A little Chomsky for the soul. . .

On By CM DavidsonLeave a comment

Mainstream media seems to be at the forefront of the learning experience this week; one colleague shared an article on defining the proverbial ‘mainstream’ (Chomsky, 1997).  Unfortunately the message was lost on the messenger, but it left me thinking about why I enjoy the study of adult education:

“There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don’t do that, you are a troublemaker” (Chomsky, 1997, n.p.).

Adult education is not so established that independent thought is frowned upon at this stage.  We are able to think original thoughts about Freire, Brookfield, or Alfred; able to create our own philosophies, and shape our own practices, without fear of repercussion for being anti-establishment.  If our field was as established as the Classics, would we be free to think original thought, or would we be forced to conform with (for example) Freire’s version of education, because he has been ‘the’ thinker for the past 2000 years?  

 

 

Cultural awareness: is it really necessary?

On By CM DavidsonLeave a comment

What better way to communicate with an individual from another culture than understanding something about that culture, prior to attempting communication?  The military (Canada, US and others) use cultural awareness training to inform their deploying members prior to operations.  Focus on cultural practices and local languages are among the topics studied.

In this time of globalization, many corporations doing business on an international level also value cultural awareness for intercultural business communications.  The key takeaway from this video link is patience (allowing the person you are communicating with to get to their point in as long as it takes to get there) and respecting the individual.  It makes sense that not all persons from the same culture will value the same communication styles.

Is there such thing as committing a cultural faux pas when engaging in intercultural communications?

Does body language and personality type really matter?

What’s wrong with altruism anyways?

On By CM DavidsonLeave a comment

Why is it that people get so offended when their motives for volunteer work are questioned? I offended the masses today, in an adult education class on community outreach, when I ventured an opinion on why some volunteers work harder than others.  My explanation was motive – those individuals that volunteer for the sole purpose of reaping personal gain from their efforts, in my experience tend to do the least amount of work for the most amount of gain.  You know the people; those who show up just before the media, get their picture taken (or manage to find their way into film footage of the event), then leave without ever getting their hands dirty, but use the footage for personal gain (i.e.: promotion).

Personally, I believe in altruism, or the ability to do for others without want or expectation of self gain.  Selfless, not selfish reasons for participating in community outreach.  This viewpoint was found to be offensive, and there were a few responses that stated that any reason for volunteering is good, and that it promotes great feelings of self-worth and spirituality, increased self confidence, and I even had one person admit it got him a job promotion.  Is it just me, or have they omitted the real reason for volunteer work: helping others?  Not one individual that resented my “ME” generation equation of the list of selfish reasons people do volunteer work even mentioned they volunteer to help others – NOT ONE!  Wow, I was even told altruism is non-existant, and that community outreach really was about the person doing the outreach work, not the people or community the work is intended for.  Really?

The “ME” generation just disappoints me every day, and this focus on self before others is just another in a long list of disappointments.  What was worse, for me, was that these were my colleagues involved as adult educators themselves.  What do we bring to our classrooms (or places of learning), as educators, if we are so caught up in  the “ME, ME, ME”?

Looking to tomorrow today

On By CM DavidsonLeave a comment

Reflections on the Main Street Saskatchewan community development initiative:

  • Youth involvement:  high school students 
  • Community involvement
  • Professional involvement: real estate, architecture, business planning

What struck me was the idea of youth involvement, where high school students were asked to participate in some of the planning initiatives.  This has the potential to give youth a vested interest in their community where the potential to have youth return to the area after higher education is a means of sustaining these rural areas.  How many small towns have a decrease in population over time when their youth venture out to the urban areas for education and employment, never to return?  Giving the youth a voice in community development initiatives guarantees these young people will have a want to return to the communities after receiving education elsewhere.  

What we see with this initiative in rural Saskatchewan can be carried forth into developing nations.  

 

Disappointed. . .

On By CM DavidsonLeave a comment

After completing a course on gender issues in adult education, I am left asking how the course content related to adult education.  I understand the difference between equality and equity and the subsequent strive to achieve a true equality for all in the workplace and in higher education (well in society as a whole).  However, I have been left contemplating how gender plays a role in higher education.  I didn’t get that from the course, and it frustrates me, as I have no use for discussions on nude art in my own professional practice as an adult educator.

Did I leave the course with more understanding of gender in general?  Not really.

Did I leave the course with a new feminist outlook on adult education? God, I hope not.

I can accept that feminism had a hand at shaping our existence as equals under the law; that the feminist movement won us women the rights to vote, and the rights to exist as persons under the law, but I feel that in our modern society, the role of feminism has changed from empowering to oppressing, and that is dangerous.  We are now teaching that female is good and male is bad, and that heteronormative behaviour is questionable and biased.  As a female, I take extreme offence to the ideology of males as lesser individuals.

How does turning the tables on history make our modern society better that it was?  It doesn’t! Plain and simple; our laws (our Charter) ensures us equality under the law.  Marginalizing males in the name of gender studies is equally as harmful as marginalizing individuals through racist dogma.  It just has no place in society; no place in higher education; and really should be questioned when it finds its way into the mainstream curriculum.

So, why then did I take a course on gender issues in adult education?  Well, it was a half credit elective that I hoped would shape my outlook on practices of equality (and possibly equity) in the classroom.  Instead, I feel almost dirty, and feel a need to defend male colleagues for the sheer fact they are male.  How wrong is this? I guess what I am trying to say is this:  I am disappointed!

Reflecting on the institutional dimension of gender

On By CM DavidsonLeave a comment

Reaching the end of a course in gender issues in adult education, I have a few issues to reflect upon:

  • What Matthews and Beaman (2007) define as the institutional dimension of gender; family, religion, work and law (pp. 195-282).
  • How these institutions define gender and justify inequity within each institution.
  • What can be done to move beyond the stereotypical institutional reaction to gender?

Capturing my attention was the focus on the Andrea Yates case and the murder of Reena Virk and subsequent trials of Kelly Ellard.  How has the criminal justice system in Canada and the United States dealt with the gender of the perpetrators in these cases?  Why wasn’t the husband of Andrea Yates held accountable for his actions?

Since when does ‘gender’ equal ‘women’?

On By CM DavidsonLeave a comment

Has feminism turned the tables of sexism?  The literature I am reading regarding gender studies has a similar theme; gender means women, period.  As a woman, I am appalled by this turn of events; as a woman in a non-traditional role, I feel that all the barriers I have broken are now built up behind me at twice the height.  Scholars call this backlash (Matthews & Beaman, 2007), and it has detrimental effects on the feminist movement as a whole.  By focusing on women (their stories and plights), we marginalize and oppress our male counterparts, much as we have been marginalized by men.  Is this right, just, moral and ethical? How can we move beyond sexism to inclusion, when we give the feminine gender an apparent superiority over the masculine?

Reference:

Matthews, B., and Beaman, L. (2007). Exploring gender in Canada: a multi-dimensional approach.  Toronto, ON: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Equality versus equity

On By CM DavidsonLeave a comment

Defining and differentiating EQUALITY and EQUITY; these two ideas are not synonymous!  Looking to the ideology of EQUITY, we see a legal application.  EQUALITY, on the other hand, is a more concrete concept, where all beings are considered equal, despite their circumstances.

How, in the world of gender issues and relations, are we to consider gender?  As a matter of equality, or of equity?

Looking further at the subject, EQUALITY is the state where all persons are considered equal despite their differences, whereby EQUITY is the state of equality that takes the differences (seen as obstacles) into consideration.  Therefore, equity is not necessarily a true form of equality!  I think we tend to focus on equality through the lens of equity when we discuss gender and its associated biases.  How do we construct a true equality between the genders, if most law makers and theorists continue to make rulings based on a mere equitable existence?  Are we our own worst enemies by perpetuating gender bias when we celebrate gender differences?