False conciousness
Garret Keizer nails home some salient points in a piece titled Crap Shoot, working over one of my favorite contradictions: Everybody hates rich people but everybody wants to be one. He puts a unique twist on this theme by dividing people squarely into two opposing camps, players and workers. “Not to put to fine a point on it,( I love that phrase) change will not come from deciding which former member of Skull and Bones will get to drape the coffin of American labor with the Stars and Stripes.Change will come only when people who work, who love work ,whose conception of the world is of a work in progress, come to realize they have no choice but to fight.Fight or accept a world in which a shrinking pool of players lords it over a multiplying pool of slaves.”
He knows everyone wants to think of themselves as a “player” and that the secret to the Republican success of late is their ability to let bozos allow themselves to wallow in that fantasy, to think they have joined the club.With a fat cigar in your mouth and a fat check to the party you can believe you are on the team.
He ends with some great advice that I’m sure I’ve heard before: Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your illusions.
What issue electrifies conservatives in my community? War? Hunger? Global warming? Terrorism?Heck no, what Bitterrrooters worry about is the proposed introduction of 11 grizzly bears into a 16 million acre wilderness area. Next to the "support the truth" stickers on local pick-ups are the "No to Bears "stickers, a rallying cry which brings forth images of horrible maulings, jack booted government agents planting killer bears, swarms of "tree- huggers" converging on our peaceful community.
These same folks tend to be anti-choice when it comes to reproductive rights but I wonder if they would support abortions for Muslim women, Hispanics, blacks?
I just watched a Sunday pundit link Venezuela with Iran, North Korea,Cuba and Saudi Arabia (the new Axis of Evil) and wonder if the US military was prepared to fight on all four fronts. He said Chavez had "created a shambles in Venezuela". Mc Cain predictably called Chavez a tin horn dictator and when asked about illegal detention and torture said "remember, these are the worst people in the world,and we all know that."
So I ask commentor Brad, what is "over the top" mean in terms of discourse? Who gets to decide what is below, level and over? How is this determined? Is "level" the same as the "center" all these moderate polititions and pundits keep urging us to migrate towards?
posted by troutsky @ 6:23 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Envy is part of the American brainwashing system. Striving towards what makes you look rich, a common goal for the common man. It keeps a person focused on the next step, never being in reality.
That is a tough question. As I wrote in the comment you are referring to: “how his [Hugo’s] speech is processed will depend on the perspective of the listener,” and that certainly holds true for most discourse. And it is not just the present perspective of the listener or the present situation that dictates where statements of ideas come down (over, under, level). These things can change with time or actions or words. Is the claim that he is “a tin horn dictator” (certainly an unoriginal and ineloquent accusation) and that he "created a shambles in Venezuela" over the top? At this time I would say yes (my VZ student would say no, its spot on): he won an election that appeared clean by LaAm standards, and he still has popular support, and the economy is no weaker than others in the region. He also has the right, as the head of state, to throw his lot in with Iran and Cuba. However, should he do certain things, such as: abandon constitutional rule, lengthen his term of office, take absolute control of the military, nationalize, take control of, and ruin the productive areas or the economy, begin associations with non-state organizations (like Hezballah), then things change, and the accusations would become accurate, in my opinion. Although you may agree with nationalization and redistribution of wealth, the goals of Hezballah, etc., so from your perspective he would still be a reasonable leader.
Perspective is everything: e.g., I find your statement “These same folks tend to be anti-choice when it comes to reproductive rights but I wonder if they would support abortions for Muslim women, Hispanics, blacks?” to be definitely over the top (insinuations of racism may win bar-room arguments, but they are indefensible without evidence). I have never met an anti-abortion conservative that was also into eugenics via abortion, but I have lived my entire adult life (when in the US) in university settings, and the conservatives that I encounter are well educated and usually what I would consider intellectuals (like the liberals and radicals; everyone but the undergrads =) ). So my accusation that you have overstated the case could be wrong because I don’t live in a relatively isolated rural setting, and I don’t know the people that you do. So the short answer is that the listeners get to decide the validity of an argument, and it is determined by one’s philisophical persuasion and an application of and logic to facts (albeit they are sometimes hard to find, although the internet is changing that). And who gains politically from the debate will depend on the power of persuation, which is often a function of reason, although not always and less so recently.
As to your second question “Is "level" the same as the "center" all these moderate polititions and pundits keep urging us to migrate towards?” No. One should stand outside of one’s ideological tendencies to evaluate the validity of an argument. If one finds it to be valid but insipid, well that is a different matter.
One last thing: “He knows everyone wants to think of themselves as a “player” and that the secret to the Republican success of late is their ability to let bozos allow themselves to wallow in that fantasy, to think they have joined the club.” The repub success also gains power from the election of dimwits like Pelosi by the democrats.
PS I have read Zinn for many years and he exaggerates and he is possesed by the "excessive adjutive and adveb" demon. Also, what are you doing watching those sunday morning mud matches?
I'm reminded of George Carlin's line "The reason they call it the American dream is, because you have to be f...... asleep to believe it". (Or similar)
Although I hesitate to use the over- used term meme, it might be useful in better explaining my question of how is the dominant narrative arrived at.If discourse were just between equal individuals this would be irrelevant but I am trying (weakly) to get at the idea of issue "framing ", linguistically, and where that power is located that establishes this meme, or mythology or more complete paradigm. Terms such as "it is generally thought" or "by most standards" or "universally accepted" imply a survey. Does the survey exist? Your "perspective" (and mine) is created by many influences and I am uneasy that some of these influences are subliminal, covert and controlled.As critical thinkers we have our own filters but to many confuse the "news" with fact.When you or I attempt to influence opinion, we do not have the weight of Madison Ave,network news or other "image " makers.Have you ever heard of Guy Debords Society of the Spectacle? It is a big influence in my thought.
In any sense of the term, you are correct that my insinuation of racism was "over the top" and a purely emotional outburst.Sorry.I did however live in a community in N.Carolina where records were unearthed proving the existence of an active eugenics program as recently as the 1950s and some respected doctors were implicated.They did not consider themselves racist but a program of sterilization for the mentally ill quickly morphed into forced sterilization for mostly black,young, unwed mothers.
As for Chavez, your watch- and- hold -your -tonque prescription is rational, to bad more could not adopt it.Pundits are givin a wonderful opportunity to remain silent but rarely take it.(boomerang?)I watch Sunday shows for sociological study, and to go back to my thoughts on "dominant narrative", to see the propaganda being dissembled.No one and I mean no one attempted to debate the actual points Chavez made in the address, all went straight to the "devil" thing.
These same folks tend to be anti-choice when it comes to reproductive rights but I wonder if they would support abortions for Muslim women, Hispanics, blacks?
Darn right I'm "anti-choice". I'm not big into murder, good sir. And while there are some pro-lifers who might allow for abortions for minorities, I tend to think they themselves are in the minority.
Most pro-lifers that I have talked to have been very nice people, who have only been compelled to act because of a holocaust which has claimed over 40 million American lives.
As for the desire to be rich, I think it stems largely from spiritual malaise. When people disregard even the possibility of the supernatural, they must cocentrate on the natural. If there is no after-life, would you rather be rich or poor?
Troutsky said:
"No one and I mean no one attempted to debate the actual points Chavez made in the address, all went straight to the "devil" thing."
This makes a pretty strong case for not saying such things! I have a similar tendency of launching into hyperbole and as such a lot of what I may have to say that could be of critical value is lost.
The day after chuckling over Chavez's comments, I went to work to find that my students had been intercepted first by their Social Studies teachers who were quick to repeat the media's counter-attack on Chavez. By the time I was talking to students about it they were calling him a "buffoon" or an "idiot dictator." After having a conversation with two of the Social Studies teachers I began to see the effect was generally negative for Chavez.
Although many Bush critics were surely pleased to hear such "over-the-top" rhetoric, I feel this was a grave error on Chavez's part. The message I was trying to send that Chavez, like Castro, are clearly not "anti-AMERICAN" but instead "anti-US government" is now a more difficult task considering the fact that Rangel and Pelosi joined the chorus in calling Chavez a "thug."
On the other hand, and maybe I misunderstood Brad, I still expect more from intellectuals and pundits. I appreciate partisanship, but blatant misrepresentations are as egregious and "over-the-top" as anything Chavez or Troutsky said.
Brad, please explain the negative judgment in your statement: "He also has the right, as the head of state, to throw his lot in with Iran and Cuba." Especially Cuba. What about Cuba? For that matter, what about Venezuela?
Surely, we are not having a discussion to simply state the obvious: our claims, opinions, and labels should be reserved for history to decide. That sounds of Castro: "La historia me absolvaré." Tone and framing are everything, and yours is no exception.
As for Iran, we do not know--as of yet--much about them except what we hear from Bush and Co. Remember what happened the last time we listened to those guys? Does Iraq ring a bell?
In your comment you said: "One should stand outside of one’s ideological tendencies to evaluate the validity of an argument." Unfortunately, this maxim appears vacuous in its application, because "one cannot be neutral on a moving train...There is no such thing as a neutral or representative recapitulation of the facts." (Your favorite: Howard Zinn). Instead of putting forward an abstract, decontextualized impossiblity ("outside ideology") as the very ground from which we argue and analyze our world, why not make the backdrop certain global realities? Say hunger, poverty, distribution of wealth, war, etc.? In this way partisanship is welcome and biasness revealed.
As for the power of persuasion, it has far less to do with reason and much more to do with access, control, framing and the tone of the information received by the masses.
Chebob: "...maybe I misunderstood Brad..."
Apparently you did on several counts.
My comment about Cuba and Iran was not negative, it was a straightforward assertion that Hugo does not need to seek the approval of Washington before picking his allies. Due to that misunderstanding, most of the rant that follows that criticism is irrelevant. Although I find your statement “As for Iran, we do not know--as of yet--much about them except what we hear from Bush and Co” to be odd, coming from someone who claims to be the field of education. Of what I know of Iran, none of it comes from Bush. One can read, including books written by Iranians, see Iranian films, talk with Iranian students, talk with friends who have traveled there, travel there, etc.
I think the reason for your initial misunderstanding is clarified later in your comment:
“In your comment you said: "One should stand outside of one’s ideological tendencies to evaluate the validity of an argument." Unfortunately, this maxim appears vacuous in its application…”
Vacuous? Your filtering of what I wrote through, apparently, extreme ideological filters is what led you to mistake it for a negative statement in the first place, and your quoting of Zinn does nothing but weaken your “vacuous” argument that follows: “Instead of putting forward an abstract, decontextualized impossiblity ("outside ideology") as the very ground from which we argue and analyze our world, why not make the backdrop certain global realities?” I’m not convinced that you understand the full implications of ideology. It is the antithesis of reason, the archenemy of rational dialogue. It is ideology that decontextualizes observations. There can be no backdrop of global realities for a dialogue if all you seek is the opportunity to spin current events to your ideological satisfaction. And this shows in your frustration with “your” students:
“The day after chuckling over Chavez's comments, I went to work to find that my students had been intercepted first by their Social Studies teachers who were quick to repeat the media's counter-attack on Chavez.” “Interceprted”?!? Yes, it’s too bad that you weren’t able to get to them first, and inculcate them with your non-abstract, completely contextualized (i.e., ideological) view of reality.
As for your last statement:
“As for the power of persuasion, it has far less to do with reason and much more to do with access, control, framing and the tone of the information received by the masses.”
Two things: And apparently you want to be the one to control and frame the arguments (see above), and “the masses”?!?…. You arrogant prig, you are one of the masses.
Again Wiser, I apologize for my foolish insinuation of murderous racism,which in any instance, was certainly not directed at you. I am a fool.
I too was concerned with Brads prescription to "stand outside of ones ideology" to achive a kind of pure, intellectual rationality.Che points out the dis-utility of this idealized notion as I could not.If we are self-aware of our filters and transparent in describing them, we can have meaningful discourse.
I understand,Che, how from a strictly "public relations" perspective, Chavez's hyperbole could have been counter-productive. But I am going to argue that at a deeper, revolutionary level it was transformative in a, can i say Brechtian, sense. Like all great theatre, the power of the theme might not manifest itself immediately or in readily apparent ways.Like Dorothy pulling back the curtain to expose the "Great and Mighty Oz", directly confronting the facade of authoritarian power resonates deep in the collective psyche and even your kids (or especially your kids) have been radicalized by the sheer audacity of the "image -moment".Going to Debord, Bush was wounded at the image level as Nixon was fatally wounded ,and the institution wounded, when he was shown to be a mere sociopath.
At any rate, Chomsky's book is selling like hotcakes, the word "hegemonic" was broadcast on millions of US televisions for the first time and revolutionaries everywhere got a much needed boost. If your kids get to the text and Louis Posada and UN veto power and neo-liberalism it will be better yet but in my opinion the fatal blow has already been struck, the wound will fester.
Thanks everybody for the thoughtful posts.
Trout, I understand your initial question better now, and it is even tougher. “how is the dominant narrative arrived at”? I think we can safely say that prior to Socrates, the dominant narrative was whatever the king said it was (and this is still true in many places), and for remote peoples it was/is whatever they experienced on a daily basis. So I assume that your question is about the post-enlightenment West, and more specifically, present day US, where the dominant narrative is spread broadly by the “media” and other networks (including “urban myths,” commonly held mistruths, history without context, etc). I have read about Debords, but never read his works, although I made my way through some of Lukacs work. .
I don’t think there is a simple answer. Volumes have been written on this topic, and “think tanks” have been developed to manipulate it. Monuments are erected to frame it, and “players” seek to control it. It has also been written about in volumes of philosophical works going all the way back to the Greeks (even before Socrates), and more modern writers such as Rousseau and, better in my opinion, Hume:
"By the term impression, then, I mean all our more lively perceptions, when we hear, or see, or feel, or love, or hate, or desire, or will. And impressions are distinguished from ideas, which are the less lively perceptions, of which we are conscious, when we reflect on any of those sensations or movements above mentioned." He further specifies ideas, saying, "It seems a proposition, which will not admit of much dispute, that all our ideas are nothing but copies of our impressions, or, in other words, that it is impossible for us to think of anything, which we have not antecedently felt, either by our external or internal senses." (cut from Wik)
More recently the concepts of epistemology, heuristics, hermeneutics were tackled by various philosophers, others addressed topics such as reification, while Jung et al looked at the symbols that leave impressions on us. As to what may control our “impressions” within the structure of society, that is probably such complex question that it can not be answered, although Lukacs, Derrida, et all certainly tried. Anyway, it seems to me that any attempt to catalog the sources of power over the dominant narrative would only lead to an obvious laundry list based on a priori assumtions about the structure of society.
Ahhh Brad...so it would seem no one, not even you, is above ranting, name-calling and irrationality. Look, we've got pots and kettles everywhere calling each other black! "Arrogant prig?!" OUCH!
Brad said: "I find your statement “As for Iran, we do not know--as of yet--much about them except what we hear from Bush and Co” to be odd, coming from someone who claims to be the field of education." Ohhh how the mighty have fallen. Join us in the mud-slingin' trenches will ya'? :)
I not only "claim" to be an educator, I am one. Certainly I have my faults and deficiencies, and an ignorance of what I should obviously know about Iran is one of them. The point of my comment about Iran was a rhetoric device to exaggerate the shared ignorance our society has about so many important decisions our leaders are making through the manufacturing of our consent.
As an educator, arrogant as I may be, I hope to be offer a broader spectrum of discussion for understanding political controversies than the one put forward by our social studies teachers who consider little more than the Democrat/Republican mini-spectrum. In a foucaultian way I want my students to "problematize" the world around them. If the students hear about Chavez through the media and then have those viewpoints resounded and reiterated by their social studies teachers, what chance is their that they will be able to think critically about the information they receive.
"Inculcate"? That is as "over-the-top" harsh as it gets considering the beginning of my posted comment criticized Chavez's approach during his visit to the U.S. I'm sorry that you and I have not had time to discuss the critically analyzed positions I have on Cuba, or Venezuela.
For one, I am not a "chavista" nor "castrista." When I present my experiences visiting Cuba and Venezuela to my students I am careful to point out human rights violations committed by their governments as much as I take care to point out quantifiable improvements to both societies. I am also "balanced" in offerig up that those changes that can be seen by certain sectors of society as positive gains and benefits, can be seen as negative setbacks by others.
Additional layers compound the issue of inculcation since teachers are seen as trusted authorities of a monolithic public instition. The Social Studies teachers "expertise" is in issues of politics and so to hear them sing with the choir has a galvanizing effect on a student's ideology. Am I the "inculcator"? (Perhaps I am the worst kind if I am to believe what you say about me). However, I am not alone even among my colleagues in believing our students are offered the narrowest of spectrums for understanding global realities by our Social Studies Department.
Do I advocate for the betterment of society ("the masses")? You bet! Do I see myself as a part of "the masses"? In certain contexts: definitely! Do I believe that many people are unaware of "invisible hands"; controlling media; uninformed, narrow-minded social studies teachers; seemingly monolithic textbooks written by arrogant, ideological prigs; the falseness of the inevitability of capitalism; etc.: ABSOLUTELY! I believe this because although I work to educate myself more and more about these influences, I know that I do not fully comprehend the comprehensive reach of the dominant ideology. My work is to reveal, problematize and analyze ideology, not propogate one.
Perhaps again you are right and I do not fully "understand the implications of ideology." Do you? Are you claiming to be able to "stand outside your ideological tendencies" in order to "evaluate the validity of an argument"? How is this done? I doubt seriously this ability and RESPECTFULLY ask for your understanding of ideological neutrality, and how it is done.
"The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society through a normative thought process (what the world ought to be)" (Wikipedia). I searched the definition offered in Wikipedia and couldn't come up with "antithesis of reason, the archenemy of rational dialogue." I was reminded however of Michel Foucault's "apparent ideological neutrality," which I'm sure I don't fully appreciate, but I'm provoked by the word "apparent." What I did garner was the idea that an ideology is a "comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things." What happens when the reasoning in one's argument falls neatly and nicely into the ideological perspective that they had temporarily pushed aside? Won't that person still be seen as ideological? Perhaps my cynicism stems from the fact that I rarely witness ideological neutrality anywhere. More troubling, is that we eventually run headlong into ideological concerns when discussing how to best improve our world.
Is it ideologically derived to state that "global hunger and poverty are ethical crises"? Or was this statement "outside my ideology"? I'm asking this question in all seriousness. This is not meant to be rhetorical.
Is it ideological to say that "wealth is maldistributed"? Where does reason end and ideology begin?
Needless to say, we both seem to have the same tendencies as those we criticize for being belligerent. Perhaps we could dull those intellectual barbs a bit and continue in some "rational dialogue." If either of us were convinced of the perfection of our arguments, ideologies and viewpoints, would we even bother coming here to blog? Perhaps we could dispense with the word "arrogant" since neither of us is pretending to have a monopoly on "TRUTH." Besides, communication is such an imperfect thing, that it's easy to believe there is much more we'd like to communicate yet our time, energy and language limits us.
I'd rather like to think you and I believe there's more positive potential to come from the time we spend blogging if we keep it kind. I sincerely apologize for making it personal Brad! I hope we will continue to communicate in the future.
Sincerely,
Che Bob
"prig" Brad? A bit colonialist, I should say,a little to much Somerset Maughn, or VS Naipul.Your berating of commentors at neo-neocon is one thing (" you are boring,you are poorly educated, you are ignorant of history,et..")but we strive for a higher level here.
When discussing this issue of nuetrality, I return to Edward Saids great work, Orientalism, where that same colonialist hegemony of thought is shown to permeate the study of history on the Levant.By critically analyzing the descriptives and tone, he shows how attitudes are perpetuated and issues "framed", much like what we have been discussing here.Did Said claim to be "nuetral"? Hardly.He was proud and open about his politics and defended the powerless but this in no way takes away from his reasoned arguments. Unfortunately , he fought his whole life in opposition to the "dominant narrative" (the colonialists had morphed into the new "soft" imperialists) and so his work did not find a broad audience.It did, however,form a platform upon which we can build.
Che bob, Yes, let’s drop the "arrogant" and "vacuous" (which is what set me off; “wrong” would have been sufficient). Sorry Trout.
I still disagree with both of you on the factual analysis question. Determining the validity of a statement or “fact” is a separate process from assessing the significance and localizing it within a worldview. This forms the basis for Descartes’ most important contribution to science and modern philosophy. It has been said that the difference between intelligence and wisdom is that intelligence is the ability process complex concepts, but wisdom is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in one’s head at the same time (to asses them) and not necessarily accept either of them (apply prejudice beforehand). A concrete example of what I meant:
Che bob states that he is not a chavista, and after observing Hugo's speech, comes to the conclusion that the "diablo" comments and other attempts at humor are "a grave error"; that they can and will be used by his detractors to belittle him and intentionally miss the forest for a few trees. Maybe I’m wrong, but Trout appears to be uncritical of the rhetorical style (if I am wrong then just imagine someone who is uncritical of it). (disclaimer: I agree with Che bob). Can one get to the truth here? Probably not, but let’s look at the evidence: Che bob’s colleagues in Social Studies used the theatrics to dismiss Hugo as a clown and, therefore, ignore the factuality or substance of what he was saying. My experience has been the same, all of the conversations I have heard focused on the form of the speech. A small sample size, but let’s go with it. If one considers the evidence sufficient to prove that the rhetoric was a mistake, then I would submit that to recognize that one must disregard an a priori agreement with Hugo’s worldview (i.e., one must ignore, as best as possible, one’s ideology to establish the “truth” in this case).
As a scientist I will restate it in scientific terms: students must learn to design experiments (often with some expected results in mind, because of the hypothesis of the project), but they must never design the results, those must be arrived empirically, with all the proper controls (i.e., outside of the student’s expectations and hopes, which would correlate to ideology in politics). They can then speculate on the meaning of the results, and this may include their biases.
Last point: Che bob asks “Is it ideological to say that "wealth is maldistributed"? Where does reason end and ideology begin?”
Reason without bias (as best as one can do this) will yield the numbers, the tables of income and inherent wealth in different societies and different groups within societies, and it must be normalized for relative spending power and other factors, such as the presence of non-quantifiable wealth (animals or produce that don’t make it to market, presence of extended families versus the necessity for child care, availability of higher education and the effects that has on income generation in a given place, the effects of conflicts on the disruption of production, etc.). Reason will yield the trend lines for wealth distribution and generation over periods of time, in different places. As in science, this can be done with minimal influence from one’s prejudices. Once the data is there, one can asses it and propose solutions (actually attenuations) to the problems, base on one’s ideological perspective, but if that perspective is apparent in the data, or lack thereof, then the validity of the claims will be in doubt. Therefore, a “standard of fact” must be established for the viewpoints to be taken seriously, and this is actually one of the major criticisms of writers like Chomsky and Said.
I do think we have more in common in our interests, so I hope a dialogue continues. Brad
Thanks for responding Brad, your interesting points are well taken and all apologies (including mine) accepted.This wisdom of which you speak is a worthy goal but at least for me, it is going to have to wait till after the emancipation of the proletariat.In these times it is a luxury to have time for such Socratic detachment, one our children cannot afford. As in the Buddhist interpretation, my non-attachment runs headlong into my compassion and so I am willing to act without perfect assurances that my aim is true.To be stymied by excessive precaution is unacceptable, to require an over-burden of proof before moving is to be swallowed by the inertia of the status quo, again, unacceptable.
If only it were just a question of gathering facts and data, discerning which were relevant and converting it all into a mathematic hypothesis.
Unfortunately, in politics we also do not have the luxury of being able to set up disprovable experiments, our theories can only be tested in the realm of the possible.It may actually be a mistake to link the analysis of social issues with scientific methods.Science takes special training, a special intellectual frame of reference but it is unnecessary to impose this hierarchal structure on the understanding of social issues,which are quite accessible to anyone.
To take your "Hugo" example, where Che finds his students and you find your aquaintances have negative reactions to the rhetoric,here we have a simple matter of polling. But are we going to say that all determination for what is "over the top" shall be decided on polls? If popular opinion becomes the simple determinant (formal democracy), then the terrible power of opinion shapers under capitalism becomes evident. Economic coercion is in the end the final arbiter.
So when you say "standard of fact" I am thinking fact: 340,000 people starved to death today while millions of tons of food went to waste. Simple reason would tell us the solution to this problem. But the actuality is that 340,000 people will again die of hunger tommorro.It seems over the top.
Brad,
Yeah, let's move on. Apology accepted. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Brad said:
"a “standard of fact” must be established for the viewpoints to be taken seriously, and this is actually one of the major criticisms of writers like Chomsky and Said." In this case, I think evidence strongly suggests that both Chomsky's and Said's viewpoints are taken VERY SERIOUSLY!
Every intellectual has his/her critics, but surely you are not suggesting that Chomsky and Said are not taken seriously...are you? You may disagree with both/either of them, but I can hardly think of two intellectuals who are more respected for their scholarship than Chomsky and Said. As such, I cannot imagine that they arrived at such respected positions without providing reputable "standards of fact."
Back to the case of students at my high school. I appreciate you recognizing my attempt at neutrality when I said that I was most frustrated by the fact that the students would not exposed to the substance of Chavez's speech due to the spectacle created in no small part by Chavez himself.
I'm still confused by your allusion that I simply "state" that I am not a chavista, when my pedagogic hope was that students hear from Chavez himself, including his remarks, then they debate/discuss the event in order to draw their own conclusions. My role in being there before the Social Studies teachers get to them was to provide the very learning environment you and I would agree is ideal for objective learning. An environment that the Social Studies teachers seem unwilling to create.
However, it is important to note that at very few points in the lives of these students is the information they receive "outside of ideology." Whether it is the TV, newspapers, parents, Social Studies Department, textbooks, encyclopedias, Internet, etc., each of these mediums "filter" information to the students through their own worldviews. (Show me an objective example of one of these sources, and I'll show you were "El Dorado" really is). Primarily this is done through the framing of information. Each of these mediums plays a role in the "inculcation" of society's youth. However, it is reasonable to assert that the balance of worldviews represented in a student's daily life is weighted towards those that control the majority of the flow of information. It is also reasonable to assume that those that control the information represent a small elite group of similarly convicted individuals: usually corporate elite.
My point is that the exchange of information in practical applications is forever bound by ideology.
Post a Comment
<< Home