Rachel's Paideia Blog

Brown Symposium

I attended (via webcast) the first Salon, Arts, Sciences, Religions-Conflict or Convergence. This topic sounded really interesting and I was really excited about the salon style format of this year's Brown Symposium. It definitely seemed refreshing and unique and new--all those good things. However, I'm not so sure that I actually preferred it in practice. I found it harder to follow, occasionally confusing, and much less focused than traditional lectures. Maybe there were too many speakers, but I didn't find it all that informative. I'm sure all of these people have very interesting ideas, I just don't think this is the best way to go about expressing those ideas. I don't feel like a got a clear conception of these people's best work and true opinions. I also really got a sense of competition amongst some of the speakers, which was a little disappointing. The discussion occasionally seemed like a display of who knew the biggest words and it got a little pretentious.
The prompt for the discussion was very strange to me. Maybe I just didn't understand it, but it seemed inappropriate and unlikely that an insightful hour-long discussion could arise from a (religious?) depiction of a mouse. In any case, it bothered me.
At one point I felt like Jonah Leher was sort of being attacked by the other speakers who specialized in religion. One of the other speakers expressed the importance of religious institutions in charity work (specifically starting a club for minority children), but I don't see how that is specific to religion. And because the discussion moved so quickly and so many people had different things to say, many of the questions I had that probably would have been answered in a traditional lecture were not. Ultimately salon-style discussions are interesting to participate in, but I don't think it was the kind of idea-stimulating intellectual learning I expect from Brown Symposium. It seemed more like a very diverse group discussing something controversial at a dinner party rather than in an academic setting. I'm going to blame this on the fact that it was the first salon and nobody really knew what they were doing. Maybe the topic just wasn't my cup of tea.

The second salon, Education, Technology and the Arts, was much much much better for me. Jonah Leher started off with some interesting information that he seemed to think was common knowledge about the plasticity of the human brain and how our brain works to incorporate new technology while using less of its power for other things, such as "reading nature." I guess I knew how much technology has influenced brain development, but I never really thought about it. The fact that we can no longer "read nature" as well as we could at one point because we learned how to read is really fascinating to me. I think it was a good frame for the discussion, rather than "google is making us stupid."
I was actually reminded of a TED talk I saw recently about language development in babies. One studied showed that an infant's exposure to a foreign language between three and six months greatly improved their ability to recognize sounds in that language. However, this was only true if they were exposed to it by an actual person. Exposure by television or audio had almost no effect. I can see where concern would arise from the negative effects technology has on us--what we are losing. However, Leher emphasized the importance of focusing on what is GAINED rather than what we lose. It's a difficult thing to judge!
I actually don't really like the audience participation aspect of these lectures. Maybe it's because I'm not the kind of person who is inclined to ask questions in these sorts of situations, but I never feel that they are all that interesting or relevant to the discussion.
Overall the Brown Symposium was interesting. I heard a lot of different ideas, I only wish they had been further developed or more individualized. It was interesting to hear from so many speakers, but I don't feel like a got a really clear, straight-forward concept from any of them. I guess I prefer more structured lectures because they have more of a focus and direction. The speaker will have more control over exactly what they want to say and thus nothing unnecessary or off-topic will be likely to come up.

posted by Rachel @ 10:11 AM 0 Comments

Activists Speak

First off, I'd like to say how glad I am that we attended this event. I really enjoyed the setup of it (not to mention the food!) and felt that it was a very interesting and informed way to go about discussing these issues.
The first session I think we all attended the "Dude, That's So Gay" presentation. It seemed very useful to define all of the terminology associated with issues surrounding sexuality (heteronormativity for me, in particular--which is coming up at incorrect in this word document, interestingly enough). However, I felt that many of these terms required more than one definition, or at least that they cannot be explained so generally. I think it was a great idea, but realistically many of those words require much more discussion than just a paragraph-long definition. There's too much meaning, too much sensitivity, too much complication surrounding these sorts of issues. But perhaps these definitions were simply for the purpose of the discussion they were having right there and now. I'm actually not sure, as I was in class and missed the first fifteen minutes of the presentation. Overall I felt it was very informative. It also made me realize that even I make mistakes in how I approach discussion of sexuality. I'm guilty of calling things "gay" and things like that just for comic effect. What's worse is that I've always felt it was okay because I would do it in the company of my gay best friends. However, that is incredibly uninformed and simply not okay. I need to make an effort to not excuse habits such as that, no matter what company I am in. I know it is offensive and I am not okay with being that person. This discussion really got me thinking about changing my ways and not allowing myself to be a part of the problem in any way. No excuses!

The second session we attended was "Reaching Out to Boys & Men to End Gender Violence." If I'm going to be perfectly honest, I wasn't the most excited about this presentation. However, I found it to be even more eye-opening than the previous one. That's not to say I didn't thoroughly enjoy and get a lot out of "Dude, That's So Gay," I just have much more familiarity with queer issues and discussion. I didn't realize just how much this presentation related to issues of sexuality. Almost all of the negative names men can be called characterize them as either female or homosexual. There's a problem right there! It's not okay for there to be a negative connotation with being female or being gay. It's just not. I also thought it was so, so interesting that the speaker (I forget his name) was advocating a change in the behavior and treatment of potentially violent boys and men. This seems really obvious, but it's actually not something I'd even considered. In every other instance of the prevention of domestic violence, the emphasis seems to be placed on changes that can be made by the victim rather than the aggressor. However, if changes were made before violence even occurred, it wouldn't be necessary for the victim to feel responsible in any way for what happened to them. If they are the ones expected to make changes so as to not be targeted, it is implied that they are the ones doing something wrong. And they're the victim! It seems almost absurd to me that there has been so much less effort put forth in the way boys are raised (to have negative connotation with females and homosexuals). If that is removed entirely and boys aren't bothered by things like "you throw like a girl" or "you're a pussy," I think violence against women and homosexuals would be dramatically reduced.

In general, I had a great time at these presentations and felt that I learned a great deal. I thought it was very in line with the Paideia experience of making connections that these two issues relate so much more than I was previously aware of.

posted by Rachel @ 5:38 PM 0 Comments