|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Prof fired for asking students to stomp on the word ‘Jesus’
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
I could be wrong, but EE seems to be defending the actions of the Mormon student. The claim is made that symbols are important (which nobody can deny), but no concession is made in this defence for the more important issue- that the lecturer received treats of violence. I pointed out the Mahammed cartoon thing, and EE proceeded to complain about philosophical materialism, missing the point by eighteen nautical miles.
On another thread you accused me of resorting to the tu quoque fallacy, but what we see here is a variant of it. I am defending the actions of the Mormon student, insofar as he refused to stamp on the name of Jesus. But, in your opinion, because he also threatened the professor, that somehow invalidates the legitimacy of his earlier protest. He was right to be upset, but wrong to issue a threat. Where did I say that he was justified in threatening the professor?
As for my apparently misrepresenting you with reference to materialism (hence your earlier "...and I'd be grateful if you would refrain from misrepresenting my position quite so much, please"), I am pleased that you have cleared this up:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
...Therefore I declare that we do not need this old book, and I sling it in the fire. A true, honest and genuine materialist would have to accept that my actions were correct.
I'd accept it.
Yorick: a true, honest and genuine materialist.
Perhaps you would be so good as to let Karl: LB know that I wasn't relying on my imagination after all!
(Btw... do please stay away from the rare books trade).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sorry, but I don't see the difference. Doing the second thing is avoiding the persecution, isn't it?
Fair enough, there certainly is a continuum there. I do not think that we can say for every situation and for every person that this one particular place along the continuum is always the best. But I think we can say that that the extremes are almost always wrong. It is bad to seek to sacrifice yourself at all costs, just in order to "make a point". That devalues the worth of one's own life too much. It is also bad to shrink from all self-sacrifice, just in order to save one's life (or comfort). That devalues the worth of one's principles too much.
There is a time for living in order to fight another day. There is also a time for standing up and being counted. Ultimately, I cannot say what everybody must do. But I can say that if they have time only for one of these, and never the other, then they are at least foolish, probably sinful. And I can also reject the label "fucking stupid" for those who refused to kowtow to Caesar, demonstrating their love for Christ in their blood.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Can we remind ourselves that students were not required to "stomp" on the paper? They were invited to tread on it (and I'd suggest that whilst we're talking about symbols, the symbolic distinction between "stomping" and "treading" is quite significant), and when they hesitated, they were not then required to carry on, but discussed their hesitation?
That's how I read the lesson plan. It is in no way comparable to requiring a Hindu child to spear a picture of Ganesh with a dart.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
I could be wrong, but EE seems to be defending the actions of the Mormon student. The claim is made that symbols are important (which nobody can deny), but no concession is made in this defence for the more important issue- that the lecturer received treats of violence. I pointed out the Mahammed cartoon thing, and EE proceeded to complain about philosophical materialism, missing the point by eighteen nautical miles.
On another thread you accused me of resorting to the tu quoque fallacy, but what we see here is a variant of it. I am defending the actions of the Mormon student, insofar as he refused to stamp on the name of Jesus. But, in your opinion, because he also threatened the professor, that somehow invalidates the legitimacy of his earlier protest. He was right to be upset, but wrong to issue a threat. Where did I say that he was justified in threatening the professor?
As for my apparently misrepresenting you with reference to materialism (hence your earlier "...and I'd be grateful if you would refrain from misrepresenting my position quite so much, please"), I am pleased that you have cleared this up:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
...Therefore I declare that we do not need this old book, and I sling it in the fire. A true, honest and genuine materialist would have to accept that my actions were correct.
I'd accept it.
Yorick: a true, honest and genuine materialist.
Perhaps you would be so good as to let Karl: LB know that I wasn't relying on my imagination after all!
(Btw... do please stay away from the rare books trade).
EE - for clarification, my point was about the idea that this lesson was about materialist reductionism, which you did appear to get from nowhere. Yorick seems to be fighting a corner all of his own with little to do with the intentions of the lesson as I understand it.
As ever, apologies for any offence caused, feathers ruffled, etc. etc.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
This reminds me a bit of what Judith Butler says about hate speech: that it is a performative (FWIW, she has a rather broad definition of hate speech, including some non-verbal acts, like the KKK burning a cross in someone's lawn). What matters in this case is not the specific form of the words, but the fact that they are acting out/performing the statement "I hate you".
(disclaimer: I am not saying the specific acts under discussion in this thread are extreme enough to be considered hatred, but ITSM there's an interesting principle in play)
That's why I can't buy the "they're just symbols" line. The point isn't the bit of paper or the crucifix or the flag or whatever. The point is the acting out/performance of disrespect. Certain symbols and actions have meanings in our society because of what they are usually understood to enact.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If I happen to walk on a bit of Jesus paper, or a US flag, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
But ask me to do so deliberately, and now the bit of cloth or paper is in a symbolic context, and so stepping on it, or burning it, has symbolic meaning.
Which is exactly what the prof's class was all about.
Well, quite. The point that he was trying to make was that symbols have a powerful meaning, but then he's surprised when the response doesn't stay confined within the neat box he had hoped it would stay in. Physician, heal thyself!
I think there is a sharp distinction to be drawn between looking at symbolic actions, and inviting or expecting students to participate in those same symbolic actions.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ads - if you read Demas' link and the other articles it links to (This one, for example) you will note that the version in the OP is disputed. If Demas' information is correct, then what is described is considerable closer to what you'd do than it has been reported.
That is a very different angle on the whole thing, yes. The key thing is, you need a sensitive teacher doing this so that they know not to push it too far. After all, the whole point of the exercise is the power of symbol (or of a name, or of a Name, which is even more powerful sometimes) and the teacher should already appreciate how great a power that is.
quote:
quote:
And as for the other professor who opines that writing the name on the paper doesn't make it magical or holy, he clearly needs to go and read up on what "magical" and "holy" mean.
Hmm - I think they might mean different things to different people. I tend to agree with the professor, according to my understanding of the terms.
In anthropological terms, that's precisely the kind of action that makes something magical or holy. Even a professor of religious studies should know a little anthropology.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Given that the teacher self-identifies as a Christian, my inclination would be to assume that he does have a modicum of sensitivity.
With regard to the magic/holy - I'd have thought that in Anthropological terms, writing a name on someting with the intention of rendering it magical or holy, and quite possibly requiring some rite, form or similar is indeed the sort of thing that makes something magical or holy. Just going through the motions I'd suggest generally doesn't. If I got some bread and wine and said the words of institution and the epiclesis over them, knowing fully that I'm not a proper person to do so in my tradition, and with no intention of effecting any change in them, they'd not become holy. When a priest or other person authorised within their tradition does so with the intention of so making them, they do - at least to those for whom the intention is made. Just writing "Jesus" on a piece of paper looks like the former to me rather than the latter, which is why I tend to agree with the professor as quoted.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Well, quite. The point that he was trying to make was that symbols have a powerful meaning, but then he's surprised when the response doesn't stay confined within the neat box he had hoped it would stay in. Physician, heal thyself!
I disagree. I think the prof is perfectly entitled to expect that his students can discuss their own reactions without threatening violence!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
That is a very different angle on the whole thing, yes.
I'm not so sure that it is so different. The class were instructed to write "Jesus" on a sheet of paper, meditate over it for a while, then put it on the floor and step on it.
I don't think the difference between "step" and "stomp" is significant.
The difference is the statement that the student was suspended for making threats, rather than for not stepping on the word "Jesus." That makes some difference - suspending a student for refusing to step on Jesus' name would be miles away from acceptable, but doesn't go so far as to make it right.
As is reported in the professor's version, the student asked the professor after the class "How dare you disrespect someone's religion?" and hit his balled fists into his other hand, saying that he wanted to hit the professor.
That's not a threat. That's a statement of anger, and the professor knew he was doing something which would arouse strong feelings. So his response (to report threats to the administration) shows that he didn't really approach the class very well.
I still think he's wrong to ask the students to "step on Jesus" but had he turned this student's anger into a teachable moment on the power of symbols, rather than getting him suspended, it would not have been so serious an error.
quote:
After all, the whole point of the exercise is the power of symbol (or of a name, or of a Name, which is even more powerful sometimes) and the teacher should already appreciate how great a power that is.
Yes, quite. Provoking a strong response, but expecting that response to remain strictly confined within the boundaries you expect, is a bit naive.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I wonder what would have happened if instead of getting pupils to write "Jesus", he had them write "mum".
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
EE - I was being sarcastic.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Ah, the stupidity of the martyrs. On the blood flowing from such stupidity the Church was founded, on Marvin-style pragmatic cleverness, not so much.
I don't think the martyrs were stupid. But if large numbers of Christians hadn't burnt the pinch of incense, how much of the church would have been left?
Mythology to the contrary, most Christians weren't asked. For one thing, most persecutions focused on prominent people, leaders in the Christian community -- not the ordinary folks. And for another, most persecutions were limited in both time and place -- even the worst of what is recorded in Egypt and/or Carthage, for example, was probably not happening at all at the same time in Britain or Italy.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Random passing thought for the discussion: I wonder how the professor would have felt if, instead of the reported confrontation with the student, the student had merely handed him a photograph of himself (the professor) with a clear footprint on it?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Point of order - if someone made a fist like that and told me he wanted to hit me, I might well take it as a credible threat of violence. A lot would depend on the tone at the time, but it certainly could be.
I've been very angry with people over the years, but I've never, ever, come close to doing something like that, so it seems a very extreme and threatening response to me.
[ 04. April 2013, 15:13: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can we remind ourselves that students were not required to "stomp" on the paper? They were invited to tread on it (and I'd suggest that whilst we're talking about symbols, the symbolic distinction between "stomping" and "treading" is quite significant), and when they hesitated, they were not then required to carry on, but discussed their hesitation?
That's how I read the lesson plan. It is in no way comparable to requiring a Hindu child to spear a picture of Ganesh with a dart.
But in the US, "Don't Tread On Me" is a slogan fraught with meaning. I have no idea whether students would or would not have called the historical significance of "treading" to mind, but in the absense of very much agreed fact and a great deal of speculation, I thought I'd throw it into the mix.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I disagree. I think the prof is perfectly entitled to expect that his students can discuss their own reactions without threatening violence!
Firstly, I disagree that the reported actions of the student constitute a threat. "I want to hit you" is a statement of anger. "I am going to hit you" is a threat.
Second, I think that expecting that his students can discuss their own reactions without threatening violence, whatever the provocation, is naive at best.
I'm sure we can all imagine some pretty offensive provocation that would drive many people to violence, or at least violent thoughts. Is the only difference is that you don't think Jesus-stomping is offensive enough?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
This sort of thing has crossed my mind many times when debating with folks who criticize Orthodoxy for "worshiping" icons: "it's just paint on wood, it's not Jesus" (to take the saint worshiping aspect out if it).
Well, no, we are NOT worshiping the paint and paper, but just as the word Jesus on a piece of paper is not something you feel comfortable stomping on, because you feel that in a way it would be like stomping on Jesus, similarly we use icons as a representation of Jesus.
Actually, when I thought about it in the past, I imagined the bible rahter than the word Jesus on a piece of paper, but same idea. symbols have meaning to us. we transfer some of the significance of the thing being represented to the representation. that's a very human thing (thought not solely human..few animals are known to do this, but some apparently do). the prof. was trying to illustrate this point. the student not only completely missed the point, but then illustrated the very point by his over-reaction.
the points to remember here are that the prof did not (as far as I can see) REQUIRE the students to do the stomping. a student could refuse, and then that would be a perfect illustration of the point being made.
another point is that the student didn't just refuse, but made a physical threat to the prof.
yet another is that the student was not suspended for refusing the assignment, but for making the threat.
I hope if the prof. does this again in the future, he make a strong point about the option to refuse (as in, if you can't bring yourself to do this, you don't have to... but I want you to think about why... ) so it's explicit, since some students obviously are going to miss the point spectacularly.
I also think the exercise should perhaps start with "write on the paper the word representing something you hold sacred. examples might be...." then tell them to stomp on it (rather than choosing a particular thing for them.. since the degree to which people are willing to stomp on the word Jesus is going to be impacted by the degree to which they care about Jesus, as well as the degree to which they transfer that to the word on paper. in other words, there is an extra variable that should be removed if possible.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I disagree. I think the prof is perfectly entitled to expect that his students can discuss their own reactions without threatening violence!
Firstly, I disagree that the reported actions of the student constitute a threat. "I want to hit you" is a statement of anger. "I am going to hit you" is a threat.
If you came up to me shaking your fist and telling me you want to hit me, I would feel threatened. I would actually quite possibly report it to the police as an assault. It is utterly unacceptable behaviour in my book.
If you calmly told me that I'd so offended you that you felt a violent reaction, that I'd take as a mere statement of anger. Once you start making fists, I'd feel there was a very real danger that you were about to cause me harm.
quote:
Second, I think that expecting that his students can discuss their own reactions without threatening violence, whatever the provocation, is naive at best.
I'm sure we can all imagine some pretty offensive provocation that would drive many people to violence, or at least violent thoughts. Is the only difference is that you don't think Jesus-stomping is offensive enough?
I don't think that anything short of a threat to one's own personal safety is offensive enough to justify a violent reaction in another person, to be honest. If I did, I'd have beaten the shit out of a lot of people in the past. I haven't.
[ 04. April 2013, 15:30: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've been very angry with people over the years, but I've never, ever, come close to doing something like that, so it seems a very extreme and threatening response to me.
I have, on occasion, punched walls very close to the head of someone who I was very very angry with, and there was never the merest hint of suggestion in my mind that I would actually hit him. So my perspective isn't quite the same.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've been very angry with people over the years, but I've never, ever, come close to doing something like that, so it seems a very extreme and threatening response to me.
I have, on occasion, punched walls very close to the head of someone who I was very very angry with, and there was never the merest hint of suggestion in my mind that I would actually hit him. So my perspective isn't quite the same.
If you ever meet me, don't do that to me, because I would consider it a threat to my personal safety and might well get my defence in first, if I didn't think I could outrun you. How do I, or indeed the teacher of this class, know that there's no suggestion that you're actually going to do that?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think the difference between "step" and "stomp" is significant.
Maybe it is just my understanding of the meaning of the words, but if somebody "steps" on my foot and somebody "stomps" on my foot, I expect to feel more pain from the stomping. In my mind, it carries the implication of added force. "Stomp" therefore strikes me as a little more inflammatory a word than "step." But I suppose reasonable minds could differ on that.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
As is reported in the professor's version, the student asked the professor after the class "How dare you disrespect someone's religion?" and hit his balled fists into his other hand, saying that he wanted to hit the professor.
That's not a threat. That's a statement of anger, and the professor knew he was doing something which would arouse strong feelings. So his response (to report threats to the administration) shows that he didn't really approach the class very well.
Speculating here, but the prof may not have had much choice. With the multiple school shootings that have occurred in the U.S. over the past several years, it is my understanding that school administrations want all threats to be reported--even if the hearer of the threat does not personally believe that there is any intent to carry out the threat.
Play a hypothetical here: The student acts exactly as reported. The prof decides the student is just blowing off steam and does not report it. The student goes to his room, gets himself more worked up and comes back with a gun to shoot the prof and every student who dared to step/stomp/tread/apply foot to paper. Don't you think one of the major questions that would be raised in that situation would be "Why didn't the teacher report the threat?"?
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've been very angry with people over the years, but I've never, ever, come close to doing something like that, so it seems a very extreme and threatening response to me.
I have, on occasion, punched walls very close to the head of someone who I was very very angry with, and there was never the merest hint of suggestion in my mind that I would actually hit him. So my perspective isn't quite the same.
well... and you don't think that the person whose head you nearly but not quite hit should feel threatened by this? becuase, unless I knew you very very well, and you did this, I'd be calling 911 as soon as I could get far far away from you! You may not have intended to hit me, but since I am not a mind reader, I can't know that, and it's about as obvious a threat as I think can be made! Even if I can see that you didn't intend to hit me at that point, I would read "this time I hit the wall.. next time it could be your head!" I don't know anyone who wouldn't react the same way to your described action!!!
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have, on occasion, punched walls very close to the head of someone who I was very very angry with, and there was never the merest hint of suggestion in my mind that I would actually hit him. So my perspective isn't quite the same.
Terrifying for the person on the receiving end.
They don't know what is in your mind.
This prof still isn't back at work, because he doesn't feel safe.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think that anything short of a threat to one's own personal safety is offensive enough to justify a violent reaction in another person, to be honest. If I did, I'd have beaten the shit out of a lot of people in the past. I haven't.
I don't disagree, if by "violent reaction" you mean actually attacking someone. My point, though, is that I think we're all aware that many people would offense and throw a punch in response to, for example, crude insinuations about their mother. It is reasonable to expect that in a class of students, some would respond in that way. It is therefore unreasonable to expect that the class would all sit and discuss it calmly and rationally.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think that anything short of a threat to one's own personal safety is offensive enough to justify a violent reaction in another person, to be honest. If I did, I'd have beaten the shit out of a lot of people in the past. I haven't.
I don't disagree, if by "violent reaction" you mean actually attacking someone. My point, though, is that I think we're all aware that many people would offense and throw a punch in response to, for example, crude insinuations about their mother. It is reasonable to expect that in a class of students, some would respond in that way. It is therefore unreasonable to expect that the class would all sit and discuss it calmly and rationally.
They would, but we don't consider it acceptable behaviour, do we? I mean, if we give a class a homework assignment it's reasonable to expect that some of them will fail to do it, but they still get detention. Physically threatening a teacher is another level of unacceptable; if I threatened someone at work, whatever the provocation, I'd expect to be fired. We're expected to control our anger, and if we react in a way that makes someone feel threatened, as this student did, we've failed to control our anger in the way expected of us, even if we don't actually throw a punch.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think that anything short of a threat to one's own personal safety is offensive enough to justify a violent reaction in another person, to be honest. If I did, I'd have beaten the shit out of a lot of people in the past. I haven't.
I don't disagree, if by "violent reaction" you mean actually attacking someone. My point, though, is that I think we're all aware that many people would offense and throw a punch in response to, for example, crude insinuations about their mother. It is reasonable to expect that in a class of students, some would respond in that way. It is therefore unreasonable to expect that the class would all sit and discuss it calmly and rationally.
Really?
University students?
Of course I would expect it.
In fact, I'm sure they will sign a code of conduct.
I teach six year olds and expect (and get) better behaviour!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
As a teacher, I read this as a pretty clear case of a student entirely missing the point of the assignment and not having either the intelligence or the patience to actually listen to what they were supposed to get out of the exercise.
What I read was that the students weren't told what the point of the assignment was until AFTER they stomped on the paper.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
In this exercise, the professor was using his students as test subjects in a psychological experiment. He had an ethical duty to them to not only provide a safe environment for them, but also to properly debrief them afterwards.
This is an astute observation. The experiment should have been cleared through the Human Subjects board.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's how we see it that matters, not the symbol itself.
But apparently how we see it, unless we see it from a purely materialistic viewpoint, is risible to Crook (who is not the teacher who did the experiment -- people need to make sure they distinguish them). That Crook is all but blowing a gasket about this actually proves Crook is wrong. Which is an interesting paradox.
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Well, clearly we're reading the accounts differently. My understanding of it was not that the prof coerced, forced or required the students to step on the paper (which would, as you say, obviously be wrong) but that he asked them to do it,
I think this is ridiculously naive about the power relationship between professors and students.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QUOTE]And as for the other professor who opines that writing the name on the paper doesn't make it magical or holy, he clearly needs to go and read up on what "magical" and "holy" mean.
Hmm - I think they might mean different things to different people. I tend to agree with the professor, according to my understanding of the terms.
I agree completely that it's not magical or holy. I just don't think that's at all relevant. At all. Not .0000001%. And Crook is either a certified idiot for thinking so, or an asshole for saying so.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Given that the teacher self-identifies as a Christian, my inclination would be to assume that he does have a modicum of sensitivity.
You clearly don't know as many Christians as I do. Or read the news.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can we remind ourselves that students were not required to "stomp" on the paper? They were invited to tread on it (and I'd suggest that whilst we're talking about symbols, the symbolic distinction between "stomping" and "treading" is quite significant), and when they hesitated, they were not then required to carry on, but discussed their hesitation?
That's how I read the lesson plan. It is in no way comparable to requiring a Hindu child to spear a picture of Ganesh with a dart.
Yes, it appeared to me that the desired response was NOT to stomp/ step/ tread on the name-- in order to provoke a meaningful discussion of why they would not. Had the students all robotically obeyed the lesson would have fallen flat and failed to reach it's pedagogical goals.
We do this all the time in education. I will often assign a reading or post a provocative quote that I know violates my students' beliefs-- and mine-- for the purpose of engaging discussion. It's a far more useful teaching technique than simply spoon feeding them feel-good pieces where they'll nod their heads in agreement.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I disagree. I think the prof is perfectly entitled to expect that his students can discuss their own reactions without threatening violence!
Firstly, I disagree that the reported actions of the student constitute a threat. "I want to hit you" is a statement of anger. "I am going to hit you" is a threat.
Second, I think that expecting that his students can discuss their own reactions without threatening violence, whatever the provocation, is naive at best.
I'm sure we can all imagine some pretty offensive provocation that would drive many people to violence, or at least violent thoughts. Is the only difference is that you don't think Jesus-stomping is offensive enough?
I certainly think Jesus-stomping is offensive enough-- as does the prof. apparently. But, as a univ. prof., I cannot agree that it is unreasonable to expect university students to be able to discuss their reactions to offensive material w/o threatening violence. If they are unable to do so, they don't belong in a university classroom.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Really?
University students?
Of course I would expect it.
"University students" are about half of the country's young adults. Which group of people is most renowned for getting in to fights? Young adult males.
This is almost certainly some kind of entry-level general education class, meaning that the students are a more or less random selection, with a variety of backgrounds.
There are bound to be some hot tempers in the class. If you're going to set out to deliberately provoke them, perhaps you ought to be a bit careful about doing so.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Really?
University students?
Of course I would expect it.
"University students" are about half of the country's young adults. Which group of people is most renowned for getting in to fights? Young adult males.
This is almost certainly some kind of entry-level general education class, meaning that the students are a more or less random selection, with a variety of backgrounds.
There are bound to be some hot tempers in the class. If you're going to set out to deliberately provoke them, perhaps you ought to be a bit careful about doing so.
I have been teaching exactly this level of student-- first year university-- for more than 10 years. As I said, we use provocative material all the time. I would absolutely expect my students to understand that threatening violence is not an acceptable response. I would expect them to discuss verbally-- passionately, loudly perhaps, angrily-- but no more. This is what we do all the time in university. It is our job as instructors. And it is the students' job not to respond robotically to everything the instructor's say (again, the point here was clearly NOT to obey) but to engage it critically, verbally, thoughtfully. A student who cannot understand this does not belong in university.
I would suggest that an exercise like this might be particularly useful in helping Christian students/ would-be pastors to grasp why, say, burning Korans, is not a particularly useful way to proclaim the love of Christ.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But, as a univ. prof., I cannot agree that it is unreasonable to expect university students to be able to discuss their reactions to offensive material w/o threatening violence.
I think this depends on the presentation. Showing offensive material, discussing why it's offensive, and discussing your reactions to it, sure.
Being expected to engage in the offensive activity? I'm not sure that's the same.
I think, for example, that one should be able to show the Abu Ghraib photos in a class and discuss them rationally. If, instead, you begin the class by leading a naked hooded man into the classroom and instructing the students to urinate on him, I'm not sure I could say the same thing.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
This thread is both frightening and, unfortunately, predictable.
First, many of the claims regarding the events are in neither if the two articles linked. Many here assume beyond even the poorly written, inaccurate first article.
The prof. forced no one to step on anything.
Please point where the prof. is quoted as being surprised.
---------
There is a marked difference between an experiment in a classroom and actions in the real world. Context. Context. Context.
----------
A balled fist is an expressing of anger. If you decide, after the initial cause of anger to approach another with that balled fist, it is a threat.
----------
I've the feeling fewer here would be arguing against the experiment, with the same reported reactions, had it involved the name Mohammed.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would absolutely expect my students to understand that threatening violence is not an acceptable response. I would expect them to discuss verbally-- passionately, loudly perhaps, angrily-- but no more. This is what we do all the time in university. It is our job as instructors. And it is the students' job not to respond robotically to everything the instructor's say (again, the point here was clearly NOT to obey) but to engage it critically, verbally, thoughtfully. A student who cannot understand this does not belong in university.
Exactly.
Yet the student in question is back in class and has posted 'victory' on his facebook page. The professor is at home, feeling threatened (not just by the student but by the threats against him that the media storm has engendered.)
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ann:
An article from the (British) Psychology Today blog.
Sorry Ann, won't work here as it is too rational.
from the article.
quote:
Belief in voodoo, albeit implicit, is still alive and well in this modern world
For context, that quote is referring to Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
(again, the point here was clearly NOT to obey)
Again, the point wasn't made clear until AFTER the instruction was given.
----
In general, I hope we can all agree that subsequent threats (via Twitter, etc.) against the professor are a rather poor showing for Christians. In reponse to their (understandable) (pace Crook) unwillingness to step on a paper carrying the name "Jesus," they are willing to threaten with death a person created in His image. I also wonder if they would burn icons.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For context, that quote is referring to Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc.
To be specific tt is referring to all manner of emotional response to symbols, and the majority of the article is about our response to photographs of childhood objects, wives and football teams. The full paragraph is
quote:
In short, even though we know that symbols are only referents, we respond as if they are the real thing when threatened. No wonder people apparently also refuse to sign a contract to sell their soul to the devil even if they claim not to believe that any such transaction would actually happen. We may be able to engage top down rationality when contemplating symbolic acts but if they involve teddy bears, spouses, yourself or your God, then emotions run high. Belief in voodoo, albeit implicit, is still alive and well in this modern world.
I think the context is that the implicit belief in voodoo (i.e. crediting symbols with power) is not limited to religious items but rather anything that we feel emotionally attached to.
I think the point made earlier about ethical approval for psychological experiments is a good one. Interestingly, some institutions will rarely give approval for experiments on staff members or students on the basis that the potential for coercion to participate is too high and difficult to measure.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
well... and you don't think that the person whose head you nearly but not quite hit should feel threatened by this? becuase, unless I knew you very very well, and you did this, I'd be calling 911 as soon as I could get far far away from you!
In context, I don't think you should feel threatened, so perhaps I should expand.
The context is the hottest of hot blood. You have been repeatedly offensive over the last several days, have been repeatedly told not to do that, and have just done it again in a particularly extreme manner.
I immediately yell and hit the wall by your head. There is a shocked silence, I take a deep breath as the adrenaline subsides, and explain, again, why what you are doing is offensive and why I'd like you to stop.
I am sufficiently close to you that my failure to hit you either must be deliberate or I have an astonishingly bad aim.
Now, I'm not particularly proud of this response, and I don't recommend it. It's also not a case of my coming up to you and then hitting the wall - I am there. Had I been a few paces away, I'd have hit something else - a desk, maybe.
You might have felt threatened during the second of shocked silence. I accept that during that second you couldn't calculate the trajectory of my arm with sufficient accuracy to know that you weren't in danger. This is one of the reasons that I'm not proud of that response.
But I understand the anger, and I understand that anger coupled with a determination not to cause harm can lead to a violent display.
So that leads me to want to give the student the benefit of the doubt, on the reports that we have. We don't know exactly how the professor presented the tread-on-Jesus exercise, and the description of how the student approached the professor could cover a range of levels of threat. We do know that the student didn't actually hit anyone.
If you deliberately set out to court an emotive response (as this class did), then I think you have to be more accepting of a wider range of behaviour than otherwise. The student may have crossed the line, and the professor may have handled the class poorly. In those circumstances I am willing to give the student some more latitude.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In general, I hope we can all agree that subsequent threats (via Twitter, etc.) against the professor are a rather poor showing for Christians.
I will certainly agree that these threats are completely unacceptable (and rather similar to the kind of threats that Adria Richards received in another recent thread.) I will point out that the reason the professor is not at work is these threats, and has nothing at all to do with him feeling threatened by the original student.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ann:
An article from the (British) Psychology Today blog.
Sorry Ann, won't work here as it is too rational.
from the article.
quote:
Belief in voodoo, albeit implicit, is still alive and well in this modern world
For context, that quote is referring to Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc.
No, it's not. It's specifically mentions teddy bears and photos of spouses, not Jesus or Mohamed. The voodoo reference is clearly about the voodoo practice of doing harm to a likeness of someone and the harm transferring to the real thing. Not at all a slam on religion, but reference to humanity's equating of a symbol with the thing symbolized.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I will point out that the reason the professor is not at work is these threats, and has nothing at all to do with him feeling threatened by the original student.
That is how I understood it as well.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
EE. In all honesty I can't really put myself in the same headspace as the Hindu child in your example. I just don't think or perceive the world in the same way. So I could sympathise but not empathise if that makes sense.
If I found myself in a session where I was asked to throw a dart at a picture of Charles Darwin, I think I'd strongly hesitate to do so. Not because Charles Darwin is going to send me to Hell: just because it might be seen as endorsing hostility. Can you empathise with that?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
No, it's not. It's specifically mentions teddy bears and photos of spouses, not Jesus or Mohamed. The voodoo reference is clearly about the voodoo practice of doing harm to a likeness of someone and the harm transferring to the real thing. Not at all a slam on religion, but reference to humanity's equating of a symbol with the thing symbolized.
Form the article:
quote:
We may be able to engage top down rationality when contemplating symbolic acts but if they involve teddy bears, spouses, yourself or your God,
bold mine
The voodoo reference is to show that this ideology extends beyond religion, not that it is confined to a particular religion, or inherently excluded from any religion. Or lack of religious beliefs.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In context, I don't think you should feel threatened, so perhaps I should expand.
The context is the hottest of hot blood. You have been repeatedly offensive over the last several days, have been repeatedly told not to do that, and have just done it again in a particularly extreme manner.
I immediately yell and hit the wall by your head. There is a shocked silence, I take a deep breath as the adrenaline subsides, and explain, again, why what you are doing is offensive and why I'd like you to stop.
I am sufficiently close to you that my failure to hit you either must be deliberate or I have an astonishingly bad aim.
Now, I'm not particularly proud of this response, and I don't recommend it. It's also not a case of my coming up to you and then hitting the wall - I am there. Had I been a few paces away, I'd have hit something else - a desk, maybe.
You might have felt threatened during the second of shocked silence. I accept that during that second you couldn't calculate the trajectory of my arm with sufficient accuracy to know that you weren't in danger. This is one of the reasons that I'm not proud of that response.
But I understand the anger, and I understand that anger coupled with a determination not to cause harm can lead to a violent display.
So that leads me to want to give the student the benefit of the doubt, on the reports that we have. We don't know exactly how the professor presented the tread-on-Jesus exercise, and the description of how the student approached the professor could cover a range of levels of threat. We do know that the student didn't actually hit anyone.
If you deliberately set out to court an emotive response (as this class did), then I think you have to be more accepting of a wider range of behaviour than otherwise. The student may have crossed the line, and the professor may have handled the class poorly. In those circumstances I am willing to give the student some more latitude.
Your pounding the wall is a threat, whether or not you intended to strike the person. If it were uncontrolled, the intent to violence is still there even though there was no battery. If it was controlled, there is an explicit threat.
I am less willing to give benefit of doubt to the student because it was in a classroom! The class was intercultural communication. How can one be in such a class and not understand that there will be attempts to teach? That the curriculum will invoke thought. Or should.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
The exercise in C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength comes to mind, in which Dr. Frost requires Mark Studdock to abuse a crucifix as a prerequisite to promotion in the NICE, giving more-or-less the same justification towards what he called "objectivity".
Even though Mark seemed to be an up-to-date little materialist, self-centered and very ambitious, this request was a step too far for him and precipitated repentance.
A reverence for the name of Jesus on the part of some of the faithful, at least, does not merely follow implicitly from latent semiotics, but is specifically taught by the church: Feast of the Holy Name... Bowing the head at any mention... Interior prayer of reparation "Blessed be the Name of the Lord!" upon hearing it used too casually. These are all taught by the body of Christ on earth as practical little techniques in quest of a constant awareness of the presence of God. Some Christians, to be sure, do not credit the church with much if any wisdom, preferring everyone to reinvent the wheel on their own. Fine. But others do trust their fellow-travelers, past and present, with having come up with good ideas and proven them with experience.
Therefore, some of us can deliberately step on the name to obey someone without disobeying someone else, and others cannot. If the textbook and the class experiment ignore an important variable, isn't this a classic case of obtaining invalid results?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Only human beings can extend, by the power of their minds, the world of experience, meaning and value beyond the confines of their own body into inanimate matter. Only humans can agree on this so that it becomes a shared thing among them, something that binds them together.
An animal can perhaps be deceived by similarity, as the bird fleeing the scarecrow. But no animal can have a wedding ring, a national flag or indeed an icon. This is power and glory of the human state at its very finest, the supra-personal projection of mind onto matter.
It is mistaken to poo-poo this ability as mere "voodoo". Yes, like everything people use, symbols can be abused. But this ability as such is not to be sneered at. It is a deep and integral part, a good part, of what it means to be human. In us, with us and through us, stick and stone become alive, communicate, gain a history.
In this we find in ourselves an image and likeness of God. God's Word makes thing be and live in reality, our word makes things be and live in our minds. And it is wrong to abuse, hurt of destroy living entities without just cause, even if they are just alive through our minds...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is mistaken to poo-poo this ability as mere "voodoo". Yes, like everything people use, symbols can be abused. But this ability as such is not to be sneered at. It is a deep and integral part, a good part, of what it means to be human. In us, with us and through us, stick and stone become alive, communicate, gain a history.
There is nothing that indicates the professor was sneering at anything. All indications seem opposite.
For myself, there is no mere intended. For one, I would not so denigrate the belief in voodoo.
I am agreeing with Ann's article, and you, that the power of symbols is a part of the human experience. I would add that it can be bad as well as good.
[ 04. April 2013, 18:36: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
Well, my previous post was a little closer to the bone than I was expecting, but it was quite cathartic.
Moving on, I wonder what parallels we can draw between this and the Adria Richards incident. Each was a three-part affair.
In the case of Ms. Richards, we have the original inappropriate comments from Dongle Man, the reaction by Ms. Richards, and the vile abuse from the brigade of internet cowards. In response to Ms. Richards's public complaint, Dongle Man was fired, and in response to the internet invective. Ms. Richards was fired.
In this case, we have the "stand on Jesus" lesson in the first place, the angry student in the second slot, and once more the brigade of cowards in slot three.
The coward brigade is, as usual, baying for blood. They want the professor fired, and have succeeded in scaring him into staying at home. (As it happens, the professor is black, and some of the abuse has been racial. I don't think this is a central point - I'll just note that there is a racist element within society who will produce racial abuse whenever the object of their dislike happens to be black, just as there is a sexist element in society that will produce sexist abuse against someone who happens to be a woman.)
Needless to say, the abuse from these people is (again) completely out of line, and is significantly the worst behaviour in this whole affair.
Examining the power of symbols and challenging your response to them is a perfectly reasonable exercise. Doing so by instructing your class to abuse those symbols is where I have a problem.
cliffdweller writes:
quote:
I will often assign a reading or post a provocative quote that I know violates my students' beliefs-- and mine-- for the purpose of engaging discussion.
which is different. That is looking at things which are offensive, and is a reasonably analytical exercise, even if those things are grossly offensive to you personally.
One can get more personal, and ask the students how they would feel if they were required to do something symbolically offensive. "How would you respond if I were to tell you to stomp on Jesus / urinate on this Bible / burn this Koran / whatever." That, in my mind, is a safe question. It allows the student to summon up a sandbox to consider their emotional response, whist still keeping art of their mind as a disinterested observer.
That wasn't what happened here. What happened here was raw and uncontained. The students are required, themselves, to engage in the offensive behaviour, and to confront their responses. There's no tiptoeing in the shallows here - this is being thrown in to the emotional deep end with no safety line.
This was a class on cultural relations. Would everyone think it reasonable to obtain a volunteer Muslim woman who wears a niqab or burka, sit her at the front of the class and instruct the students to yell abuse at her, and then evaluate their response? What if one of the class members was also a veiled Muslim woman, or the relative of one?
I'm not going to dogmatically say that you can never do anything like that, but you need to tread very, very carefully, because you are trifling with powerful forces. I suggest that it is at least possible that the professor in this case was guilty of a lack of care.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I would not so denigrate the belief in voodoo.
And yet the choice of word is unfortunate since it is often used as a pejorative term for superstition and religion. I suspect Anyuta misread your post in the same way as I first read it - skipping over the "atheist" to think that you were implying that the article was equating some sort of voodoo/magical thinking with religious superstition.
It is in fact showing that the power of symbolism is a common human experience inside and outside religion, and I think that's also how you read it, but I nearly came to the opposite conclusion.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
One can get more personal, and ask the students how they would feel if they were required to do something symbolically offensive. "How would you respond if I were to tell you to stomp on Jesus / urinate on this Bible / burn this Koran / whatever." That, in my mind, is a safe question. It allows the student to summon up a sandbox to consider their emotional response, whist still keeping art of their mind as a disinterested observer.
Problem is, the safe sandbox does not sufficiently challenge.
This study, to which Ann earlier linked, demonstrates this.
quote:
A few years back we demonstrated that cutting up photographs of sentimental childhood objects produced implicit anxiety as measured by the galvanic skin response in adults even though they predicted that they would not respond negatively.
bold mine
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
