play in the conversations taking place. So do I.

What do I desire?

Well, lots of things. But, for now, I’m going to watch a movie with the best man I know.  Besides, this post is getting a little long.



More to come…


1 comment:

  1. Wonderful thoughts. And I should be more articulate in my reply but I'm not in a current cognitive state to do so. Also, I love your reading list.

    ReplyDelete