Life’s not fair.
Isn’t that the ugliest lesson we have to teach our children? It’s one thing when it’s about the size of their ice cream cone; it’s quite another when it’s about how institutions will reward or punish them. And yet this lesson is one I find myself explaining again and again to the odd gang of queer-identified teenagers who tend to congregate at my house.
“But we’re not treated fairly at school,” they point out. They’re probably right. Like all non-heterosexual youth in the U.S., the queer teens in my life are probably unfairly targeted by their high school and other institutions of social control. Like Black and Latino men, nonheterosexual youth are 40 percent more likely to be punished by schools and courts than their straight peers. And queer girls are even more likely to be punished than queer boys.
These appalling and yet not surprising facts come from a study based on the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The study tracked students across time to show that nonheterosexual youth were far more likely to be stopped by the police, be arrested, face sanctions as adults, and be expelled from school than their heterosexual peers.
In other words, life is unfair, which is exactly what I say when the queer teens tell me about a teacher who insisted that punishment in the U.S. has nothing to do with race. When one of the queer kids raised her hand and pointed out how many more black and Latino Americans are in jail than whites, her teacher, a white woman, blithely told her that “race has nothing to do with it” and that “the criminal justice system is fair.” Then this incredibly optimistic teacher said she was “sick of your attitude” and sent the queer girl out of the room. A trip to the guidance counselor’s office didn’t really resolve the problem. Because, after all, life is unfair and this loud, obnoxious, and yes in many ways dykey young woman is not going to be embraced by the very institutions that systematically discriminate against her.
Female students are expected to be docile, which by definition means easily taught. This is why within the current disciplinary regimes known as public schools, girls tend to be more successful than boys. But when girls act in an unruly manner, when they question, think critically, or otherwise refuse to submit, they become hyper-visible as unruly bodies. Not that differently from black and Latino men in this country. They require stricter sanctions and increased control.
In some ways this entanglement of black and Latino men with queer women of whatever race makes sense. Within the cultural logic we have inherited from Victorian times, certain bodies are too masculine and therefore excessively sexual, violent, and aggressive. Women who desired other women were imagined by the early sexologists as gender inverts, as really men. Black (and later Latino) men were imagined as overly sexual and aggressive and therefore in need of excess force from without to control their bodies. Lesbians and black men were always suspected of wanting to rape “innocent” white women.
The Lesbian Menace and the Black Rapist got twisted together in a way that can only be described as perverse. Unruly bodies and desires in need of excessive control. So the fact that these bodies get treated unfairly and are subjected to increased levels of institutional force should not really surprise us. Life may not be fair, but sadly life does play out in the most overly rehearsed ways.
26 Responses to Life’s Queer Unfairness
t_paine - December 9, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Ms Essig ignores standards of argument, supplies her own causes and effects. In every post we get a simple-minded approach to complicated subjects, no helpful ideas, just a reaffirmation of victim status for the groups she favors.
But what I find most off-putting about these writings is their relentless focus on the ugly, the dysfunctional and disabled, the freakish, the unproductive, broke representations of life. There is always anger at the normal and vilification of anything that works, that succeeds. I find this all quite queer, that is to say, odd.
trendisnotdestiny - December 9, 2010 at 3:38 pm
t_paine
Got empathy? Jeessshhh
One of the great problems in scholarship is that we often forget more than we know.
As life changes around us, we retrieve knowledge that can be dated, partial or shaped by our emotions. There is nothing wrong with being reminded about the snapshots of culture here and there. This is far from a simple minded task unless you have already concluded your learning on the subject matter.
Then, one can see your impatience with dialogue (as if you are so much further advanced in your thinking as the rest of us here) and move to solutions imbued your own pejorative “victim label” as if your ideas are helpful and the only product of an article like this is stir agreement.
Humbly, what is odd is that you would respond to Laurie’s article at all given your proclivity to normalize ugly dysfunction as a permanent idea the rest of us should be getting used to instead of moving on (revealing a strong emotional reaction to these ideas). Maybe this reactive signal indicates you still have work to do and that you forget some the reasons an article such as this is written….. Maybe not…
goxewu - December 9, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Professor Essig presented some facts about queer kids (for which she provided a link), and coupled them with rather commonly held cultural knowledge forming the basis of some great literature (William Faulkner, Richard Wright, James Baldwin, William Styron, et. al) and reaffirmed every now and then by real events (Willie Horton, Charles Stuart, Gene Bennett). From this she fashioned a pretty good short essay that adumbrates an interesting phenomenon: the intertwining of the stereotypes of the sexually predatory (read: feared to be superior) black male and the mannish (read: feared to be a better man than you are) lesbian. Fleshed out (pardon the pun), it’s probably a publishable article, and expanded (“A Bigger One Than You’ve Got: Black Males, Mannish Lesbians and Sexual Paranoia in America”), maybe even a book.
“Standards of argument”: Professor Essig’s nice little post isn’t a 3″ x 5″ card for the debating team.
pocvecem - December 9, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Although I completely agree with t_paine’s first two sentences and, as usual, disagree with TIND and goxewu on the issues of knowledge and evidence, there’s something else going on here that really deserves to be looked at.
Let’s look at the word “empathy” from TIND and overlook all of the questionable cultural assertions Essig makes. I’m going to agree with TIND that empathy is good. Whether Essig’s assertions are true or not, she links to what appears to be a very good study. Our columnist has identified a legitimate problem and a little empathy might help people recognize these kids as equal citizens, even if they object to the teenagers’ sexual behaviors.
It’s sad that Essig’s involvement with Cultural Studies has rendered her unable to convey the problem in a way that speaks to the teenagers’ humanity and the readers’ empathy. The other stuff she put in this column is probably believable to her like-minded colleagues on the far left, but it misses the mark when addressing a larger audience. Unfortunately, that larger audience is probably the group she would most like to influence.
t_paine - December 9, 2010 at 7:18 pm
povecem, I agree with you and TIND about empathy, and TIND speaks truly of “being reminded about the snapshots of culture here and there” but my criticism was of the narrow relentless nature of Essig’s world view. We should look at everything, but not become obsessed with the sadness to the point that we can’t see beauty in the world anymore.
Gox, all the trumped-up literary references in the library won’t turn this thing into a solid essay. An opinion piece, maybe. We have a saying in my country: “You can put a tuxedo on a goat, but it’s still a goat.”
(my country being NY)
trendisnotdestiny - December 9, 2010 at 8:09 pm
To all,
I re-read this thread after some thoughtful comments by all. Initially, I thought about re-directing comments back to t_paine and pocvecem in an argumentative tone not that they would be deserving of that. However, just as some writings are snapshots of things to remind ourselves, it is clear other writings are not (as some are meant to stay with us longer than a reminder)…
Which led me to consider if t_paine’s ‘relentless’ criticism and pocvecem’s salient point about influencing/persuading an audience not predisposed to agree with Essig’s snapshots have some connection to empathy given their recent comments.
Respectfully, what I came up with may not stick but I wonder if we aren’t really talking about the use of emotion to sell a certain viewpoint. I wonder if there are audiences who resent (t_paine) the use of emotional provocation to the degree it becomes excessive and demands empathy(overload) as well as those audiences (pocvecem) require that the emotional component also be accompanied by the form of logic.
Personally, I struggle with this as a writer, believing that the best writing binds an audience to the viscera and does not let go (Meyerhoff, 1974) through emotions… However, it makes one wonder how many products are sold this way in information age that agitate us emotionally without permission either through relentless assumed consent or via a unrecognizable form that does not always conveys universal humanity….
Would be curious about all of your responses…
pocvecem - December 10, 2010 at 3:45 am
There are several things going on here.
Logic and proof are important when establishing that a problem exists and evaluating solutions. Since most people aren’t going to read academic studies, some use of emotion is acceptable to sell the necessary solutions as long as the method does not increase the audience’s resistance.
Contra TIND, I did not see “emotional provocation” in this article. In fairness, I see a lot of Cultural Studies influence but I understand how it might register as “emotional provocation” for people who have not read the same things I have.
Academic considerations aside, a gigantic problem I see with this column is that it provokes unnecessary controversies. High school as an “institution of social control?” I’m not buying the assertion and I know the theory behind the statement; there’s plenty more in the column where that came from. Why even bring that topic up? Laurie Essig’s goal is to point out that a certain group of teenagers is facing what amounts to persecution. She has the proof that a problem exists, so why not appeal with methods that would be meaningful for the people she wants to convince? Very few Americans believe that people should face punishments for acts they did not commit. Why not start there? In some religious circles, there is a philosophy of “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Although that phrase doesn’t portray “the group she favors” (t_paine’s line) in the most positive light, it advocates for what those teenagers want and need: the ability to go about their lives without undue burdens. I think it also advocates without interpreting the religious principle in a way that would be unfamiliar or seem disingenuous to the audience.
And at last, some credit for TIND. Too often, people believe that people who disagree with them must not care about the people a particular rhetoric or program is designed to help. (See: “opponents of affirmative action must be against minorities” instead of “they have a different idea of how to fix the problem”) It’s good to see a discussion starting that recognizes good will on both sides. Well done, TIND.
vernaye - December 10, 2010 at 7:50 am
Clearly these students have NOT learned the lesson that life is unfair. Thus, they are trapped in an immature mindset that says: “I OUGHT to have justice at all times, regardless of circumstances.” The chief goal of education should be to teach all people a) to be realistic (in the political and the generic sense) and b) to be capable of virtue. Thus, the student should have kept her mouth shut when she saw that her argument was not getting anywhere. She should have done this, not in order to become docile, but because her actions are clearly ineffective. It’s at that point that her tactics need to be rethought, rather than clinging blindly to the idea that she ought to be heard according to the precepts of “justice.”
It’s all a matter of strategy. When you cling to ineffective strategies in the middle of the crisis, you must either lack critical imagination or have ulterior motives for wanting to fail.
goxewu - December 10, 2010 at 10:13 am
Small stuff, but at least it’s not the Roc bird:
* t_paine means, or should mean, something else about my literary references than “trumped up.” The expression means, essentially, fabricated, fictitious, as in “trumped up charges against my client.”
* If he means my references are arcane, pretentious, etc., they’re not. “Light in August,” “Native Son,” “The Fire Next Time,” and “The Confessions of Nat Turner” are fairly commonly read very-good-to-great modern American literature.
* I didn’t say “solid” essay; I said “pretty good” essay, by which I meant that, while not data-heavy, it combined a few facts, personal observation, reasoning (i.e., Professor Essig’s points were not unreasonable) and, yes, a little imagination (people in the humanities sometimes employ that faculty) to make a nice piece of expository writing.
* Professor Essig’s world-view is not totally dark, e.g., her defense of elite colleges. And being a social critic is in no way tantamount to being “obsessed with the sadness to the point that we can’t see beauty in the world anymore.” If Professor Essig’s posts drive t_paine to despair, there are lots of Panglossian things to read all over the Interet. (I’m not sure if Reader’s Digest is still around.)
* This, “We have a saying…” trope is really tired. And I’m sure that New York (especially if it’s the city and not some onion farm upstate) can do better than a simple substitution for the ever-popular “lipstick on a pig.” But, to join this festival of the fatiguing, in my country, we have a saying, “So dry they fart sand.” t_paine can take that as he wishes.
* The elevated discussion between pocvecem and trendisnotdestiny is much more interesting than the quibbling twixt t_paine and me. So I’ll leave the thread to them for now.
katisumas - December 10, 2010 at 10:47 am
vernaye, how about “I ought to have justice some of the time”? Or how about “I am concerned about kids getting discriminated against, kicked out of school and generally made to feel worthless”? Or most importantly, how about “life is unfair, but at least I hope to do whatever I can to make it less so and not to agravate this unfairness”.
Or, none of the above. I’m concerned about the form of the article, –perhaps a comma or two misplaced? Certainly young lives thrown away couldn’t possibly be more important than a “standard of argument”, right? And could solid factual evidence be the best standard of argument one can come up with?
Facts of the article (a reminder):
1. There’s a reference, a quote and a direct link to the “National longitudinal study of adolescent health”. It seems to me that if you don’t trust the author of the article to provide real references, you need to first look up the study and draw your own conclusions.
2. The example given was that of a young lesbian girl who was kicked out of class for wondering why there are proportionally more blacks and Latinos in prison than white. Actually there are studies showing that for equal transgressions, an African American youth or a Latino youth is much more likely to be sent to juvenal prison than a white kid. I hope your research skills are as good as the teen in the case and you know how to look those facts up?
As for putting Laurie Essig’s article into a political framework, in this case “far left” –what’s political about the welfare of our children? Don’t any of you have a kid in high school? Do any of you actually have children? I hope none of you responding to this article are the type of people who put their child on the street if they find out they’re gay or lesbian or have physiological gender issues?
Vernaye again, when you are expecting a teen, that is a child in our culture, to coldly assess and strategize a situation where she finds out her teacher is feeding a pack of lies to her fellow students, you’re either never have been young yourself, or given up all ideals by age 11, you obviously haven’t read anything about how the adolescent brain isn’t yet fully devoloped, or what?
dank48 - December 10, 2010 at 10:47 am
Is it not possible that children raised by two parents, whether these be a mother and a father or two mothers or two fathers, tend to turn out better (by whatever definition) than do children raised by one parent, of whatever gender? Heroic efforts by single parents, usually but by no means always mothers, can indeed by successful, but the odds aren’t favorable. It’s a two-way street, and causes and effects aren’t easy to sort out.
Additionally, “special” kids, by whatever definition, require more effort than do “normal” kids, whatever that may mean. Life isn’t fair and never has been and never will be, and that in itself is one of the lessons that has to be taught unless you want your kid(s) wandering out into the real world with unrealistic expectations.
We all have the right to live our lives as we choose. We don’t have the slightest reason to expect the world to respond to our life choices as we might wish it would, and it’s more than a little disingenuous to be “Shocked, shocked” when the rest of this imperfect world turns out to be less sympathetic and less open-minded than we’d like it to be.
Conformity is the easy way, relatively, but it has its price, and I applaud those who choose to go their own way. But nonconformity also has its price.
katisumas - December 10, 2010 at 10:51 am
Trendisnotdestiny,
I suspect that if you’re a writer of fiction, it would make more sense to cite other works of literature because creative writers learn from other writers as well as their own life e[periences.
If you’re writing essays about emotions, I suspect there are better sources than Meyerhoff, 1974, since so much work on the physiological nature of our emotions as well as psychololgy has been done since then ….
t_paine - December 10, 2010 at 11:11 am
“Professor Essig presented some facts about queer kids (for which she provided a link), and coupled them with rather commonly held cultural knowledge forming the basis of some great literature (William Faulkner, Richard Wright, James Baldwin, William Styron, et. al) and reaffirmed every now and then by real events (Willie Horton, Charles Stuart, Gene Bennett). From this she fashioned a pretty good short essay that adumbrates an interesting phenomenon: the intertwining of the stereotypes of the sexually predatory (read: feared to be superior) black male and the mannish (read: feared to be a better man than you are) lesbian. Fleshed out (pardon the pun), it’s probably a publishable article, and expanded (“A Bigger One Than You’ve Got: Black Males, Mannish Lesbians and Sexual Paranoia in America”), maybe even a book”
The lit references are trumped-up because essig does not cite them, and would not, most likely. They are wu’s tuxedo on Essig’s goat.
Onion farmers? Did you hear that? Oh, what a giveaway. He called me a peasant! Oh, he’s oppressing me! Look! Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Another cardboard Marxist shows his true colors.
Gox, you don’t read my posts and that’s sad, but you don’t read your own posts either and that’s a deal breaker. No more Paine for you.
lisalita - December 10, 2010 at 11:22 am
To make a different point….Essig suggests that the teenage girl complaining about the criminal justice system is discriminated against because she is gay. But she also concedes that she is obnoxious. I don’t care who she has sex with, but I don’t welcome obnoxious students in my class. I feel mutual respect is crucial. Does that mean I am discriminating against her because of her sexuality? I don’t think so.
lexalexander - December 10, 2010 at 12:17 pm
[[Clearly these students have NOT learned the lesson that life is unfair. Thus, they are trapped in an immature mindset that says: “I OUGHT to have justice at all times, regardless of circumstances.”]]
Yeah, where could they possibly have gotten that idea? Oh, wait: “I pledge allegiance to the flag …”
There’s a larger issue here, too, which, for lack of a better term, I’m going to call the War on Empathy. From fundamentalist Christians and Randian pseudophilosophers to all manner of advertising, a lot of people out there are working in large and small ways to get us to ignore our shared humanity.
I’m not an academic by training, but I would think there might be a paper or three in this.
princeton67 - December 10, 2010 at 2:33 pm
“. Like Black and Latino men, nonheterosexual youth are 40 percent more likely to be punished by schools and courts than their straight peers. And queer girls are even more likely to be punished than queer boys. “
Unless Ms. Essig documents that these four groups (B,L,N,QQ) are NOT “40 percent more likely to” engage in punishable behavior, her argument is specious.
Ditto for “nonheterosexual youth were far more likely to be stopped by the police, be arrested, face sanctions as adults, and be expelled from school than their heterosexual peers.”.
“the queer teens tell me about a teacher”. And we are supposed to accept the teenager’s version? No other witness, no even asking the teacher or the guidance counselor? Does the teacher even know the student is “dykey”?
“her teacher, a white woman, blithely told her that “race has nothing to do with it” and that “the criminal justice system is fair.” (a) What does the sex and race of the teacher have to do with her belief? Are words to be discounted because he speaker is female, and white? (b) thus avoiding having to document that “black and Latino Americans” do NOT engage in criminal activity to a higher degree than other minorities – say Asian, Amish, and Muslim.
“Female students are expected to be docile, which by definition means easily taught.” Not if the teacher demands creative, rather than memorized, responses.
“This is why…”. And here I though that gender differences, afterschool jobs, athletics, later brain development , etc. could also possibly maybe influence academic achievement.
“…within the current disciplinary regimes known as public schools, girls tend to be more successful than boys”. Regimes whose rules are determined by a local group known as the “school board”, elected by another local group known as “voters”, a sub-group of which is known as “parents”.
Space limits detailing my reactions to the rhetorical devices – hearsay and begging the question, for two – unconvincingly used in this article, Reminds me of another article arguing that alcoholics are likely to be harassed/arrested/incarcerated more than any other group for drunkenness.
goxewu - December 10, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Oh, Lordy.
* I certainly didn’t “trump up” literary references that I said, or even implied, that Professor Essig made or meant to make. I merely said that the subject of paranoia in America about black males’ perceived sexual superiority–something that Professor Essig posited–was something that some very good American literature dealt with. So I gave some examples, first authors, then titles.
* “Onion farm” is a reference–admittedly esoteric–to a famous welterweight and middleweight boxer from upstate New York. Why was it there? To see if t_paine would indicate whether “New York” referred to the state or the city. It’s difficult to believe that a professed “scholar” of his particular literalism could live in the City, but, hey, there’s one of everything in that great metropolis. (I still don’t quite know if t_paine is a city mouse or a country mouse, but his high dudgeon–apparently gleaned from the LFOD2 school of rhetoric–satirical though it may try to be, has me leaning toward suburban/exurban/rural.)
* Is “No more Paine for you” a promise or a threat? The former is welcome, the latter is empty. (Hunch: There’ll be more Paine for me.)
trendisnotdestiny - December 10, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Pocvecem,
QUOTE
“Logic and proof are important when establishing that a problem exists and evaluating solutions. Since most people aren’t going to read academic studies, some use of emotion is acceptable to sell the necessary solutions as long as the method does not increase the audience’s resistance.”
Pocvecem, I hear you and believe logic and proof can be essential. At other times,though, I wonder if the audience’s resistance is more about not being able to do anything productive with the emotion being presented (or sitting with it uncomfortably). Hear me out on this as I am stretching a bit. How do you account for all of those things that have little proof and zero logic such as times when everyday people’s experiences and emotions are catywampus. Why do outcomes, evidence become so much more important than processes and intuition? This is where the empathy divide sometimes become more transparent for me.
I truly wonder if sometimes that the default (negative response by an audience) is tilted around this left brained process of evidence and logic. However, there are many kinds of knowledge where evoking something for the reader can spark a new experience, new avenue for thinking a different path. While I am not making a black and white statement that logic/proof= bad and emotions=good (sounding like a caveman), it is not clear to me that “her cultural studies influence” is more than bringing out emotions for the reader that: “hey this was an experience by GLBT teen and it went unnoticed until the student spoke to be put down.
I would be interested in what you have read, Pocvecem that dulls you to this emotion provocation.
QUOTE
Academic considerations aside, a gigantic problem I see with this column is that it provokes unnecessary controversies. High school as an “institution of social control?” I’m not buying the assertion and I know the theory behind the statement; there’s plenty more in the column where that came from. Why even bring that topic up?
What about the academic dialogues where high schools are places of institutional control? It may be counter to your belief, but what about Peter McLaren’s book ‘Life in Schools’ that discusses all the ways in which institutional control disciplines students (more than most students who are different). While you certainly do not have to be versed here to carry on a conversation here (Goxewu, 2010), I wonder why you have such a strong reaction (provoking unnecessary controversies) by her telling a story that chronicles this. It seems perfectly acceptable given the things I have read to take the position that she is speaking from her experiences and making things real for students as well as challenging for the powers that be. We need more of this not less.
QUOTE
“Laurie Essig’s goal is to point out that a certain group of teenagers is facing what amounts to persecution. She has the proof that a problem exists, so why not appeal with methods that would be meaningful for the people she wants to convince?
It seems after reading this I would be in error to not ask about some of the methods you think may effective!
QUOTE
” In some religious circles, there is a philosophy of “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Although that phrase doesn’t portray “the group she favors” (t_paine’s line) in the most positive light, it advocates for what those teenagers want and need: the ability to go about their lives without undue burdens. I think it also advocates without interpreting the religious principle in a way that would be unfamiliar or seem disingenuous to the audience.”
Help me here Poc! I am not picking up what you are putting down. Are you saying that Dr. Essig needs to address an audience of religious principled people in an article about the mistreatment of gay and lesbian teenagers? Please help me understand this as I do read at times, but synaptic poptitude occurs and I lose meaning!
QUOTE
“And at last, some credit for TIND. Too often, people believe that people who disagree with them must not care about the people a particular rhetoric or program is designed to help. (See: “opponents of affirmative action must be against minorities” instead of “they have a different idea of how to fix the problem”) It’s good to see a discussion starting that recognizes good will on both sides. Well done, TIND.”
Actually, credit goes to you, Gox & others for helping to shape a less abrasive style as well as my wife who calls me wanker when I get too ‘involved’ in CHE blogging. Cheers to all!
trendisnotdestiny - December 10, 2010 at 3:56 pm
@ katisumas,
QUOTE
“If you’re writing essays about emotions, I suspect there are better sources than Meyerhoff, 1974, since so much work on the physiological nature of our emotions as well as psychology has been done since then ”
Thanks for your concern and the time you devoted to responding to Vernaye. Actually, Meyerhoff’s book Number Our Days is a classic text for people interesting in observing, writing about culture. The genre I prefer is autoethnography and her intimate book about Survivors of Holocaust adjusting to life in Southern California is pretty interesting (emotionally). However, I am sure you are right about emotions (I have read Candace Pert’s book on the molecules of emotion and I found this very provocative although I am light behind how corporate america has successfully harnessed soliciting my symbian brain! Cheers!
trendisnotdestiny - December 10, 2010 at 3:58 pm
@ lexalexander
THIS IS THE BEST THING I HAVE READ ALL WEEK!
“There’s a larger issue here, too, which, for lack of a better term, I’m going to call the War on Empathy. From fundamentalist Christians and Randian pseudophilosophers to all manner of advertising, a lot of people out there are working in large and small ways to get us to ignore our shared humanity.”
There is a book in this and I would love to read it!
pocvecem - December 10, 2010 at 5:38 pm
@ TIND:
Let me make a distinction. Logic and evidence will get you to the point of “It’s a problem that these students are facing punishments for acts they didn’t commit.” It’s something other than logic that gets you to whatever conclusion you make from that. “Stop the unfair punishments” is equally as logical as “no gays kids should be allowed in high schools because the teachers end up spending too much time punishing them.” That said, logic and evidence become so much more important because they can be measured against someone else’s logic and evidence with the possibility of a resolution both sides can accept. If we accept intuition and experience as being on par with evidence, then it’s my intuition and experience versus yours and there’s little reason for either of us to budge.
What dulls me to it is probably the Foucault. Been there, read that, found the opposing criticisms more compelling than the philosophy…
About the religious point: Some religious folks forget the “hate the sin, love the sinner” idea I mentioned. I can only speculate, but I wonder if the mistreatment is enabled by people forgetting that idea. It goes back to speaking in terms that will be meaningful to the audience, and I’ve seen that we have some religious folks here.
On McLaren: When developing his book project, do you think McLaren was open to the possibility that his research might support an opposing conclusion? Was the possibility even allowed for in the research design? Because I (euphemism alert!!!) “question” the validity of his research methods, I can’t stand behind the conclusions.
And finally, I don’t have any really good ideas on how to convince effectively. My only thought is that this column took what should have been a relatively uncontroversial study and contextualized it within a pile of assertions that made it appear to be part of a hard-left agenda. If one is going to challenge the beliefs people hold, making the challenge seem as small as possible (without sacrificing honesty) is usually a good way to go.
trendisnotdestiny - December 10, 2010 at 6:15 pm
@ Pocvecem
“On McLaren: When developing his book project, do you think McLaren was open to the possibility that his research might support an opposing conclusion? Was the possibility even allowed for in the research design? Because I (euphemism alert!!!) “question” the validity of his research methods, I can’t stand behind the conclusions.”
First, you must consider his history, life experience which did consider an opposing conclusion about teaching (he was very up front about his early years in Canada schools and where he came from). I feel this adds to his credibility not detracts from it.
Second Poc, I really want to avoid us versus them stuff here, but I take from your tone about research methods (maybe in error) that unless its valid, replicable and the outcomes are significant that most (qualitative) research would not meet your rigid criteria of the left brain evidence. This goes back to my original comment about empathy, emotion and intuition. All research has an agenda, a researcher who puts out front-in-center an agenda does not hide behind the term research methods. While in no way do I mean to insinuate that this is our dynamic here, I am curious to what basis you do question the validity of his methods. Are you a teacher? Have you taught in an under-resourced area with high crime rates and poverty-stricken families? I am not asking this to further pry, but to politely challenge you on why you have some greater authority to challenge his methods (presumably without having read his book?)….
Third, to offer criticism from a distance is something we all do, but not to offer any ‘really good ideas’ as well as to label Dr. Essig’s work ‘as a pile of assertions’ seems to me to be a small matter of skeptical cop-out. Also, ‘making challenges as small as possible’ seems rather cowardly for a writer, as if there is something wrong with telling this story. I think we forget how much people derive from these types of efforts, even if this is not your own experience.
pocvecem - December 10, 2010 at 6:41 pm
@ TIND:
I would agree that it adds to his credibility as a person. I would place his work in the category of “we should look more closely into this possibility” instead of “I see sufficient reason to agree.”
You are incorrect about my views on research methods. I question the research methods because part of my academic training has included in-depth exposure to said methods. Like McLaren, I originate from an opposing side, but I prefer not to use that experience as a reason for you to believe me. I also question why you believe I need “some greater authority” to challenge those methods.
As for your last criticism, let me offer an analogy: I also know when my car is broken even if I don’t know how to fix it. I would also point out that there are multiple reasons for writing. If Essig’s goal is to forward the larger view of society she put forward, then the expansive scope she used was reasonable. If her goal was to convince us of the importance of the central detail (and I think it was), the essay was broken. The writing should reflect the writer’s goal, whatever the goal might be.
trendisnotdestiny - December 10, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Pocvecem,
Well stated.
I could be wrong about ‘some greater authority’ bit, but it seemed a little vague to me or better yet I was curious to what methods you were talking about. My assumption that the quant-qualitative divide was apart of this, apparently was an error…. Nevertheless, I am no more clearer to your objections of McLaren (of if you had read his work) than before. This is a minor issue though….
Lastly, I want to make the small point that writing has a more Equifinal and Multifinal nature versus “a goal oriented system”. This is not fact, but more of belief….
Equifinality is the notion that an end state can be arrived at through multiple divergent means (many roads lead to Rome)…. Hence, there is no one way to complete this task which differs from a car engine diagnosis and repair. In fact, some writing involves not knowing the end state or goal (writing as a means of knowing); a journey!
Multifinality is the idea that similar conditions lead to different end effects…. Hence the same story can be read and interpreted differently which can make divining the author’s goal an exercise in futility since there is always so much left off the page….. (leaving the audience with more questions than answers)
These two ideas bind the author and audience to an experience where there a multiple goals, multiple voices (spoken and unspoken) and interchange that is not linear but circular. My take is that Dr. Essig secured my interest, persuaded me to remember our gay and lesbian teenagers’ experiences and educated me about the narrative entanglements that serve as dominant myths in our culture. Honestly, I do not know how better to construct an article on the topic. I would certainly consider anything that CHE posters would offer as now I am officially intrigued!
Thanks for the conversation!
ikant - December 11, 2010 at 12:57 am
Trendisnotdestiny:
unrelated to the conversation, but: I, too, really love Meyerhoff’s Number our Days. Isn’t it a beautiful book? However, the elderly subjects of her book are definitely NOT Holocaust survivors. Almost all the people featured are pre-war Eastern European immigrants to the US; very few were in Europe during WWII or were imprisoned in the camps.
trendisnotdestiny - December 11, 2010 at 8:28 am
Ikant:
Good point, I was incorrect to use the term ‘holocaust survivor’(as it flitted through my head). In fact, as I believe they were very conflicted about getting out of eastern Europe before holocaust. But also, they were survivors in the broad sense of the word knowing that the immigrant experience meant they got here first to work for their relatives to join them later (separated from one culture to acculturate to another and them have the holocaust cut off that familiar world….
Thanks for the editing ikant!