Revolution is Calling
October 18, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
A few years ago, in the midst of his diaconate studies, a friend was invited by a small parish group to discuss the journey that for him had been one of immense joy, albeit filled with hard work, fear, and wonder. 
In the middle of his talk, he was interrupted by a woman who could not wait for the discussion period. She took deep umbrage at the fact that this man could be ordained, while she—a woman with an advanced degree and “just as many credentials” as he “and more than some priests!” was not “offered the same option.”
By mentioning her academic credentials, (“several times” according to my friend) the woman demonstrated that she had bought into our society’s over-reliance upon accumulated degrees as a measure of intelligence and talent—an infatuation that often undervalues the autodidact and frequently misses the original thinker in pursuit of an academic ideal.
Thanks in part to easily obtained, tuition-bubbling, future-strangling student loans, anyone can get a degree in America; one need only look at the number of college-educated but barely-articulate “occupiers” currently demonstrating in our cities to confirm it. Becoming educated is a very different thing; often it is the thing one does after one has satisfactorily parroted a professor’s talking points, completed a curriculum, collected a vellum diploma, and finally begun not simply to perform, but to think for oneself, and critically.
Critical thinking is essential, but it is something we no longer train students to do. We train students to “go along to get along” and we tell them that they are “special” and entitled, and that nothing should be withheld from them—except, apparently, instruction in reasoning.
Stipulating that I am not wholly out of sympathy with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement—I wouldn’t mind seeing a few bankers frog-marched, as long as the politicians and bureaucrats who colluded with them wear leg-shackles, too—it is nevertheless worth noticing that the very same people who were duped into amassing enormous student-loan debt at the behest of a government unable to project so simple a cause-and-effect equation as “easy loans equal tuition spikes equals more loans” are now advocating for greater government control over their lives. The street rhetoric roughly translates to: “the government is corrupt and too stupid to know how to write and administer student loan policies; let it manage everything.”
This is not a display of reason, keenly honed through education and discipline.
Nor, for that matter, was the credential-hawking of my friend’s heckler. I asked him whether the woman who interrupted his talk had spoken of feeling “called” to the diaconate. He could not recall, but it matters whether she expressed such a thought, or used that word, because callings are real; the idea of “callings” are something we should be exploring in and with our children, whether our interests are sacred or secular. Our “callings” bring forth our best selves, and when we discover and develop them we always want to share them. Callings, rightly answered, enlarge a shriveling world by shouting not “give me,” but “please take.”
But a calling is rarely mapped-out through standardized tests and strategized play dates, and it can’t be faked; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie ruled out a run for the presidency because he said he did not feel “called” to it—without the call, his run would have been inauthentic; it would have involved too much of himself receiving, rather than his offering.
A sense of calling is an idea to which our children often lack an introduction. We tell students they can plot their futures based on test scores measuring information regurgitation; we have no means of measuring their imaginations or their dreams, yet is from these that their deepest and truest longings—and thus their vocations, the things they were born to do—are discovered.
Barely allowed to wander from their backyards or to play away from our social-engineering-fixated eyes—where genders are called relative and roughhousing must be nipped before things get “out of control”—our children are groomed from early ages to fit ever-narrowing norms of thought and behavior; where in all of that can they develop a sense of possibilities and callings, which often have nothing to do with control, or models or entitlement?
These are very strange days. Our youth have been brought up in an environment of parental, educational and governmental over-control, but they are demanding additional and expanded institutional supervision. They have completely digested a spoon-fed illusion that fulfillment can be compelled by some great Daddy or Teacher or Bureaucrat in the sky, who will make sure that everyone has precisely the same amount of everything. One degree equals this. Two degrees equals that. Everyone is special, so no one should have something different than anyone else.
And if some other institution, like a church, suggests that everyone
cannot have exactly what they believe they have earned—be that an
adoption, or a job, or a sterilization or a sacrament—because that
institution does not believe it has the power to confer it under God,
well, that same fecklessly-fair government is the Bully-Daddy who will
compel it, for everyone.
The young people sleeping in the parks and on the streets are calling for a revolutionary supervision of all our lives, and they trust that once it’s in place, they will be given all they want, and they will be happy because life will almost be fair. But when they realize that America has become the land of “give me,” rather than “please take,” they will perhaps, finally, comprehend their callings.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Uncredentialed Wonder
Fall Web Campaign: Please donate to support the online mission of First Things.
Comments:
10.18.2011 | 5:03am
forexcasey says:
When the folks by themselves not merely need, but enact justice, they expose the contradiction among democratic form and administrative-regulatory material; even essentially the most "free" elections can't set in query the legal processes that legitimize and arrange them. Only the people’s assertion of its individual electrical power can do that.
10.18.2011 | 9:30am
harry says:
Hello, Elizabeth Scalia,
Each nail you brought into focus you hit right on the head.
Thanks
Each nail you brought into focus you hit right on the head.
Thanks
10.18.2011 | 10:15am
Deacon Chuck says:
Thanks Elizabeth for raising so many issues in one article, and then articulating so clearly the reponse to each. I have often noticed that whenever anyone brings up the question of ordination (and not just women) in an 'aggressive' or 'entitled' manner, the one word that often permeates their position is either 'control' or 'power'...a true calling possesses neither.
As for the response of the OWS (or the Tea Party marchers for that matter), in the mid-90's when the Balkans had fallen apart, and the world was busy rebuilding each country, trying to insure 'free and fair' elections, we were all so taken aback when after an election was held in one state (Bosnia comes to mind) and a part of the population was unhappy with the result, they simply took to the streets 'en masse' to overturn the decision or the process. We in the west would simply shake our heads and say,'they just don't understand democracy - they voted, now must live with the results' (this presumed that those who actually participate in the electoral process take the time to seriously consider the issues and the consequences of electing a particular candidate or party). We see the same type of response all over the west - in fact the world - at present; it seems we no longer hear the old response to unrest that 'democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best system we have'.
Much food for thought and discussion,discernment, and action on so many levels.
As for the response of the OWS (or the Tea Party marchers for that matter), in the mid-90's when the Balkans had fallen apart, and the world was busy rebuilding each country, trying to insure 'free and fair' elections, we were all so taken aback when after an election was held in one state (Bosnia comes to mind) and a part of the population was unhappy with the result, they simply took to the streets 'en masse' to overturn the decision or the process. We in the west would simply shake our heads and say,'they just don't understand democracy - they voted, now must live with the results' (this presumed that those who actually participate in the electoral process take the time to seriously consider the issues and the consequences of electing a particular candidate or party). We see the same type of response all over the west - in fact the world - at present; it seems we no longer hear the old response to unrest that 'democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best system we have'.
Much food for thought and discussion,discernment, and action on so many levels.
10.18.2011 | 11:43am
Michael PS says:
Deacon Chuck
Ah! Elections.
The age of political representation has come to a close. From left to right, it is the same nonentity, striking the pose of an emperor or a saviour, the same salesmen adjusting their pitch to the findings of the latest surveys. Most people don’t even bother to vote. In its very silence, the electorate seems infinitely more mature than any of the puppets bickering amongst themselves about how to govern it. From out of Argentina, the spectre of ¡Que Se Vayan Todos! [They must ALL go] is beginning to seriously haunt the ruling class.
Ah! Elections.
The age of political representation has come to a close. From left to right, it is the same nonentity, striking the pose of an emperor or a saviour, the same salesmen adjusting their pitch to the findings of the latest surveys. Most people don’t even bother to vote. In its very silence, the electorate seems infinitely more mature than any of the puppets bickering amongst themselves about how to govern it. From out of Argentina, the spectre of ¡Que Se Vayan Todos! [They must ALL go] is beginning to seriously haunt the ruling class.
10.18.2011 | 12:05pm
arty says:
I'd add, on the "critical thinking" point, that it isn't simply a matter of deciding to teach students critical thinking skills. Most colleges, including the one where I teach, emphasize this in some fashion. The problem, (illustrated by Elizabeth's OWS examples) is that 1. college faculty are often deeply ambivalent as to what positions are worth critically thinking about, and so can't imagine a universe in which reasonable people could disagree with the principle that government is the best instrument with which to address human problems (for example).
2. Students on the whole, in my experience, do not actually want to learn to think critically, because this militates against students' general tendency to a bland sort of relativism. Critical thinking might actually require you to change your mind about something, or, horror of horrors, to take a principled stand on an issue, in front of one's classmates. This has any number of causes, but the point is that there are deep cultural forces that create student resistance to critical thinking, as well.
To sum up, I'm coming to suspect that all our critical thinking talk is mostly the flag without the goods, supposing as it does that there is some objective reality out there, waiting to be discovered, and that instead we are simply living in a culture where the power to make one's will known/obeyed is all that is going to matter in the future. I see nothing in the OWS to dissuade me from this view, and a lot that supports it, and colleges, I think, are less the laboratories where this trend could be reversed than they are the evidence that we as a culture are more or less done having reasoned arguments about the problems of human existence. Instead, colleges are where students learn to "want" things in groups, and to use the mechanisms of state and social power to demand that those wants be satiated by the great "they," that "Bureaucrat in the Sky," in Scalia's phrase.
2. Students on the whole, in my experience, do not actually want to learn to think critically, because this militates against students' general tendency to a bland sort of relativism. Critical thinking might actually require you to change your mind about something, or, horror of horrors, to take a principled stand on an issue, in front of one's classmates. This has any number of causes, but the point is that there are deep cultural forces that create student resistance to critical thinking, as well.
To sum up, I'm coming to suspect that all our critical thinking talk is mostly the flag without the goods, supposing as it does that there is some objective reality out there, waiting to be discovered, and that instead we are simply living in a culture where the power to make one's will known/obeyed is all that is going to matter in the future. I see nothing in the OWS to dissuade me from this view, and a lot that supports it, and colleges, I think, are less the laboratories where this trend could be reversed than they are the evidence that we as a culture are more or less done having reasoned arguments about the problems of human existence. Instead, colleges are where students learn to "want" things in groups, and to use the mechanisms of state and social power to demand that those wants be satiated by the great "they," that "Bureaucrat in the Sky," in Scalia's phrase.
10.18.2011 | 12:14pm
Richard says:
Michael P.S.
To neglect a dozen other glaring issues posed by your posts, pray tell how 330,000,000 Americans will govern themselves without representatives?
Best,
Richard
To neglect a dozen other glaring issues posed by your posts, pray tell how 330,000,000 Americans will govern themselves without representatives?
Best,
Richard
10.18.2011 | 1:44pm
DennisM says:
@Richard: "pray tell how 330,000,000 Americans will govern themselves without representatives?"
Why, it's obvious! We'll use the internet, reading and voting on issues and letting webmasters count the votes in direct elections. No problem there!
Why, it's obvious! We'll use the internet, reading and voting on issues and letting webmasters count the votes in direct elections. No problem there!
10.18.2011 | 2:12pm
Randy says:
Re: Women priests
For the first Apostles, except for John, the job (of bishop) came with a death sentence. It happened before. I suppose it can happen again. That's another reason, if not the main reason, to choose only men for the job. For the very first ordained clergy, their preparation was rough seas and long journeys--not rough dissertations.
For the first Apostles, except for John, the job (of bishop) came with a death sentence. It happened before. I suppose it can happen again. That's another reason, if not the main reason, to choose only men for the job. For the very first ordained clergy, their preparation was rough seas and long journeys--not rough dissertations.
10.18.2011 | 2:40pm
The Moz says:
Brilliant, again! Love the bully-daddy line. My wife and I were talking about this very same issue today and how nobody grows up anymore. Men especially are immature zombies increasingly detached from their children and wives and devalued in popular culture; and women are desperate to be like their teenage daughters who they over-sexualize and who in turn dumb them down. It's really a sad scene in Western culture today - it's all beginning to smell very decadent.
10.18.2011 | 2:47pm
David Nickol says:
Scalia says: "[I]t is nevertheless worth noticing that the very same people who were duped into amassing enormous student-loan debt at the behest of a government unable to project so simple a cause-and-effect equation as 'easy loans equal tuition spikes equals more loans' are now advocating for greater government control over their lives."
The chief reason college tuition has been rising in public universities is because states subsidize education less than they did previously. The students themselves are paying more toward the cost of their own education than students did previously. There is no simple cause-and-effect relationship between increased student loans and higher tuition costs.
The cost of college tuition rises faster than many other costs because of the nature of education. Education is labor intensive. There are few labor-saving technologies that can be introduced in a brick-and-mortar school (although there may be for some kinds of online education). In fact, new technologies tends to make education more expensive rather than less.
Ms. Scalia's view of government seems to be similar to that of the Tea Party. There are only two kinds—bigger and smaller. She seems not to believe that government can get better, or that it can do something positive and helpful when it comes to education (like the GI Bill, for example). The only way to improve government, she apparently believes, is to make it smaller so there will be less of a bad thing. The idea of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," which at least one Republican believed in, somehow got lost sometime between 1863 and today.
The chief reason college tuition has been rising in public universities is because states subsidize education less than they did previously. The students themselves are paying more toward the cost of their own education than students did previously. There is no simple cause-and-effect relationship between increased student loans and higher tuition costs.
The cost of college tuition rises faster than many other costs because of the nature of education. Education is labor intensive. There are few labor-saving technologies that can be introduced in a brick-and-mortar school (although there may be for some kinds of online education). In fact, new technologies tends to make education more expensive rather than less.
Ms. Scalia's view of government seems to be similar to that of the Tea Party. There are only two kinds—bigger and smaller. She seems not to believe that government can get better, or that it can do something positive and helpful when it comes to education (like the GI Bill, for example). The only way to improve government, she apparently believes, is to make it smaller so there will be less of a bad thing. The idea of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," which at least one Republican believed in, somehow got lost sometime between 1863 and today.
10.18.2011 | 3:12pm
Michael PB says:
Richard and Dennis,
I'm not the same Michael but I think you misunderstand what the former Michael is saying.
It's that very regime- one of total control, or the attempt for total control by a management class- that he is saying will come to an end.
Democracy and Human or Natural Rights are an antithesis to one another. You cannot maintain rights where a majority of the people could vote those rights away in a second. And democracy, where everything personal is political, has the capacity to rid humans of any rights; sacrosanct or not.
However, that is not a call to violate the will and sovereignty of the people either. But one must question how much actual sovereignty a people have when they are regulated and managed by others who know best for them. Political parties aren't dissimilar- the people who run them, finance them, and rise through them are all educated at the same schools; all adopt the same social signals; all use the same languages (one private, one for public consumption where they market "differences;") all are in opposition to people actually having a voice outside of their domain. And you can see this behavior in either these protesters, who as Michael point out, call for more government regulation on private enterprise; or in the opposition, who talk a lot about "freedom" but emphasize a "security" only they can deliver for the folks.
In the process, from the Marxists to the Libertarians, they have destroyed the concepts of truth; they have decimated and perverted language; they have made conviction of purpose in the common man impossible; and they seek to maintain and enable us to drown in our vices, hoping we stay too preoccupied and passive to resist. And the less control they have been exposed as having, the greater their preoccupation with securing their governance.
A government that claims it's power in security, health, and nature (as all Western nations now do) has the power to do everything but the inability to do anything. And the changes that will occur, may not happen in our lifetimes but this totalitarian attempt cannot last.
I'm not the same Michael but I think you misunderstand what the former Michael is saying.
It's that very regime- one of total control, or the attempt for total control by a management class- that he is saying will come to an end.
Democracy and Human or Natural Rights are an antithesis to one another. You cannot maintain rights where a majority of the people could vote those rights away in a second. And democracy, where everything personal is political, has the capacity to rid humans of any rights; sacrosanct or not.
However, that is not a call to violate the will and sovereignty of the people either. But one must question how much actual sovereignty a people have when they are regulated and managed by others who know best for them. Political parties aren't dissimilar- the people who run them, finance them, and rise through them are all educated at the same schools; all adopt the same social signals; all use the same languages (one private, one for public consumption where they market "differences;") all are in opposition to people actually having a voice outside of their domain. And you can see this behavior in either these protesters, who as Michael point out, call for more government regulation on private enterprise; or in the opposition, who talk a lot about "freedom" but emphasize a "security" only they can deliver for the folks.
In the process, from the Marxists to the Libertarians, they have destroyed the concepts of truth; they have decimated and perverted language; they have made conviction of purpose in the common man impossible; and they seek to maintain and enable us to drown in our vices, hoping we stay too preoccupied and passive to resist. And the less control they have been exposed as having, the greater their preoccupation with securing their governance.
A government that claims it's power in security, health, and nature (as all Western nations now do) has the power to do everything but the inability to do anything. And the changes that will occur, may not happen in our lifetimes but this totalitarian attempt cannot last.
10.18.2011 | 4:22pm
Benighted Savage says:
Michael PS,
Deleuze said this in 1990 in response to a question about May 68. Pray tell, aside from being part of some sort of radical recherche du temps perdu, what does the ongoing “occupy Wall Street” movement here have to do with May 68 in France?
As for the rest of your post: something is missing in the final paragraph ...perhaps the word “proletariat.” What you seem to be offering here is Marxism without a Party and without a Proletariat. How seemingly confused. Given that and your “neither Left nor Right, democratic elections are worthless” response to Deacon Chuck, I'd guess you support some sort of third-way movement like the European nouvelle droite. Am I correct?
Deleuze said this in 1990 in response to a question about May 68. Pray tell, aside from being part of some sort of radical recherche du temps perdu, what does the ongoing “occupy Wall Street” movement here have to do with May 68 in France?
As for the rest of your post: something is missing in the final paragraph ...perhaps the word “proletariat.” What you seem to be offering here is Marxism without a Party and without a Proletariat. How seemingly confused. Given that and your “neither Left nor Right, democratic elections are worthless” response to Deacon Chuck, I'd guess you support some sort of third-way movement like the European nouvelle droite. Am I correct?
10.18.2011 | 4:29pm
Richard says:
Dennis M
I think, hope, you're kidding. H. Ross Perot some years back proposed that we have a direct democracy, watching issues debated on t.v. and voting by button at sofa side. One of the most terrifying ideas I ever heard.
Michael P.B.
Does anybody really believe that only 1% of us is responsible for our current problems and the remaining 99% are nothing but innocent bystanders? When the ancient Israelites sent a scapegoat into the wilderness, at least they knew that their own sins were riding on its back.
Best,
Richard
I think, hope, you're kidding. H. Ross Perot some years back proposed that we have a direct democracy, watching issues debated on t.v. and voting by button at sofa side. One of the most terrifying ideas I ever heard.
Michael P.B.
Does anybody really believe that only 1% of us is responsible for our current problems and the remaining 99% are nothing but innocent bystanders? When the ancient Israelites sent a scapegoat into the wilderness, at least they knew that their own sins were riding on its back.
Best,
Richard
10.18.2011 | 4:31pm
Artaban7 says:
"The chief reason college tuition has been rising in public universities is because states subsidize education less than they did previously. The students themselves are paying more toward the cost of their own education than students did previously. There is no simple cause-and-effect relationship between increased student loans and higher tuition costs. "
David Nickols, examine the budgets and salaries of public university coaches and then try and make your erroneous claim again. Here's a link for you:
http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2010/6/24/1534102/alabama-coaching-salaries
You'll notice that in 2007 the head coach for the U. of Alabama football team made $4.63 million in 2007.
David Nickols, examine the budgets and salaries of public university coaches and then try and make your erroneous claim again. Here's a link for you:
http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2010/6/24/1534102/alabama-coaching-salaries
You'll notice that in 2007 the head coach for the U. of Alabama football team made $4.63 million in 2007.
10.18.2011 | 4:59pm
Citizen Jerry says:
Absolutely right, Elizabeth! "Everyone is special, so no one should have something different than anyone else." Or as a character in "The Incredibles" stated, if everyone is special, then no one is special.
The OWS mobs represent that generation who were taught that everyone gets a trophy just for taking up space. How far we've backslidden since the 1950s.
The OWS mobs represent that generation who were taught that everyone gets a trophy just for taking up space. How far we've backslidden since the 1950s.
10.18.2011 | 6:16pm
State Legislator says:
Elizabeth Scalia says, "[I]t is nevertheless worth noticing that the very same people who were duped into amassing enormous student-loan debt at the behest of a government unable to project so simple a cause-and-effect equation as 'easy loans equal tuition spikes equals more loans' are now advocating for greater government control over their lives."
David Nickols says, "The chief reason college tuition has been rising in public universities is because states subsidize education less than they did previously. The students themselves are paying more toward the cost of their own education than students did previously. There is no simple cause-and-effect relationship between increased student loans and higher tuition costs."
Having served as an elected state legislator for more than a decade, I have to agree with Ms. Scalia on this point. Our state's subsidy to higher education has increased significantly over the past decade yet students continue to borrow and pay more tuition. Both increased government subsidies and the willingness to loan/borrow have contributed to the rising cost of education not unlike the housing bubble earlier in the decade.
David Nickols says, "The chief reason college tuition has been rising in public universities is because states subsidize education less than they did previously. The students themselves are paying more toward the cost of their own education than students did previously. There is no simple cause-and-effect relationship between increased student loans and higher tuition costs."
Having served as an elected state legislator for more than a decade, I have to agree with Ms. Scalia on this point. Our state's subsidy to higher education has increased significantly over the past decade yet students continue to borrow and pay more tuition. Both increased government subsidies and the willingness to loan/borrow have contributed to the rising cost of education not unlike the housing bubble earlier in the decade.
10.18.2011 | 7:16pm
Anonymous says:
As a woman who once upon a time was in favor of women's ordination, let me tell you what first started me to realize that something was wrong there: I found that every women's ordination advocate I encountered (in person, online or whatever) was also a heretic on important matters of faith and morals, either supporting abortion or denying central points like the Incarnation (in the way the Church REALLY means Incarnation), saying sodomy is normal, etc. So I went and read the Church documents on the matter, and--over time--came to see that the Church was --imagine this!--RIGHT!! : ) Many many women sincerely just do not understand, because their minds have been formed only by worldy views, and in particular feminist views that insist we are all really just androgenous, or should be, except for certain body parts....
10.18.2011 | 11:55pm
JA says:
Ms. Scalia writes: "These are very strange days. Our youth have been brought up in an environment of parental, educational and governmental over-control, but they are demanding additional and expanded institutional supervision. They have completely digested a spoon-fed illusion that fulfillment can be compelled by some great Daddy or Teacher or Bureaucrat in the sky, who will make sure that everyone has precisely the same amount of everything. One degree equals this. Two degrees equals that. Everyone is special, so no one should have something different than anyone else.
This is not a display of reason, keenly honed through education and discipline."
This is only as crazy as wanting smaller government without sufficient attention to centralized economic power. Big business means big government and an extensive credentialing system. Contemporary Americans often forget this because, unlike a 19th century laborer, they are not completely subject to the naked vicissitudes of corporate power. But the regulatory state emerged to offset the concentration of wealth at the expense of the majority, poor labor safety standards, environmental degradation, and the production of toxic products--all developments that resulted from the delocalization of economic power and its concentration outside of a given locality, a development the American Founders considered as deleterious as the concentration of political power. This is the price we pay to be able to choose between Sony and Panasonic, which Americans seem to value more than self-rule.
If you want less government interference, you need to give up modern capitalism. Otherwise, you only offer a partial solution along trite and tiring ideological lines--and one that is just as crazy as anything coming from OWS.
This is not a display of reason, keenly honed through education and discipline."
This is only as crazy as wanting smaller government without sufficient attention to centralized economic power. Big business means big government and an extensive credentialing system. Contemporary Americans often forget this because, unlike a 19th century laborer, they are not completely subject to the naked vicissitudes of corporate power. But the regulatory state emerged to offset the concentration of wealth at the expense of the majority, poor labor safety standards, environmental degradation, and the production of toxic products--all developments that resulted from the delocalization of economic power and its concentration outside of a given locality, a development the American Founders considered as deleterious as the concentration of political power. This is the price we pay to be able to choose between Sony and Panasonic, which Americans seem to value more than self-rule.
If you want less government interference, you need to give up modern capitalism. Otherwise, you only offer a partial solution along trite and tiring ideological lines--and one that is just as crazy as anything coming from OWS.
10.19.2011 | 12:50am
Kimberly says:
Thank you!
"...the idea of “callings” are something we should be exploring in and with our children, whether our interests are sacred or secular. Our “callings” bring forth our best selves, and when we discover and develop them we always want to share them. Callings, rightly answered, enlarge a shriveling world by shouting not “give me,” but “please take."
Yes!
"A sense of calling is an idea to which our children often lack an introduction."
I agree.
At the core of each child’s being is some form of genius. To awaken and cultivate this genius paves the way for individuality to emerge.
Learning is an unruly algorithm, a one-step-at-a-time journey with unexpected side strolls. Excellence is achieved as the student is encouraged to be curious, to respond to the creative impulse, and is provided opportunity to respond to that impulse by exerting a balance of effort and attitude. Children who learn to value the work of bringing shape to an original idea ultimately become adults who gain wisdom and care about the work of bringing shape to their calling. The pursuit of creative critical thinking trumps standardized testing every time.
I know because this is my calling:
http://www.blackbirdandcompany.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=21&products_id=222
"...the idea of “callings” are something we should be exploring in and with our children, whether our interests are sacred or secular. Our “callings” bring forth our best selves, and when we discover and develop them we always want to share them. Callings, rightly answered, enlarge a shriveling world by shouting not “give me,” but “please take."
Yes!
"A sense of calling is an idea to which our children often lack an introduction."
I agree.
At the core of each child’s being is some form of genius. To awaken and cultivate this genius paves the way for individuality to emerge.
Learning is an unruly algorithm, a one-step-at-a-time journey with unexpected side strolls. Excellence is achieved as the student is encouraged to be curious, to respond to the creative impulse, and is provided opportunity to respond to that impulse by exerting a balance of effort and attitude. Children who learn to value the work of bringing shape to an original idea ultimately become adults who gain wisdom and care about the work of bringing shape to their calling. The pursuit of creative critical thinking trumps standardized testing every time.
I know because this is my calling:
http://www.blackbirdandcompany.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=21&products_id=222
10.19.2011 | 12:59am
TeaPot562 says:
The founders, from an experience and knowledge of history, feared direct democracy. They knew that mobs can be greatly influenced by a powerful orator (think Germany's Hitler in the 1930s!) therefore took pains to have ONLY the House of Representatives elected directly; and separated the Senate - with each senator to be elected by his own state legislature - into three classes, with each class elected for six years, but at two-year intervals. All this was an attempt to keep the government from being heavily influenced by temporary fashions and fads.
Someone (Mencken?) said that democracy should be more than just two wolves and a sheep voting over what to eat for dinner. The OWS crowd sound a lot like the wolves voting to eat the sheep.
TeaPot562
Someone (Mencken?) said that democracy should be more than just two wolves and a sheep voting over what to eat for dinner. The OWS crowd sound a lot like the wolves voting to eat the sheep.
TeaPot562
10.19.2011 | 2:58am
JA says:
@TeaPot562: Since you fear and loathe OWS because it is a manifestation of popular rule, you must feel the same about the Tea Party, right? And of course, there are the abolition movements in the 19th century and the civil rights movement of the 20th. Those were all bad things, right?
10.19.2011 | 3:02am
JA says:
As to my first comment above, what I meant by giving up "modern capitalism" was the abolishment of the transnational corporation and the rerooting of economic activity in the local community. This does not mean a reversion to wood energy and equestrianism.
10.19.2011 | 8:57am
Sharon says:
"Big business means big government and an extensive credentialing system. Contemporary Americans often forget this because, unlike a 19th century laborer, they are not completely subject to the naked vicissitudes of corporate power. "
I think the reason people feel they must be more "credentialed" is because more and more people are getting advanced degrees. At first, most people did not attend college. You could be hired without a degree for certain work because there were not enough "credentialed" applicants for the employer to demand credentialing. Now, as more and more people get college degrees, it is necessary to have a Masters in order to be more highly competitive. As more people get Masters, more jobs will require a Masters. As more people continue to the Ph.D. level, more positions will require a Ph.D. Employers can demand more credentials as the pool of credentialed applicants becomes getting larger. So it's not just the employer demanding credentials. It's the employer reacting to the applicant pool.
I think this is exemplified at the other end of the employment spectrum as well. Employers used to demand a certain level of appearance from their employees. For instance, an applicant with facial piercings would not be hired by a restaurant, at least not to work on the front end. But the pool of non-pierced applicants was too small, so now we are served our food by people with lip, eyebrow and other facial piercings. Employers also used to demand that employees show up for work or lose their jobs. Not all employers are in a position to make that demand anymore. My teenage daughter works for a national discount department store. She wasn't given a day off that she needed to take off and I told her she couldn't lie and call in sick. She said she didn't have to. All she had to do was call before her shift and say she wasn't coming. This would give her an infraction on her employment record, but she could have six infractions before facing any possible consequences. Employers would like to hire people who show up for work, but since that is not possible, they will adjust their expectations. Expectations are not just set by the employer - they are also set by the market. Corporations have to deal with reality just like the rest of us.
I think the reason people feel they must be more "credentialed" is because more and more people are getting advanced degrees. At first, most people did not attend college. You could be hired without a degree for certain work because there were not enough "credentialed" applicants for the employer to demand credentialing. Now, as more and more people get college degrees, it is necessary to have a Masters in order to be more highly competitive. As more people get Masters, more jobs will require a Masters. As more people continue to the Ph.D. level, more positions will require a Ph.D. Employers can demand more credentials as the pool of credentialed applicants becomes getting larger. So it's not just the employer demanding credentials. It's the employer reacting to the applicant pool.
I think this is exemplified at the other end of the employment spectrum as well. Employers used to demand a certain level of appearance from their employees. For instance, an applicant with facial piercings would not be hired by a restaurant, at least not to work on the front end. But the pool of non-pierced applicants was too small, so now we are served our food by people with lip, eyebrow and other facial piercings. Employers also used to demand that employees show up for work or lose their jobs. Not all employers are in a position to make that demand anymore. My teenage daughter works for a national discount department store. She wasn't given a day off that she needed to take off and I told her she couldn't lie and call in sick. She said she didn't have to. All she had to do was call before her shift and say she wasn't coming. This would give her an infraction on her employment record, but she could have six infractions before facing any possible consequences. Employers would like to hire people who show up for work, but since that is not possible, they will adjust their expectations. Expectations are not just set by the employer - they are also set by the market. Corporations have to deal with reality just like the rest of us.
10.19.2011 | 1:36pm
c matt says:
"You'll notice that in 2007 the head coach for the U. of Alabama football team made $4.63 million in 2007."
Yes. And what were the gate, concession sales, TV and merchandising revenues generated by the UofA football program? For most Div I schools that pay those kinds of salaries, football, men's basketball and to a lesser extent baseball are money makers, helping fund scholarships for the money loser sports, as well as contributing to the school's bottom line. If you really wanted to help school funding, you would dump Title IX.
And let's face it, university professors, with rare exception, could care less about teaching students to think critically (most are focused on their publishing/research projects). And the students could care less about learning to think critically because it is not required to get the diploma from the diploma factory, and most employers don't really need it for the job they want filled. Critical thinking skills are picked up after formal education through experience (assuming a certain level of innate intellectual capability and curiosity are present).
Yes. And what were the gate, concession sales, TV and merchandising revenues generated by the UofA football program? For most Div I schools that pay those kinds of salaries, football, men's basketball and to a lesser extent baseball are money makers, helping fund scholarships for the money loser sports, as well as contributing to the school's bottom line. If you really wanted to help school funding, you would dump Title IX.
And let's face it, university professors, with rare exception, could care less about teaching students to think critically (most are focused on their publishing/research projects). And the students could care less about learning to think critically because it is not required to get the diploma from the diploma factory, and most employers don't really need it for the job they want filled. Critical thinking skills are picked up after formal education through experience (assuming a certain level of innate intellectual capability and curiosity are present).
10.19.2011 | 2:17pm
JotheHousewife says:
Thank you for a great article. The woman sounds a lot like the spoiled, entitled brats that want to put THEIR mark on the world, to enact THEIR truths on the rest of us. I remember an old e-mail that listed the "chosen" of God, and how humble each was--he did NOT choose pharisees or governors to lead God's people, but the lowly, those who do what they do because of God's love for them and their love for God and his people, and perhaps obedience. Those who make a career out of how GREAT they can become, how RICH they can be, etc., hits all the wrong points. We can all do good things in our own little corner. Our entrance to heaven will not require checking our passport to see how far we traveled, our bank account to see how much we accumulated, nor our level of education.
10.20.2011 | 1:13pm
Artaban7 says:
"And what were the gate, concession sales, TV and merchandising revenues generated by the UofA football program?"
What were they, c matt? I've provided hard data to support my point, why don't you provide some to validate yours? As a percentage of collegiate budgets, sports spending has increased and academics have declined. Consider for a bit the implications of that on a society, when the ACADEMIC institutions show by their spending where their true priorities stand (and they're other than academic).
The contrast with countries beating the pants off of us in science and mathematics achievement couldn't be more stark. Take a country like Singapore--which is attracting top scientists and investment dollars AWAY from the United States--and and you see that their celebrities are the academic achievers. They pay students to pursue MAs and other advanced technical degrees. Meanwhile, we're embroiled in a debate over whether to pay college athletes, which is why they'll end up exceeding us in innovation and economic development, unless things change.
What were they, c matt? I've provided hard data to support my point, why don't you provide some to validate yours? As a percentage of collegiate budgets, sports spending has increased and academics have declined. Consider for a bit the implications of that on a society, when the ACADEMIC institutions show by their spending where their true priorities stand (and they're other than academic).
The contrast with countries beating the pants off of us in science and mathematics achievement couldn't be more stark. Take a country like Singapore--which is attracting top scientists and investment dollars AWAY from the United States--and and you see that their celebrities are the academic achievers. They pay students to pursue MAs and other advanced technical degrees. Meanwhile, we're embroiled in a debate over whether to pay college athletes, which is why they'll end up exceeding us in innovation and economic development, unless things change.
When the people themselves not merely demand, but enact justice, they expose the contradiction between democratic form and administrative-regulatory content; even the most "free" elections cannot put in question the legal procedures that legitimize and organize them. Only the people’s assertion of its own power can do that.
To deny the autonomy of the sphere of material production and to subordinate it to political logic is very different to the control of the people by a nomenklatura.