Death is OK, really.

Recently, two articles in the New York Times stood out to me - both relating ot the topic of death. The first appeared in the Sunday magazine - an article about a "transhuman" presidential candidate, Zoltan Istvan, whose major impetus (as there was no chance he'd be elected) was to raise awareness of his personal strides toward ending death. This piece was one in a line of many I have read recently in various publications regarding increasing human longevity beyond anything ever previously believed to be possible. As medical science and technology progress, doctors have been able to elongate their patients' lives by years, if not decades. Yet, despite these gains, the candidate and his followers believe strongly that death has become an inevitability only because we've been taught it's the endpoint, not that it actually is. As a transhumanist, Istvan is interested in wedding human longevity with technology. The author, who traveled with the candidate, seemed skeptical of the overall messaging, though intrigued by which camp - the people who accept death, or those who don't - as the ones who are really the ones deluding themselves.

One of Istvan's followers referred to those who accept death as the finality as  "deathists" who have the view that death isn't so bad or is "natural" because they're trying to convince themselves to accept death, when, in fact, they should be breaking free to realize their full potentials as ever-living beings. This wouldn't be my description of my thoughts regarding the matter. Not that I want to die right now, but over the years I have cultivated an acceptance of the realities of a mortal body. There's nothing in observable nature that would make me think there IS another option besides death. I don't believe in god(s) or any sort of higher, supernatural power. What we cannot explain boils down to what we either cannot - or choose not - to understand.

The idea of living forever cheapens the experience. If you only get one go around, you have to be more careful. You have to pay attention to the details. Living in the now is essential. Yet, this doesn't jive well with modern life, where everything is rapidly changing and we're always looking for the next best thing. So why are we obsessed and further falling into this mode of being? A lack of knowledge about death as a part of life. Strangely, it took getting and being pregnant for me to fully understand how little practical information about my own body was passed on to me through general education. In fact, I spent the first half of my pregnancy in a state of shock because everything I thought I knew was only partly correct. Instead of continuing to be surprised or enraged, I began reading as much as I could on the process from the points of view of doctors, doulas, midwives and other moms. This empowered me to be able to go about the rest of the pregnancy with less anxiety.

The second article focused on just that - the importance of teaching students about death from a clinical (and practical) standpoint. What is your body experiencing in this stage? The author, a doctor who specializes in both critical and palliative care, focuses on not only empowering her students through knowledge of the process of dying, but also in how to reach out to those in their lives who might be suffering. Much like sex education, which she also teaches, death education has become, for her, an essential plank in the k-12 education platform. And yet, unfortunately, also like sex ed, it has become relegated to something that many Americans think should either be taught by a child's parents or spiritual leaders. The end result is we have a lot of people walking around with no clue of what their body is capable of. As a history teacher, I've had students interrupt my class with questions like, "what IS a placenta?" because they left health or biology with insufficient answers. How they decided these questions were OK for history class is beyond me, but it probably has something to do with the fact that I will answer most of their questions.

To put it simply, the body, your body, is the only one you will have in this life. And as we spend upwards of 10 hours a day on "screen time" the idea that your body is limited seems, well, antiquated. The reality is that our analog brains (and fragile egos) cannot comprehend that our digital profiles are only avatars in a illusory world. Human consciousness and "flesh-embodiment" isn't privileged, it isn't prestigious, it's simply a function of the biological world in which we all exist. And to the question of whether we should then strive to completely transcend this biology through science does not sway me to resoundingly say, "Yes, let's!" because it puts too much faith in the nebulous concepts of "science" and "technology" for me. As an atheist religiously, I find that this lack of belief I have in gods also inevitably transfers to all things that require a hard-line faith. So, I return to the observable. the cycles of life I see around me in nature and say, "death is OK, really."

Melancholia and the Inauguration Sadness

I was hesitant to watch the film, "Melancholia" because the only other film I'd seen by the director, Lars von Trier, "Dancer in the Dark," was so profoundly sad, I can't even think about it in more than a fleeting way. This movie is also dark, although more ironic in tone. The main character, played by Kirsten Dunst, royally fucks up her wonderful and expensive wedding day by being a sad sack that cannot get beyond her own depression to appreciate the love others have for her. In the aftermath of her bad behavior, her mood is lifted only after the realization that a wandering planet is on a collision course with Earth. Suddenly, and strangely, her inability to see a silver lining in most events allows her to see one here - the prospect of having a planetary-level moment of universal indifference to the whims and desires of mankind coincides with her personal feelings on relationships and her own existence. Her approach to the end of the world is not only tender but encapsulates the fleetingness of all of our inevitable mortal realities.

After watching, I realized that I dislike the idea that someone is "suffering" from depression. Surely, there is suffering in a depressed state. However, like any human experience, there can be an opportunity for growth during a trying time. As an American and a teacher, I too often see a desire for only the good, the pleasurable, the positive. While I'd obviously prefer elation to depression, being consistently happy is an unattainable state. How would happiness or contentedness even be measured if not against a more negative experience? In the past, I've written about the softening of younger generations in particular, although I think most adults I encounter are as lost in a fantasy as their younger counterparts. Constant distraction through social media and entertainment (which includes info-tainment [ memes, celeb news] and edu-tainment [trying to make every classroom activity as "fun" as possible, to an absurd extent]) has permeated all parts of American society, to the point that if real events do not coincide with a predicted trajectory, there is a complete breakdown by the perceiver (hence, the feelings on Nov 9 for many liberals and progressives, as well as the continued disavowal of literally everything based in reality for Trump himself).

In the case of the current political milieu, the next four years will be living in the aftermath of a similarly massive explosion. The choice lies with those who see it as terrible to stand up and change how they not only react to such events, but also how they act in the first place. I've been labeled a "luddite" for not embracing online activism, but I've yet to see anyone in a Western-style democracy effect real change as a result of using platforms like Twitter or Facebook as their main tools. Sure, Trump uses Twitter,  but to say tweeting won him the election is a dangerous downplaying of his intense ground game throughout the campaign. He stumped across the country, drawing large crowds, including demographics that do not use Twitter and the like. While these technologies are not going away, their effectiveness, especially with drawing in others who many not be of a like mind, is small. My proposal is a return to the salon, especially for the progressive left. At least two years of a Republican-controlled Congress captained by a Republican president should be a time of introspection and reflection. Read, think, write, meet and discuss. Retweeting or sharing memes, while satisfying in the immediate, adds to the cacophony of an increasingly partisan echo chamber, a trend that will not win over any hearts or minds, and may even serve to create factions within opposing forces (already I see the left balkanizing....and that's just reading over Facebook comments).

Thus, in response to this disconnect that many feel as we inch toward Jan 20, 2017, I am calling on everyone to let that awful planet hit us - hard. Sure, it won't be pleasant, but it will likely be jarring enough to ripple change through one's being. Maybe the end result will only be a slight adjustment in perception, or maybe a larger awakening will occur. Much like Dunst's character, those with nothing to lose may have an insight into how to make the best of a bad situation.

In Fiction We Cannot Hide Ourselves

"Bea says that the art of reading is slowly dying, that it's an intimate ritual, that a book is a mirror that offers us only what we already carry inside us, that when we read, we do it with all our heart and mind, and great readers are becoming more scarce by the day." - Carlos Ruiz Zafón, The Shadow of the Wind

At some point in the recent past, people stopped reading long form texts. It's been a challenge to teach in these times when "the few and far between" have the capacity to grasp the importance of reading to the formulation of thought. Sure, we read all day long - text messages, tweets, statuses, ads, article headlines, and so on- yet, when you think about how often, you, the reader here, truly reads in any real sense of the word, you realize how often the act is pushed to the wayside. More important and pressing matters or through a sense of inertia or outright laziness, reading is replaced by scrolling through a social media feed for another ten minutes before bed. I get the urge to give in to this, I really do, but I also make time to read because I find it to be a valuable source of information in the case of non-fiction (and not in the form of facts simply filling up an empty vessel, but more like fodder for the intellect). As a student of history, one reads not only to understand the past, but to project into the future. A gestalt reading of historical texts considers events in the context of human development, not just as a list of dates, events and people for memorization.

And fiction? Well, fiction helps us to enter the mind of someone beyond ourselves. This glimpse into the workings of the thought processes of those outside of our own minds can not only provide us with the space to reflect on our own, but can prepare us for future encounters with different people and situations. The simple act of reading has been proven to bolster feelings of empathy for others, even those outside of our own immediate identity groups. Fiction, in particular, has this effect. Unsurprisingly, the more you understand how others approach situations and internally mediate their experiences makes you less likely to judge those around you. Wow - who would have guessed?

Yet, beyond reading, most activities people engage in do the exact opposite and instead foster a sense of narcissism.We cultivate an online persona for others to ingest; posting pictures or stories that portray only particular aspects of ourselves. Added onto such personal practices, the marketing ploy of micro-targeting (we see advertisements and news stories that further validate any confirmation biases we may have about the world around us AND the types of people in it) and you have a recipe for a very tight bubble beginning to form around each person. 

So what are the effects of these inward-looking trends? They tend to feed a fear of an "other." Of course, the sense of the "other" is nothing new. But in an era of globalization, why is there not a dampening of such fears? In light of the most recent American presidential election, it is evident that there are serious issues plaguing this nation both politically and socially. We could write off any focus on the individual and identity-based politics as the common reaction to a wide-scale movement like globalization (eg: localization movements). Yet, I would contend this balkanization represents a different phenomenon altogether and is directly tied into the narcissistic behaviors encouraged by social media and consumer capitalism. It's amazing that now we can make ourselves unique and different for only three easy installments of $29.95! And though I kid, this sort of focus on consumerism has sounded a death knell for true democratic involvement. Consumer choice has become a stand-in for political freedoms. People engage by buying a shirt emblazoned with a logo of Standing Rock (as worn by a famous person they love!) rather than engaging in a more meaningful, and lasting, form of engagement. This, along with using personal online spaces to like, share and post information important to causes one cares about, has allowed people to feel as though their voices are being heard and that they are using their time to "do" something. It is no wonder so many Americans feel as though to country is on the wrong path - for try as they might, there do not seem to be any improvements underway. This must be a baffling paradox- the more "engaged" people feel they have become through their tiny virtual soapboxes, the more their voices get lost in the echo chamber.

Alongside the evolution of hashtag activism, very slowly, perhaps, those who don't share our statuses or articles or who aren't using the proper nomenclature become members of an out-group that we don't want to associate with. The "othering" of our neighbors, family members and political rivals has ended up quite literally making people feel like there was nothing left to live for on Nov 9, 2016. This feeling was wholly unprecedented - sure, people were upset after Obama won in 2008 or after Gore lost, but the massive bubbles of biased perception created by social media usage and endless cable media coverage truly made these most recent results unique in their reception.

So what do we do? How can we move beyond identity politics or is there a way to embrace the focus on individual groups and their struggles as well as coalesce into a larger identity when necessary? I have read many articles both about why identity politics need to end and about what will be lost of there are more coalitions and less factions.Will civil rights be thrown to the back burner for groups who feel underrepresented? Will there be less of a chance for egalitarianism? Yet, if each identity group is to continue fighting for equal footing, only those with the sheer numbers will win out (as the ascendancy of Trump in 2016 under a banner of white identity politics proved, to the shock of all). This will continue to happen unless political messaging undergoes a radical change. 

A plausible answer is to embrace the subjectivity of both the human experience and of values as well. No one set of American values can be correct, for even within a particular identity group, there can and will be diversity. Returning to an old stand-by topic for me - control - we see that each group within the identity politics game seeks to control the current discourse. This control is, as all, suppositious. Only with an embrace of nihilistic existentialism will a society be able to move past desires to categorize, control or even destroy differences. The realization that everything and everyone is difference in itself, and thus, the same can only be achieved through the dissolution of labels. Through such an awakening, the only answer could be to embrace the absurdity of life before moving forward, only now with a profoundly different view of all of those around us. To return to the beginning comments on fiction's importance in our lives, the continued practice of reading would provide us with the ability to discern what is fiction and what is not. Our personal narratives, however true they may be, when distilled through the filter of social media or even language, become fictionalized to an extent. The recognition of this subjectivity would break down barriers between us all because there would be realization that others' experiences are as valid as your own. 

So I leave you with a song, because, like reading, good music can also sow the seeds of empathy. It is through the reading of fiction (and I would contend, reading in general), that we can challenge our minds to grow more open:

Through fiction we saw the birth
Of futures yet to come
Yet in fiction lay the bones
Ugly in their nakedness

Yet under this mortal sun
We cannot hide ourselves

The Beauty of "Being" Human

This week I saw "Captain Fantastic" in the theater. The movie's plot revolves around the Cash family's (6 children ranging in age from (approx) 6 to 18 and their father) journey from their home in the forests of the Pacific Northwest to New Mexico for their mother's funeral. The mother committed suicide after years of living with severe bipolar disorder initiated by by postpartum depression. The children have been raised by the parents "off the grid" - living off the land and being home-schooled through books and intellectual discussion. Their adventures outside of their homestead range from comical to heartbreaking, with the children (and father) encountering few who truly understand their way of life. Although it seems as though the entry into the "real world" will ultimately tear the family apart, in the end, they adjust enough to gain legitimacy in this world while still retaining their core values.

Now, there's a lot more detail I won't go into as not to :"ruin" the entire movie- and can you believe, I had the audacity to not write SPOILERS on the top of this post? Wow. Shameful- but I left the theater with tears in my eyes because it was just so damn beautiful in the end. Truth be told, I have written about running away from civilization a bunch of times in the past and have a propensity to romanticize this scenario of running wild, so this is most definitely NOT objective. However, the possibility of an alternative lifestyle/point of view in these "modern" times was refreshing, even if only fictional. To watch Dad Cash challenge his children physically, mentally and emotionally, in a loving and open environment, brought forth a desire to teach my own in such a way. Their household was much more democratically run (and any sort of authoritarian decrees he made received push back from the children) than most American children experience. Such an environment allows for children's voices to be heard. The most crucial aspect of the relationship between father and children was this way in which he spoke with them - he never talked at them, nor insulted their intelligence by talking DOWN to them either. Even the youngest child's opinions were validated - this was not in a 'great job, Johnny!' way either. For example, he asked his father about sex and was provided an answer that 1. he would understand based on his age and experience, 2. was not a lie or half-truth that you often hear adults relay to children to avoid talking about serious topics. How can children learn about the world if those that they look toward and trust in lie to them? Bodily functions and the cycle of life (so yes, questions about the human body, sex and death) are all important topics that should always be answered truthfully but also in a way that relates to the child's development. When children are sufficiently responded to, they tend to be content enough to move on from the subject. What adults tend to forget is that most children have the capacity to detect when people are being fake. I see this with high schoolers all of the time - their emotions are more like those of children than adults and they are very in tune to the "vibes" the adults in their lives are giving off. This is not actually a negative. In fact, I think being more in touch with one's emotions -having raw, real experiences - can be much more helpful in learning about yourself and your place in the world than the walled off sort of emotions most adults have cultivated through years of suppression.

As a mother now, I worry about my child growing up with the practice of constantly documenting one's life online.What sort of effect will being a "digital native" have on her emotional development? Her psyche? Will she be just as disengaged as the Cash family's cousins are in the movie - totally engrossed in their phones and video games? Is it cruel to deny her access to cell phones, television and the internet, especially if those items are in the house and used by adults? I would hate even more to be a hypocrite and tell her she could not use certain devices if I had them myself. So it makes me wonder whether it's too late for most of us, who have acclimated to this world to raise children who can transcend the "veil of maya" that is the digital world and use it to their advantage or to realize its limitations better than we can now. I cannot answer any of these questions yet, and it disturbs me to a large degree. The movie imparted in me a desire to break free of the, "well, this is how it is now so if I can't beat 'em, I better join 'em," sort of mentality with which many seem to approach negative trends in society. Hell, if I was going to think that way, I'd have a Trump sign on my lawn! I would rather experiment and stumble a bit at first than box myself (and my child) into a life of meh. To me, the entire message of the movie was just that - to be human, you have to try things out. Otherwise people get hurt both emotionally and physically. The "being" part of human being requires us to DO, not just "to be." (yes, I'm taking some liberties with parts of speech, chillax)

Excuse Me, But Your Awfulness Is Showing...

Yesterday I was struck again by how absolutely ridiculous and sickening it is that children, not only in Flint, but in most urban areas in NJ and all across this country, have been exposed to elevated levels of lead in their drinking water due to crumbling infrastructure.

INNOCENT children fulfilling a basic need of quenching their thirst are potentially being exposed to irreversible mental and neurological damages because of gross negligence on the part of the people who are supposed to be overseeing everyone's health and safety, but, who instead are too busy arguing about their dick size, closing bridges out of spite and carrying around the proper hot sauce while pandering for votes.

It reminded me of this scene below.

WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT YOUR IMAGE WHEN YOU'RE LITERALLY DESTROYING OTHER LIVES!?

As a new mom, I have little time to spend/waste of my own. When I sit down to catch up with what is going on in the world, I find it increasingly more difficult to care about the ins and outs of the extended election season in the US and much to their imagined chagrin, even about the candidates themselves, as they all possess glaring character flaws  This is not a democratic process - it's a dog-and-pony show that perpetuates itself through promises to special parties that supply lavish donations.
If we're really running a democratic election, then our collective monies and efforts would have been going toward the creation of an informed populace: Instead, our leaders slash ed funding and malign educators as leeches instead. Politicians was want you stupid for their career's well-being. They might claim it saves you money or that they're on your side, but in a perversion of their supposed intention to help others as public servants, many only seek to help themselves. "It is no accident that all democracies have put a high estimate upon education; that schooling has been their first care and enduring charge. Only through education can equality of opportunity be anything more than a phrase. Accidental inequalities of birth, wealth, and learning are always tending to restrict the opportunities of some as compared with those of others. Only free and continued education can counteract those forces which are always at work to restore, in however changed a form, feudal oligarchy. Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife." -John Dewey

Finland's education system, again

Look, I know Finland doesn't have "the diversity" the US does, but how do economic , social and/or racial differences play into appropriate programs for the developmental age of children. Piaget didn't say, "Oh, only Swiss children benefit from play and social discovery at young ages."

Sure, there have always been shifts in how children and their education should be viewed - from seeing them as stupid or likely to die and therefore ignorable to mini-adults that can be trained to act properly (think Mozart and his sister). In the wake of the birth of psychology and modern democratic societies, the importance of an educated electorate became more clear. John Dewey's beliefs on education, while liberal compared to many education reforms we see being put into place today, also had the practical purposes of preparing people for life on their own, out in society, both in the here and now AND the future. In an almost Zen-like focus on the present day, Dewey sought to make education in the US beneficial the development of children INTO adulthood, not just for adulthood. On the contrary, today's overall goals for education often seem to be focused on the future. Ends-focused reforms that look to expand the eligible workforce in particular areas, such as STEM fields are not bad. In fact, they are also practical when thinking in the long run. What is not good practice are the reforms that use standardization through testing and curricula to ensure that certain goals will be "measurably" reached.

I am not calling for teachers to have no accountability to some higher standard. What I would like is that teachers, if given a certain benchmark to meet before being hired, such as particular educational requirements (Masters degree, classroom experience, etc), should be entrusted to know what is going to work in their classroom for their students. With the additional layer of actual supervisory guidance (and not check the box, standardized observational systems), teachers can grow their practice into an art, rather than be penalized for a random assortment of missed checked boxes on a rubric. All of this reminds me of the scene in "Uncle Buck" where Buck goes to talk about his niece's progress in 1st grade:

The VP's attitude is not uncommon in public education. The desire to mold children into good little citizens from day one seems to be, for people of this mindset, something that is done through having children sit in one place for a long time beginning at a young age. Some children ARE predisposed to sit and listen, others are not. In fact, many are not, especially in early elementary education.It can be argued that sitting and not doing actually impairs their ability TO learn.

Today, we know so much (and still so little) about how the human brain and body function - more so than any other time in human history, and yet, we still continue to stuff everyone into the same sort of boxes that continue to fail percentages of the population. No one is asking the education system to wholly embrace Howard Gardner's "multiple intelligences" model as scientifically tried and true, but by just being in the world, anyone observant enough can see that people approach problems in different ways. What always kills me about many of the administrators that I come across is that they will spout the importance of differentiated instruction and respect for various learners in the classroom while forcing their faculty to act in lock step. The panopticon-style, mass institutionalization of children will lead to the ultimate end of public education in the US in two ways- it will crush children's ability to adapt through being able to explore, try and fail in the safe confines of a classroom and it will eradicate a teacher's capacity to creatively express the importance of sociocultural and content based learning.

For those who see this as another "public school teacher complaining about shit" post, well maybe consider this- it will also contribute to an electorate who votes in an extremist- whether you see that as Trump OR Sanders- due to their 'tiredness' of the establishment.

Selling Our Children's Futures

Personalized Learning, part-time faculty and an end to education

If you're not a teacher or have never worked in a school, you may read this editorial and say, "Eh, so what?" But parents, let's be honest. Think about the amount of time YOU yourself waste when on a computer or a personal device. Or think about how annoyed you get when your child ignores your questions about their day because they're scrolling through Facebook or texting their friends or Snapchatting a pic of the dog instead of making eye contact with you for 30 seconds.

Not to say we're here yet, but imagine that your kid is supposed to "learn" by sitting in front of a computer all day. In this scenario, all tenured teachers were fired, and in their stead, the school district purchased personal devices (laptops, let's say) and an online curriculum for each student. Then part-time assistants were hired to ensure your student stayed on task. How do you think your child's learning experience would change?

Part of the public school experience IS the social experience. As a teacher, I can tell you that more than just learning historical content knowledge happens on a daily basis in my room.Even at a high school level, students learn how to: manage their time, advocate for themselves by asking questions and/or asserting their opinions, listen to the thoughts of others and respond in a constructive way, practice social etiquette by sharing space with other people and of course they also learn the particulars of the content for the day. Sure, my students could go home, read the textbook or article and then do some online exercises that are graded via an online program. From that, I could tell that either they have good reading comprehension skills or that they're adept at cheating off of a classmate. What I cannot tell is how they feel about the information, what questions they have regarding it, and how they'd apply their knowledge in particular scenarios. 

Think about the situation in this sense - would you entrust your neighbor to watch your toddler while you were at work at an unauthorized day care they were running in their home? You might have to if you had no other options. But DO you have other options? Would you feel safe dropping your 2 year old off in a room with 10 other children and one attendant, your neighbor, for 8 hours? Would you feel more comfortable if the daycare had more than one attendant? Or if there was a set schedule for the day? Or if you knew your neighbor had a teacher certification? If s/he had CPR and first aid certification?

Does the human connection have a cost? The answer simply is yes.

Of course, full time faculty cost more in some respects- like in NJ, maybe your property taxes are higher. But what benefits are there to skimping out on the future of America? Cheapest isn't always best.