Capitalism Hits the Fan

I received an interesting promotion from the Media Education Foundation in this morning’s email for a DVD made by University of Massachusetts’ economics professor Richard Wolff, titled Capitalism Hits the Fan. The MEF website provides a brief video introduction to Professor Wolff’s DVD’d presentation, a full-length, but video-hampered preview, and the following written description:

With breathtaking clarity, renowned University of Massachusetts Economics Professor Richard Wolff breaks down the root causes of today’s economic crisis, showing how it was decades in the making and in fact reflects seismic failures within the structures of American-style capitalism itself. Wolff traces the source of the economic crisis to the 1970s, when wages began to stagnate and American workers were forced into a dysfunctional spiral of borrowing and debt that ultimately exploded in the mortgage meltdown. By placing the crisis within this larger historical and systemic frame, Wolff argues convincingly that the proposed government “bailouts,” stimulus packages, and calls for increased market regulation will not be enough to address the real causes of the crisis, in the end suggesting that far more fundamental change will be necessary to avoid future catastrophes. Richly illustrated with motion graphics, this is a superb introduction designed to help ordinary citizens understand, and react to, the unraveling economic crisis.

It seems to me that educators might better introduce the study of economics to their students based on a timely and relevant presentation such as Wolff’s, than on a more abstract, textbook-101 introduction. By watching the full-length preview, I’ve gained an overarching view of how the American and other economies have stumbled into the unsustainable mess they’re in.

Bill Moyers talks with Parker Palmer

Tonight’s (2/20/2009) broadcast of Bill Moyers Journal features a wonderful interview of Parker Palmer. Here’s a link to the PBS page where a video of the interview can be found. I suspect that you’re going to appreciate listening to what Palmer has to say about himself and how to recover from the various kinds of “brokenness” Americans are experiencing in their lives and from the various cultural illusions that have diminished us personally and socially.

A Tale of Two Authors

How did Naomi Klein become Naomi Klein?

Take a look at what Wikipedia has to say about the family (educational) culture from which she emerged:

Klein was brought up in a Jewish family with a history of left-wing activism, as was her husband, Avi Lewis. Her paternal grandparents were Marxists who began to turn against the Soviet Union after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and had abandoned Communism entirely by 1956. Her grandfather, an artist, was fired from Disney for labour organizing. Her father Michael, a physician, was a Vietnam War resister (her parents moved from the US to Canada to avoid the draft) and a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Her mother, film-maker Bonnie Sherr Klein, directed and scripted the anti-pornography documentary film, Not a Love Story. Her brother Seth is director of the British Columbia office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Her in-laws are Michele Landsberg and Stephen Lewis, son of David Lewis. (1)

What life work/study would you suspect might be impelled by the cultural opportunity made possible to Naomi Klein by her immediate family? Yep, you’re right.

Among her writings, two books: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and an earlier No Logo: Taking Aim at Brand Bullies. In addition, her activism worldwide which confronts oppressively undemocratic and unsustainably exploitative socioeconomic behavior of a powerfully few.

Here’s a link to Naomi Klein’s website. Below is a YouTube video of her discussing The Shock Doctrine:

Naomi Klein is no Chris Langan–the no-account “genius” (loser?) whom Malcolm Gladwell contrasts with the outlier Robert Oppenheimer in the Outliers. But does Naomi Klein conveniently fit in Gladwell’s all-male club of celebrated/celebrity outliers? Let me explain.

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers is “simpler” by Einstein’s measure than it need be. A friend Nancy’s use of the phrase “alignment of the stars” seems an appropriate description of Gladwell’s explanation of why extreme “success” happens; in my view, Gladwell seems more an astrologer than astronomer, more mythologist than scientist.

Perhaps inadvertently, Gladwell purveys to parents/educators hungering for confirmation that pushing their children/students through a schooling culture of competitive credential accumulation is what’s really best for them. Take advantage of (and ace) training opportunities and hold your own self-promotionally when encountering gatekeepers and you’ll get to work in somebody’s big house and out of the field working as a lowly hand. The more time and effort you devote to making yourself useful and to gaining the appreciation of your superiors/clients, the greater you’ll see your success (narcissistically) in their mirrors. Where’s the personally, uniquely creative dimension in this male-dominated scrum for fame and fortune?

In a world where the 44 richest people (all men) have acquired as much wealth as the poorest 2,500,000,000, do you think that Gladwell’s “astrological” account is as sufficiently explanatory about the reality of a variety of less conspicuous and less fanfared forms of real success (on-the-ground?), and even outliers’ success itself? It seems to me that there is a scientific account based on testable, simply stated principles, akin to an evo-devo explanation of “natural selection,” which broadly explains social success of human groups and the individuals who are identifiable within them.

Radical Enlightenment

Have you read Counterculture Through the Ages: From Abraham to Acid House by Ken Goffman (a.k.a. R. U. Sirius)? Great fun in telling the story of the culturally verboten and politically incorrect! (For example, Goffman sees the insurrectionist Boston Tea Party as the epitome of playful outrageousness–the kind, however, that gets the American revolutionary spirit through to the political mind of the populace.)

While I liked Susan Jacoby’s The Age of American Unreason, her Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism better celebrates the most cherished and legitimately historical Enlightenment tradition in the U.S. republic which has been challenged from the beginning by Counter-Enlightenment cultural “pushbacks” of various kinds–religiously/culturally antidemocratic (socially hierarchical) at base and narrowly opportunistic in their effects on social and economic development.

Last month over about a week’s time, I read Jonathan I. Israel’s (tome) Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670-1752. First, it makes the case that revolutionary ideas in elites’ and peoples’ heads matter more than a mere marxian-like ripeness of socioeconomic dysfunctions in whether or not people act to overthrow ancien regimes and assume popular sovereignty. Also, Israel argues cogently that what actually is the contention between two Enlightenment traditions, one Radical, the other moderate–not their contention (as though they were seemingly one) against a persistent Counter-Enlightenment–is key to understanding modernity. Those who find their philosophical/moral roots in Spinoza and Bayle (monist radicals who welcome today’s “embodied” philosophers like Lakeoff and Rorty and the overwhelming majority of today’s neuroscientists) continue to contend with moderate dualists who find Leibniz, Newton, Locke, Voltaire, and others who are quite comfortable with Descartes’ accommodating split of the natural and the supernatural. Perhaps my favorite book on this contention between the radically and the moderately enlightened is Matthew Stewart’s The Courtier and Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the Fate of God in the Modern World. Stewart has written several great reads about modernity, but this one tops them all in cutting to the heart of what’s at issue in democratically re-forming our minds, moral direction, and political-cultural world. (Besides, it’s half about Baruch de Spinoza, whom I consider the most misunderstood, underestimated, and important thinker of all time. But then, that’s my opinion, not gospel.)

Howard Zinn on education and activism

I just started reading Howard Zinn’s You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times (1994) and stumbled upon a couple of paragraphs that raise questions in my mind about teaching and activism. Here are those paragraphs copied from page 7:

When I became a teacher I could not possibly keep out of the classroom my own experiences. I have often wondered how so many teachers manage to spend a year with a group of students and never reveal who they are, what kind of lives they have led, where their ideas come from, what they believe in, or what they want for themselves, for their students, and for the world.

Does not the very fact of that concealment teach something terrible–that you can separate the study of literature, history, philosophy, politics, the arts, from your life, your deepest convictions about right and wrong?

In my teaching I never concealed my political views: my detestation of war and militarism [Zinn was a bombardier in WW2.], my anger at racial inequality, my belief in a democratic socialism, in a rational and just distribution of the world’s wealth. I made clear my abhorrence of any kind of bullying, whether by powerful nations over weaker ones, governments over their citizens, employers over employees, or by anyone, on the Right or the Left, who thinks they have a monopoly on the truth.

This mixing of activism and teaching, this insistence that education cannot be neutral on the crucial issues of our time, this movement back and forth from the classroom to the struggles outside by teachers who hope their students will do the same, has always frightened the guardians of traditional education. They prefer that education simply prepare the new generation to take its proper place in the old order, not to question that order.

Are these paragraphs and Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States (1980, 2003), “the only volume to tell America’s story from the point of view of–and in the words of–America’s women, factory workers, African Americans, Native Americans, working poor, and immigrant laborers,” as unpatriotic, subversive, and dangerous as jingoists claim that they are? And if not, where does that leave us as teachers of our (American) history?

America’s humanist: Studs Terkel

Just finished watching a wonderful tribute to Studs Terkel on C-SPAN2’s BookTV which is introduced here at their website. Studs Terkel died on October 31, 2008, at age ninety-six, having lived long enough to see much of his humanistic hopes for the U.S. re-energized by the campaign and election of Barack Obama as our 44th President. Here’s a resourceful website dedicated to Terkel’s life and work which is an integral part of the Chicago History Museum’s online media. Studs Terkel’s person and productive dedication to the humanity of neighbors and citizens continue to remind me and others to listen for the voices of people who live and love and dream in common ways most often drowned out by the pronouncements of presidents, generals, and other proponents of the ways of the mighty among us. In today’s many troubled world, his message of social solidarity is at a premium.

culture, politics, and education

I’ve grown very curious about how American politics has played out over the time since WW2 that I’ve been alive. Although a student of politics during my college days, the recent U.S. Presidential election campaign re-engaged me in reading and thinking about American politics and even how it might be a subject for exploration by students of elementary school age.

I’ve just begun reading Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. I had read Perlstein’s Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus and liked it. Although I am a liberal progressive who welcomes the end of the Reagan-inspired political practices and socioeconomic ideology, I have a more detached and longstanding historical interest in what some have called “The Southern Nation” which is still so evident on the U.S. map of November’s electoral results. (See also the eye-opening history, Slavery By Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans From the Civil War to World War II.) Today’s still deep-seated political divide is explainable from a long history of cultural divide. And the educational world is not immune from the effects of those divides.

I’m not sure yet what I’m going to do (and write) with the societal divides I’ve been curious and concerned about in the U.S. for a long time. I just want whoever reads my blog to know that it is one of the important themes in my overall thinking about how to move our existing cultural understandings and behaviors in positive and constructive ways toward the new sustainability/inclusivity (“we the people”) paradigm I consider nearly imperative for global good. There are many tangents off this connected sphere of thinking and exploration. Many of them interestingly relate to the topics close to the Worldchanging perspective and agenda; others relate to questions of dead-ending militarism/imperialism and consumerism/addictive marketing and (non-)education for living superficial and dangerously manipulable/suggestible life-styles. I’m far from being a puritanical fundamentalist, but I do believe that those who claim to be educators of one kind or another need to be consciously aware of the close connection between cultural values and politics and education, as have been all of the historically great thinkers/practitioners on education and society.

the neuroscience of politics(?)

What follows below is a video presentation by neuroscientist George Lakoff about his recent book, The Political Mind. But Lakoff does more: he describes at greater length (about one hour) the findings of neuroscience about the embodied mind.