Work and its Discontents
While reading the underlying “debate” between various trade-union allies of mine, I sense a tension that isn’t being sufficiently addressed. It’s a FACT that trade unions were formed to further the interests of their members, including their varied interests. Even the old craftsman’s unions weren’t only interested in whether they made enough money but they also wanted to create a “profession” which produced good work. They didn’t want their high quality work to be replaced by cheaper and shoddier products. Though those two aims are different, they are not totally unrelated.
It’s wrong to allow working conditions that demean the human beings who work there and sees them as objects to be moved around rather than intelligent humans with aims of their own. It’s wrong for some to take unfair advantage of those whose choices in life re more limited. In a democracy, it’s wrong for the majority of people to have working lives that do not allow them to take advantage of their democratic privileges. Workers who have insufficient leisure time cannot participate as well as those who have such time. And in the absence of time, they do not have the “lobbying” power that others may. The strength of one is limited. And their wages are
Mike Rose has Gone Back to School
It’s wrong to allow working conditions that demean the human beings who work there and sees them as objects to be moved around rather than intelligent humans with aims of their own. It’s wrong for some to take unfair advantage of those whose choices in life re more limited. In a democracy, it’s wrong for the majority of people to have working lives that do not allow them to take advantage of their democratic privileges. Workers who have insufficient leisure time cannot participate as well as those who have such time. And in the absence of time, they do not have the “lobbying” power that others may. The strength of one is limited. And their wages are
Mike Rose has Gone Back to School
Actually, he has never left school–for every age. His newest book, “Going Back to School” is, as usual, very important and mind-shifting. From the first moment I read his work—“Lives on the Boundary,” some decades ago–I wait to read every word he writes. He shifts the way I put together what I know, see, hear and read. He restores my sometimes flagging respect for our human species, as I observe how easily we are conned. But then, I realize that being “conned” is more complex, and that I too suffer from it. There’s a kindness of spirit imbedded in Mike’s every word, every example. He cuts out the ranting that I so often resort to, and which I
From Whose Perspective
From Whose Perspective
From Whose Perspective
“To the extent we continue to polarize the debate, with privileged power brokers dictating investments and practices designed to circumvent the professionals…we’re doomed to failure” says Cheryl Scott Williams’s Commentary in Education Week, October 17, 2012 ( www.edweek.org)
Thanks, Cheryl, for putting it together in one sentence.
Something that is happening all over “the world” (including in most so-called “developed” countries) can’t be countered by “reasonable argument.” There’s an agenda debate underlying the phenomenon between reformers like me and the phenomenon called GERM (the Global Education Reform Movement). It was fascinating to hear
How Facts Backfire
“To the extent we continue to polarize the debate, with privileged power brokers dictating investments and practices designed to circumvent the professionals…we’re doomed to failure” says Cheryl Scott Williams’s Commentary in Education Week, October 17, 2012 ( www.edweek.org)
Thanks, Cheryl, for putting it together in one sentence.
Something that is happening all over “the world” (including in most so-called “developed” countries) can’t be countered by “reasonable argument.” There’s an agenda debate underlying the phenomenon between reformers like me and the phenomenon called GERM (the Global Education Reform Movement). It was fascinating to hear
How Facts Backfire
“How Facts Backfire” is the title of a Boston Globe article that I recently received. It’s by Joe Keohane.
Authored by Joe Keohane, it poses one of the insoluble problems of democracy: how much ignorance can democracy survive and how do we know when it’s ignorance vs “another viewpoint.” I think, alas, that we can do a lot better, but… the nature of “facts” makes solving this conundrum impossible.
“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyland, to explain why “facts…were not curing misinformation.”
It’s certainly easy as this campaign winds down to agree with the author. And it certainly makes “obsessive”
Authored by Joe Keohane, it poses one of the insoluble problems of democracy: how much ignorance can democracy survive and how do we know when it’s ignorance vs “another viewpoint.” I think, alas, that we can do a lot better, but… the nature of “facts” makes solving this conundrum impossible.
“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyland, to explain why “facts…were not curing misinformation.”
It’s certainly easy as this campaign winds down to agree with the author. And it certainly makes “obsessive”