Education Rant ft. Paul E. Willis

So I read some of Paul E. Willis’ work, namely Culture, Institution, Differentiation. He spoke at some length about the education system, which I have had an interest in due to my mother’s career as a schoolteacher. As I interpreted it, Willis described the education system as an apparatus for conditioning children to the nature of society.

The systems used in institutions of education are metaphoric mirrors of social systems. Respect for whoever sits in the position of authority is particularly emphasized. Every aspect of a typical grade school reinforces the inferiority of the students. The tightly ranked desks set facing the teacher’s vast work surface demonstrate the proportion of wealth and/or power between modern-day proletarians and patricians. Another aspect of grade school is the regimented schedule followed week after week. Bells and timetables prepare students for life in the real world. These schedules are reinforced by the authorities, and stepping outside the line incurs punishment. At recess, students are cleared from the school and expected to go outside. Those who remain indoors must have a reason to do so.

They are deprived private space, nervously knocking on the staff room door. Students are constantly faced with locked doors, or places that are deemed “off-limits”  like boiler rooms, cupboards, and the like. I say let ‘em roam. If they want to know what’s making the noise behind the door, take a class in there, show them the boiler, explain why it makes the noises it does and the role it plays. The “because I said so” mentality is only harming the inquisitive nature of students. I apologize, let’s get back to the point.

In schools, the teachers control all the resources worth having; knowledge, keys and authority. They control when and what to discuss. This social control generates an oppositional mindset in the students. In last week’s post, I mentioned an article called Subcultures, Cultures and Class. In this work, the authors note that in a system where there are dominant and subordinate classes, the relation between them is always oppositional. The subordinate class resents the dominant class for having what they don’t and the dominant class resents the subordinate class for trying to reach their level. So schools are doing a pretty good job of getting kids used to the idea of the class system, but there’s a problem here. Opposition creates a barrier to control. Because of the oppositional mindset, kids feel they should be disobedient. This academic disobedience leads to ignorance when the student values rebellion more than their education. This is a big deal! Kids need to focus on being educated without feeling the need to rebel against their superiors. The current system sets kids up to choose ignorance over education.

The respect demanded by grade school teachers has no foundation. Students do not respect teachers without cause. The best teachers I have ever had are the ones I truly respected, not the ones whose power I feared.

Bros, Einstein and Punk Rock

So I lied. I’m not going to talk about style in this post. Instead I’m looking at the way subcultures represent more than an ideological construct. There is more to a culture than the ideas and clothing of its members. Instead, it provides somewhat specific guidelines regarding particular aspects of life. It defines space, marks territory and suggests activities. It defines what [not] to do and how [not] to do it. The rituals prescribed by subcultures also include a specific vernacular used by members. The current ‘Bro’ culture (prep+jock+idiot=bro) comes to mind with such words as “wheels” and “chirpin” in their vocabulary. There are even typical intonations and mannerisms associated with certain cultures.

There’s a article by John Clarke, Stuart Hall, Tony Jefferson and Brian Roberts called Subcultures, Cultures and Class published in 1975 where the authors suggest that despite the numerous codes, there are few solutions for real problems like “youth unemployment, educational disadvantage, compulsory miseducation, dead end jobs, … low pay or loss of skills” (104). There is no subcultural career. At first I disagreed with this. The jocks that went to my high school all intended to be professional athletes. Is this not a subcultural career? I feel as though the authors would have responded by stating that jock culture formed around those dedicated to athletics, instead of the other way around. Athletics led to jocks. There was never a point where a jock said: “Hey bro, let’s try gym class, it might be fun.” So while there may not be a specific career path designated for a subculture, the similar interests of the members lead to similar lifestyle choices.

Subcultures have at least some influence on a future career, but they have a far greater effect on an individual’s leisure time. A subculture predominantly involves the domain of leisure. Therefore an individual largely defines themselves through leisure. If a worker only feels like himself outside of work, their labour is only a means to an end. It is important to note the distinction between how an individual is defined by society and how they define themselves.  Some individuals are defined by their work (Einstein, Shaq, etc.) but they might have defined themselves entirely differently…

Style, Soccer Moms and Juxtaposition

Blog post # 3

Let’s talk about style. I’ll be talking about it in the next post too, but here’s a good place to start.

As much as people try to deny it, a person’s style will greatly affect how they are perceived by others. I figured I should get that out of the way quickly. It’s naïve to think that you aren’t being judged by your appearance. Last year, there was a big fiasco when a Toronto cop made an unofficial statement saying: "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."

There was a big to-do about this, understandably. The statement makes it sound as though men are incapable of controlling themselves (meaning they are not at fault), and that women invite sexual assault by dressing provocatively. Both of these are false, and therefore the uproar is justified. However, I was involved in a class discussion at the time, where the female portion of the class felt that they should be able to wear whatever they want and not be judged based on that. I could do nothing but shake my head. Let’s step back into reality here, folks. If you step out in public wearing less than a square foot of clothing and you are going to be treated differently than if you go out wearing a paper bag. That’s just the way it is. That’s why we dress up for job interviews, so that we can present ourselves in a professional manner. If we truly didn’t judge based on appearance, we’d all be naked. Well at least indoors, where the unpredictable Canadian weather can’t reach us.

Back on topic. The outfit worn in public often signifies one’s tastes, finances and preference as well as demonstrating the individual’s position in socially prescribed roles. A soccer mom looks like a soccer mom because articles of her appearance are characteristic of that role. She’s got a Subaru stationwagon/Dodge Caravan and it’s got a soccer ball sticker/air freshener on it and she’s wearing jeans and a grey hoodie and glasses and has short-medium hair. Her class status is apparent through these symbols. This nice lady’s choice of outfit is her expression of normality, but it’s a “loaded choice”. Everything in her life makes her a “soccer mom”, but she feels as though it was her decision to become one. And perhaps she holds a certain sway in the matter through her decisions regarding other aspects of her life (i.e. what kind of car to buy), but in the end, her decisions reflect her identity, rather than her choosing her identity directly. If she suddenly decided, “I want to be a scene chick!”, no one would take her seriously; her image is not easily transferable. She would be far too busy rockin Tumblr and screaming at shows to ever take her kids to practice. The subcultures display codes of their own, that directly contrast each other.

I haven’t even brought up Hebdige yet. But I’ve been bringing up a few of his points. Hebdige gets really insightful in the second half of Subculture: The Meaning of Style. He’s talking about juxtaposition. So here’s a formula: Object + Meaning = Sign. Got it? Now, signs are generated, assembled and relocated by subcultures. So when a subculture takes multiple objects and juxtaposes them with meaning, we get signs that point us to conclusions. When it comes to clothing, these signs point to the wearer’s identity. So when someone takes a cross, an icon of Christianity, and combines it with a necklace, they have created a wearable sign, pointing viewers to the conclusion that the individual is Christian. The punk subculture is unique here, because their signs don’t always have intended conclusions. They often have intended results, but the concepts that the sign represents may be irrelevant. Two examples: The swastika and the bike part braclet. Wearing a swastika incites anger because of the acts committed by those wearing the symbol. It isn’t worn because punks are fascists, it’s worn because you won’t like it. The bike chain bracelet doesn’t mean the punk is a cyclist, it means they’re unconventional, which is a pretty vague term. The signs don’t show a way, they are intentional means of evoking a reaction. Hebdige summarizes this “unfashion” with a great moniker: “If the cap doesn’t fit, wear it.”

What I find fascinating about rebellious subcultures, such as punks, hippies and the more recent hipster culture, is that their intent of being anything but normal (re)defines what normal is. What happens when the icons of hipster culture become ‘normal’ or ‘mainstream’ as they are already?

New rebellious subcultures. That’s what happens. An old rebellion against normality is trivialized and a new one forms. The expression through rupture, as Hebdige puts it, is constant, and frankly, I’m glad. There always needs to be a voice of opposition to provide that moment of “Wait, maybe they have a point. What if I’m wrong?” But that’s a sentiment for another post. I’m off to do something artsy.

-WC-

Jam Jars.

We watched another movie. I didn't like it either. It's called Kids.
Somehow I don't think our professor's intention is to show us movies we'll like.


Film:
I don't really have anything to say about Kids. It showed us youth culture in the US, and it did a good job of that. But it didn't REALLY challenge my preconceptions.

Readings:
Okay Gordon, let's take a look at what you have to say. A world within a world, I like that. Ooh and I like the bit about how a particular subculture relates to one's access to the rewards of national culture. I'll talk about that first.
I think I speak for us all when I wonder about the futures of the various members of the various high school cliques. Which cliques have the most members that are deemed successful by the standards of society, i.e. wealth and happiness? Is it the preps, who come from money? Or the nerds, who busted their asses to get the grade? Now we're a bit more grown up and you can't tell the subcultures apart by the lunch tables. But which ones have members who consistently succeed? The problem with this question is that people are rarely devoted to a sole subculture during their lives. As such, they typically fall into multiple groups before settling into normality. Many metaphorical hats are worn and then cast away in favor of new ones.

Is there a common denominator in the personality of members of a particular subculture? Sure, sometimes. Take a look at the youth in the movie Kids, who are generally great at not giving a fuck. Take a look at members of true punk culture, who are generally trying really hard to make it look like they don't give a fuck. But it would be wrong to think that the situation is so black and white. There might be a lot of people who can be categorized under Punk, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're all going to have the same or even similar views. Many will, but there are exceptions to every rule. What I mean is that for every hardcore punk, there is a casual punk. To think they're all the same is silly. Unless every aspect of their life is covered by an all-encompassing doctrine, punks are going to be different people, with different upbringings, outlooks and ideas.

All I'm saying is: Go ahead and categorize all you want, but people aren't jam jars (this metaphor brought to you by Caroline Casey, whose TED talk will stick with me for a looooong time). The contents won't always match the label.

Oh and Hebdige, I haven't forgotten about you, I'll get to you in my next post.

Okay, this time for real.

Okay, so I'm actually going to start blogging again. For real this time.
My hand is being forced, but I'm not complaining.
Once again, I'll be doing weekly posts about the content of class discussion and analysis of course material.

It was recommended that we mention our blogging service and reason for using it in the first post. The main reason I use Blogger.com is because I used it last year, and I already have infrastructure in place. The reason, I'm sticking with Blogger is because it's in bed with Google. And Google opposes (opposed?) SOPA.

Film:
We're one week into the semester now, and I've got mixed feelings about this course. I was delighted to find Fight Club in the list of film titles to be screened. That elation faded quickly once Breathless started playing. I have nothing against subtitles (Pan's Labyrinth, anyone?) or black & white films, but this film rubbed me wrong. I can appreciate the demonstration of subcultures, but this film felt more like a blatant, unexciting caricature of mid-century stereotypes. The director didn't leave it up to the audience to interpret the subtleties of cultural ideals. Instead, he smacked you in the face with them. Oh look, here's the classic gangster taking advantage of a woman while being playfully cavalier and wearing a fedora. How original. The character types were as black and white as the film itself. "This is a man, he thinks typical man thoughts and does manly things. This is a new age woman, she thinks new age woman thoughts and doesn't wear a bra. Feel free to substitute 'The French', 'Americans', 'Police', or 'Gangsters' into these sentences.

This film paints an extremely basic portrait of subcultures. Subcultures in reality are hardly ever so well-defined. There are varying degrees of members' immersion and acceptance of a group's rules. There are always subtle details that further divide and combine general cultures, and this film ignored that entirely.

Readings:

"We seek, if possible, solutions which will settle old problems and not create new ones." Well, no shit, Albert Cohen.

Okay Al, you impressed me later on, but come on. You can do better.
You raised a great question, which I'll share with the readers:
          "How is it possible for cultural innovations to emerge while each of the participants [... are] so powerfully motivated to conform to what is already established?"

The problem here is that there are often incentives to avoid deviation from established groups. Everyone, it seems, would rather follow along than risk being ostracized for striking a new path. It's better to follow the rules and belong than to do something different and be rejected. However, the degree to which you follow the rules can fluctuate. It's not enough to say "follow the rules". To what extent? Are ALL the rules being upheld? Not following ALL the rules can still allow membership in a subculture, but it seems that those who do follow ALL the rules are those who covet membership the most. The guy who changes his entire wardrobe, demeanor and attitude to "be" a thug is clearly quite fond of being seen as a thug. The guy who starts wearing baggy jeans just isn't as desperate to fit in. Similarly the Christian who follows some of the rules isn't as desperate to be a "good Christian" as the one who follows all the rules.

So if everyone wants to conform (to some extent) to the rules of their subculture, how do new cultures emerge and existing ones change? I've got to agree with your answer to this, Al, but I want to add to it as well. You said that change occurs when multiple members of a group have the same discontent regarding an established norm. The members' response must be more desirable than the established norm in order for the subculture to move in that direction. When the time is right, a member will dip their toes in the water with their new idea. Doing so, they can observe the other members' reaction to their idea. If they warm to the idea, a new direction is found. At the same time, if the idea is rejected, it is easy for the member to retract their toes with minimal damage to their image and connection with the rest of the group. Such exploratory gestures seem to be the root of subcultural change, according to you, Al.

There are two things I would like to add, though:
     1. Particularly charismatic members of a group often single-handedly change the direction that a culture is travelling.
     2. What about the normalization of subcultures? Items that until recently defined a "hipster" are now found in the wardrobe of many others who have little or no interest in being labelled as such.
     3. I know I said there were only two things, but I just thought of this one. What about the people who want to be seen as a hipster and then adopt the associated rules?

Hoping for more intriguing films in the future,
-WC-

I don't know why I stopped posting.

It's time to get back into blogging.
I know I don't have an audience at all right now, but I still relish the idea that someone will take an interest and actually read this one day.

I woke up this morning in an awful mood. Getting kinda pissed about the way Humber is handling its Frosh/Orientation events. This year, the Humber Student Federation (HSF) decided that it would be a good idea to limit numbers and make everyone buy tickets to the Frosh events in advance. So instead of waiting 30 mins to get into an event that's a bit crowded, now I've waited a total of 5 hours in line, only to be told that there were no tickets available for the first two events. Now I could buy a 50$ connection card and get in, but i dunno. It also gets you into pub nights... I'll have to think about it.

I just got out of class, and I am in the best mood. I got to see my pal Mayowa for the first time in months, and we've been talking about composing some music together. Keep your eyes on the horizon for some unique stuff.

Stay posted for more on this. Hopefully we'll be productive tomorrow.


-WC-

The "Death" of the Web - Post # 13 - Week 12 Pt 2

Applications are reactive to the web’s success. They don’t generate their own model. An app that utilizes the internet utilizes the web. It cannot stand alone. An app is like the stock of a rifle. It makes using the gun easier, but without the gun, a stock is worse than useless.

The article also made some odd statements about the nature of certain websites. The most important part of the word ‘website’ is the ‘web’ part, but the authors appear to have forgotten this. According to Wolff, at the peak of its success, “Facebook became a parallel world to the Web”. Just because a particular site dominates the population of internet users doesn’t somehow transform it into another entity. If you believe this, you would have to accept that if enough people got together on a huge boat, that boat would suddenly become a new country. It’s just a boat in the vast ocean, and the people on it are just a portion of a greater whole.

Google represents a sort of Roman Empire online. Since Google owns such a vast portion of the web, there are others who try to reinvent the web in order to pull the carpet out from beneath Google’s feet. This article promotes the idea that apps are here to do just that, but apps support the web instead of replacing it. In essence, apps have solidified the position of the web in everyday life.

Recently, I’ve noticed mounting evidence that companies are beginning to get the message – give the customer what they want, with limited effort on their part, but with ample options and variety. Some systems that use this well: iTunes, with its vast library, but quick service; amazon.com, which features a huge repertoire of items, with a million instant checkout counters; and Craigslist, which manages a large assortment of goods with a geographical emphasis. The sites that run with the customer in mind are the sites that get used. The thing is, customers don’t want to pay for what they don’t have to pay. Thus, piracy and open-source software has an advantage over other sites and apps. What balances this is the increased reliability of sites and apps that are paid for. At least, it’s in the corporate interest if users believe their experience is superior to the experience you could get for free. Whether or not this is true is up to the user to decide.