Job Discussion Forums

[johnslat]

We're going all subjective here - one man's "freedom fighter" is another's "terrorist."
So, who is (or isn't) a fanatic is, of course, going to depend on the subjective point-of-view of whoever is regarding the person/people in question.
I think one way we can narrow it down is by restricting my definition a bit:

A fanatic is someone willing to deliberately kill non-combatant individuals in order to advance whatever cause (usually religion or politics) it is that he/she espouses.

Even that doesn't solve the problem, though, because then the obvious question arises: What about Dresden, London during Battle of Britain, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc., etc.?

These days, with the advance of technology, what the military usually euphemistically calls "collateral damage" can be extensive. I suppose I could point to the adverb "deliberately" in my definition above, but that doesn't satisfy me, either.
So, to paraphrase the famous quote of Judge Potter Stewart regarding pornography:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of people I understand to be fanatics . . . but I know them when I see them .

Yup, it's a cop-out, but when subjectivity comes through the door, definitive definitions go out the window.

Regards,
John

[Justin Trullinger]

I think a good point has been made that a teacher's values are always going to influence his or her teaching.

But it's worth pointing out that this isn't mostly what we get hired for. I believe I have a lot that is valuable to share: about my culture, both good and bad; about my international experiences, which are especially relevant for my students who have never lived internationally, and are about to; about myself, what I know, and what I hope to learn from my students.

But mostly, they hire me for my experience, expertise, and skills in teaching the English language. I'm not so naive as to think that language without culture is possible- but many of my students start out thinking it is, and wanting language only.

What does this mean for me as a teacher? First, it means that I have to gradually introduce students to the idea that we have to include cultural elements as well as "plain" English.

It also means that, however certain I am of my own beliefs (and I have plenty that are VERY certain, some others less so) I need to be careful to avoid imposing them in the classroom. There are some issues towards which I have strong views which my students often don't share, and they have a right to that. They aren't backwards, ignorant, or rubes, they're just expressing a view different than mine. As it happens, in many cases they're wrong, in my opinion. I'm afraid that that opinion simply has no place in the classroom, as it wouldn't serve student learning. Not making an issue of corrolary points when they don't serve your students' needs is part of my job.

So in that sense, I feel a need to be pluralistic in the classroom, even about issues where my own views are absolute. Because, as the teacher, I have too much power to impose. Rus pointed out that being sure of your beliefs doesn't necessarily mean imposing them on others. I strongly agree. But, from the position of teacher, I have to be careful to avoid exactly that. In some cultures, at least, teacher is a power position. And that carries some responsibilities...


Best,

Justin

[johnslat]

Dear Justin,
In the immortal words of Spiderman:

"With great power comes great responsibility."

But, jocularity aside (if the above can even be deemed as such), I agree completely.

Regards,
John

[rusmeister]

That sums up the ideal well, Justin.

I'm really just kicking against the prevalent "we westerners know better with our tolerance, diversity, et al" attitude.

[Justin Trullinger]

[MO39]

[thelmadatter]

If "diversity is real" as Justin asserts means that differences exist, then I do not argue his point. But if by "diversity" he means 'to consider all these differences equally valid'.... then that is a belief. As I do not consider absolutely all differences that humans have to be completely equal. Values... for example. I value being on time or early to class. Most of my students do not. (Even though my school requires this as well).

I find myself frustrated at times with this as it can interfere with my doing my job. So I have to adapt... but adapt does not mean I should have to abandon my principles completely. So I made a compromise.... if students are a couple of minutes late (I must shut the door at 35 after the hour) I let them in on the condition that they tell me some fantastic story (the truth doesnt count here) about why they were late. I tell them this after a couple of weeks into the semester when I can drop the drill sargeant act a bit. (I tried it once from week one but found that students began to take advantage of this flexibility) I tell them this ahead of time and suggest they prepare a story mentally (they dont but they are warned). To be fair, the same rule applies to me if Im late, but my story has to be in Spanish.

In this way, I not being a complete hard-@$$, insisting on doing things completely my way, but at the same time they know that my values count too.

However, if I have to worry about being reprimanded, fired or even jailed just becaused I offend someone (esp. with no intention of doing so) by being who I am, then that is not a teaching environment I should be in. I am not willing to completely submit myself to a completely different value system, losing my own sense of identity. Negotiate a compromise... always... but negotiation does not mean capitulation.

I think many on the diversity/multicultural bandwagon are too quick to assume the Westerner/white person is always at fault when there is cultural conflict. The OP got trashed at the beginning of this thread as an example. I dont think he was an idiot because, as was noted, even within a belief system there can be variables (Some Muslims think music is a sin and some dont) so perhaps all the "knowledge" in the world wont prevent all missteps, as such knowledge is nothing but generalities learned outside of actually growing up within that belief system/culture.

[johnslat]

I came across an interesting statement on the subject of "cultural relativism": the acceptance speech by Adraan Van Der Staay on being presented with the International Humanist Award, given on 3 July 2002 at the International Humanist and Ethical Union.

"IHEU is the world union of over 100 Humanist, rationalist, secular, ethical culture, atheist and freethought organizations in more than 40 countries. Our mission is to represent and support the global Humanist movement. Our goal is a Humanist world in which human rights are respected and all can live a life of dignity."

Here's the excerpt:

"Cultural relativism
As I said, cultural identity is a restrictive concept, a stepping back from commonality, which for me is basic to humanism. It would be less dangerous if it were not sometimes linked to conflicts of interest. If it were only a restricted view of the world due to natural forgetfulness or parochialism it would not matter so much. But when it is also linked to conflicts of interest between groups of people, the implications can be grave. These conflicts are of course the stuff of life. But they may also contribute to intellectual obtuseness and moral cynicism.
Just consider a few examples of conflicts of interest and their effects on cultural identities.
What else can the terrible conflict in Palestine be called than a conflict over land between an indigenous population and newcomers? This vicious war of interest is today cloaked in every kind of special pleading including the historical rights of two populations, and mutually exclusive claims to one city. But this conflict of interest, rapidly changing into a conflict of cultural identities, is breaking up any sense of moral or intellectual commonality. People will accentuate their cultural differences until these relative differences change into absolute differences and all sense of commonality is lost.
This conflict is not of course limited to the unhappy populations of Palestine. In its self-destructive past of nationalism Europe has been equally confused. How many learned disquisitions have there not been written about differences between Kultur and Civilisation, the one being characteristically German and the other just as characteristically French? This subject has bedevilled some of Europe's best minds.
Another conflict of interest is less obvious than the conflict between populations calling themselves nations, namely conflicts within society. When migrants or former slaves do not find a commonality with the indigenous or majority population, for whatever reason, what is more natural to them than to fight not for commonality but for their self-interest? Self-interest becomes the motor for cultural identity thinking. This may translate into multiculturalism, black studies, ethnic thinking or victimhood thinking. But it remains basically a conflict of interest.

This could still be regarded as wholesome if it were simply another phase in a process of emancipation towards some form of commonality. This was the illusion under which Dutch society laboured, both on the left and on the right, when it started subsidizing mosques for migrants: that national unity would always be the natural outcome of emancipation. But this type of multicultural struggle has also laid the foundations for that debilitating concept: cultural relativism.
I call this concept debilitating because it does not grapple with the problem of how to understand other cultures and pass judgement on them. Relativism lays down its arms at all too early a stage. Cultural relativism is a trap. It abolishes intellectual and moral commonality with the other. If cultural identities are assumed to enclose populations and there is no common framework, what can one do but accept the idea of cultural relativism?
If, right or wrong, my culture becomes the rule, what sense does it make to discuss right and wrong? How can one judge between competing identities? How can one show real respect to the other if one has no real respect for oneself? I have no doubt that all this has been amply discussed by you.
I would merely suggest that there is no future for humanism if it does not take into account the commonality of humankind as a whole and discard the constraints that the concept of cultural identity places on our minds.


For the full speech, please go click on the link below:

http://www.iheu.org/node/193

[rusmeister]

[arioch36]

Jerry

[Justin Trullinger]

[thelmadatter]

Justin... nothing I wrote was directly aimed at you or anyone else specifically. There are plenty who seem to do these things... sometimes it can feel like a pile-on!

BTW, found a Muslim country I can work in! http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/this-is-a-kosovar-muslim-11372

Gotta love a Muslim country that has a Jewish bakery run by a real Israeli! (dang! my bagel craving is coming back!)

[johnslat]

Dear aroich36,

"Only a fanatic could keep from becoming evil in a place like that."

I'm afraid I disagree. I think that an honorable person who has integrity could "keep from becoming evil in a place like that."

Regards,
John

[Justin Trullinger]

Glad to hear it, Thelmadatter-
I think that most of what I've been trying to express (clumsilly, verbosely, perhaps preposterously) on this thread can be summed up with that- The whole Muslim world isn't just one place! (Nor the "Christian World" nor anything else.

If you could please send me one of those bagels...



Justin

[Stephen Jones]