Bloggody blog blog blog

What upsets me most about this course is the fact that every time I pick up a book, I have a mental argument with the author. I tossed and turned as I read through the first couple pages objecting to everything that this author cites. At the top of page 2, Woodford claims that Dewey believed that "Ultimately freedom of mind was a means of pursuing and maximizing the public good. It was a form of social and cultural critique. Like the utilitarians, Dewey believed that society's institutions should be subjected to continual scrutiny and critique. but whereas the utilitarians defined good in terms of the pain, pleasure or happiness of existing individuals, Dewey conceived of it as the releasing of human capacity for communal action." This paragraph disturbed me because I felt Woodford took a very general idea of Dewey's and stated it in a way that takes away individuality. One person's view (in this case, Dewey's) should be accepted as a community view. The idea of defining good from this perspective and this early in the book really set me off. The author put me down a narrow path that sought Dewey's way as "The Way". What I think is hilarious about Dewey is that he lived in a time when he could have put his great fundamental ideas into action in the public school system to break down the barriers and restore education to a "good" sense (in his view). Yet public school systems have remained the same. We still sit rows, still watch the clock and still exert a behavior that goes through the motions as opposed to simply learning. While I'm in love with the fact of Dewey's ideas, goals and views in the classroom, they were incapable in the past, so why would they work in the present? Later on in the page, Woodford references students of Dewey's time stating that "individuals might not be especially wise or talented, but they were positioned to reflect on and to act intelligently to improve, the quality of their own lives and those around them." From the last book that we read on community, I thought the goal was to find each individual's gifts and make them work in the community? I thought the goal was to enable each student or person to grow based on their own intelligence, not necessarily based on the intelligence level that we hold as a standard. I thought the goal was to thrive through individuality as a quality, not the qulaity of individuality that others set for us? My next qualm with Woodford comes on page 4. "Intolerance, abuse, calling of names because of difference of opinion about religion or politics or business, as well as because of differences of race or color, wealth, or degree of culture are treason to the democratic way of life." As a direct quote from Dewey, this is another poor example of depicting a current life situation. Anywhere you go these days, one is bound to run into intolerance. Instead of pretending that this treason is forbidden in life, we need to find a way as teachers to embrace the situation and find ways to deal with it. There will always be issues with money, pride and opinion. How we deal with each of these intolerances is what makes us stronger humans. My last issue came on page 5 before I finally had to stop reading because I felt like throwing up. If any of you remember back to the pyramid task that Korey and Ryan had us do, I imagined a community pyramid with support of the members at the bottom to form a foundation and a strong set of values at the very top. Woodford analyzes Dewey on page 5 and says that, "society as a whole should learn to overcome the limitations of past experience, received dogmas, the stirring of self-interest, the arousing of passion, sheer mental laziness, a false social environment steeped in biased traditions or animated by false expectations, and so on." I think I screamed a little bit. First, past experience is how we as a society learn to move on with life. If we never looked at past experiences, we would be like fish, swimming around with memory losses and only focusing on what we can do in the present. The past gives us clues to the future. Second, received dogmas for some people could develop into communities that support these principles. When I hear the word dogma, the intention I feel is a negative relgion. However, in this context, I feel that Wordford is putting down any sense of purpose or group that a person may devote themself to. Third, self interest in the 21st century has become the only motivating factor that keeps some of us as students going through the day. In all honesty, our educational lives may not be the easiest or the best, but if you end up surviving at a school like Westminster Choir College, then you can consider that degree well worth it. In a society like our school offers, one can look at self-interest and see that this is a positive outlook. When you graduate there is a tremendous sense of accomplishment as well as confidence that is established. I feel that confidence is attained primarily out of self-interest. Moving on, how can the arousing of passion be viewed in a negative light? My goodness, if each of my adult choir members aroused some sort of passion, (be it in music or any interest outside for that matter), I would throw a party. People have lost zest for life and wish it away for that one day of retirement. But because of the shape of the American economy, one is left forsaken when it comes to dreams of travel due to increases in foreign currencies. Also left forsaken is social security as a reliable source of income, but we won't go there right now. Next, a false social environment is what each and every one of us has fallen into as 21st century musicians! If I had a dime every time I passed a football player in the hallway and someone referred to them as a jock, I would be a millio--check that---billionaire. Viewed as a chorus geek my whole life, I lived up to the so-called false social environment and found a gift that I wouldn't have had if I were to chase my original dream as a sports commentator. The false social environment backfires for most of us in the other direction. The smart snoody richass cheerleaders become selfless moms and teachers that invigerate their students with the same passion that they left on the football field or basketball court years ago. I'm sure there are many more examples. When Dewey says "so on.", this is when I had my knockout punch with Dewey and Woodford. I closed the book and picked up a critique. Did I mention I hate Dewey?