#Lead Pedagogy

[idigitizellp21]

Lead Pedagogy: Top 5 Skills Towards A Successful Leap

In the ever-evolving landscape of education, traditional teaching methods are making way for innovative approaches that cater to the diverse needs of modern learners. One such approach gaining traction is LEAD Pedagogy, which stands for Learn, Explore, Apply, and Develop. This learner-centric framework empowers students to take charge of their learning journey while equipping them with essential skills for success.

Let’s explore the top 5 skills that pave the way to successful through LEAD Pedagogy.

Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving: At the heart of LEAD Pedagogy lies the growth of importance of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Instead of memorization, students are encouraged to analyze, evaluate, and incorporate information from various sources. They learn to explore complex problems, identify underlying patterns, and propose innovative solutions. By engaging in activities that challenge their cognitive abilities, students become capable of tackling real-world challenges, a skill that transcends the classroom and serves them well in their personal and professional lives.

Collaboration and Communication: Education places a strong emphasis on collaborative learning and effective communication. Students engage in group projects, discussions, and presentations, fostering teamwork and refining their interpersonal skills. Through these experiences, they can learn to respect diverse perspectives, negotiate differences, and articulate their ideas clearly. In an interconnected world ability to work harmoniously with others and convey thoughts effectively is a vital skill that LEAD Pedagogy nurtures.

Creativity and Innovation: Innovation is the cornerstone of progress, and LEAD Pedagogy understands this well. By encouraging creativity and independent thinking, this approach empowers students to explore new ideas and unconventional solutions. Through hands-on activities, experiential learning, and exposure to real-world scenarios, students learn that there’s often more than one way to approach a problem. They develop the confidence to push boundaries, challenge norms, and create novel solutions that can drive positive change.

Adaptability and Resilience: The world is in a constant state of flux, and the ability to adapt to change is crucial. LEAD Pedagogy equips students with adaptability and resilience skills that are indispensable in navigating life’s uncertainties. By providing opportunities to explore diverse subjects, engage in unfamiliar tasks, and overcome obstacles, students learn to embrace challenges as learning opportunities. This instills a growth mindset, enabling them to bounce back from setbacks, learn from failures, and continuously evolve.

Digital Literacy and Technological Proficiency: In the digital age, technological literacy is non-negotiable. LEAD Pedagogy integrates technology seamlessly into the learning process, ensuring students are comfortable with various digital tools and platforms. They learn to navigate the digital landscape responsibly, discerning credible sources from misinformation. Moreover, they gain hands-on experience with technology, preparing them for the tech-driven demands of higher education and the workforce.

Key takeaway:

LEAD Pedagogy transcends traditional teaching methodologies by focusing on learning, Exploring, Applying, and Developing. Through this approach, students acquire skills that are vital for success in the 21st century. From critical thinking and problem-solving to collaboration and communication, creativity and innovation to adaptability and resilience, and beyond any doubt, digital literacy and technological proficiency.

LEAD Pedagogy prepares students to thrive in a rapidly changing world, which is exactly what Harshad Valia International School prepares your kids for. As we continue to reimagine education for the future, LEAD Pedagogy stands as a beacon of progressive and active learning, guiding students toward a successful leap into an exciting and dynamic world.

[historicalfightingguide]

A list of useful games to use in historical fencing training. The point is to rely on concepts such as the constraints lead approach, games and play for learning, elements of aliveness etc. For more details on why and how these drills get made I suggest checking out the articles  section of the website. Some of these may require protective gear and safe training weapons but some may only require a pair of socks. These are also mostly, not all written with longsword in mind, but the basic ideas they revolve around can be used with slight modifications for basically any weapon.

If you are interested in learning how to use a longsword check out these few links.

For anyone who hasn’t yet seen the following links:

Some advice on how to start studying the sources generally can be found in these older posts

Remember to check out  A Guide to Starting a Liberation Martial Arts Gym as it may help with your own club/gym/dojo/school culture and approach.

Check out their curriculum too.

Fear is the Mind Killer: How to Build a Training Culture that Fosters Strength and Resilience by   Kajetan Sadowski   may be relevant as well.

“How We Learn to Move: A Revolution in the Way We Coach & Practice Sports Skills”  by Rob Gray  

Another useful book to check out is  The Theory and Practice of Historical European Martial Arts (while about HEMA, a lot of it is applicable to other historical martial arts clubs dealing with research and recreation of old fighting systems).

Why having a systematic approach to training can be beneficial Remember that we can use sparring and tournament footage for videostudy as well.

Worth checking out are this blogs tags on pedagogy and teaching for other related useful posts.

Consider getting some patches of this sort or these cool rashguards to show support for good causes or a t-shirt like to send a good message while at training.

And stay safe

[lieutenant-amuel]

If I seem inactive, just know that I'm now writing a 350+ words essay about how awesome I am.

[teacherstudiies]

April 22, 2023 | 🐇

What I worked on today:

studied for my pedagogy exam (self-harm behavior and anxiety disorder)

studied for my politics didactic exam (leading conversations in the classroom, differentiation and individualization)

graded a couple English exams of my 6th graders 

Currently reading:

- Icebreaker Hannah Grace - I Want to Die but I Want to Eat Tteokbokki Baek Sehee

[diaryofaphilosopher]

The pursuit of full humanity, however, cannot be carried out in isolation or individualism, but only in fellowship and solidarity; therefore it cannot unfold in the antagonistic relations between oppressors and oppressed. No one can be authentically human while he prevents others from being so. Attempting to be more human, individualistically, leads to having more, egotistically, a form of dehumanization.

— Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

Follow Diary of a Philosopher for more quotes!

[haggishlyhagging]

The medieval student drank, fought, and in general conducted himself with the same swaggering nonsense as undergraduates do today. And just as today, this could lead to tensions between these temporary and rebellious residents of the university towns and the townspeople (and their pesky laws).

In order to ensure that their students never experienced legal consequences for their behavior—a key demand from wealthy medieval parents, as much as it is from well-to-do benefactors now—the universities came up with a unique work-around: all university students would take holy orders. That way, if they got in trouble, say, for running out on the bill at a local inn, as students from the University of Paris were fond of doing, they would be tried in ecclesiastical courts rather than local ones. There they would receive a slap on the wrist and be sent back to their studies, rather than face any meaningful punishment. This meant that every medieval university student was technically a clergy member, with a holy cassock to prove it. In fact, this is where the term town-gown relations comes from.

This requirement of holy orders also meant that the two major ways to be educated in the medieval period, joining a monastery school or going to university, were effectively closed to women. So even as Plato and Hippocrates and Galen and the Genesis myth were becoming locked into the standard pedagogic system, and even as pedagogy itself was becoming systematized, women were excluded from weighing in. The nature of our natures was being decided, and we weren't even present for the discussion. Most medieval thought about women was thus written by men, for men, based on readings of work by men.

-Eleanor Janega, The Once and Future Sex: Going Medieval on Women’s Roles in Society

[swiftthistletea]

I really do not believe that alternative pedagogies are worth it over traditional schooling. There are plenty of problems with traditional schooling sure. And I think that the only alternative type of schooling that has any sort of merit is Montessori but there are still problems with Montessori that I do not like. I like the focus on independence and calm environments within Montessori, and I think Montessori toys and furniture rule. My lead teacher/mentor came from a Montessori background and its been really interesting listening to her describe why she decided to leave. For example, if youre doing Montessori properly youre not supposed to praise children when they achieve something. Self motivation is a big part of it. Personally I believe children thrive when praise that's earned is given. It's not a bad thing to hype up a kid when they zipped their coat up for the first time, especially if its something that they've been struggling with for a while. Now Waldorf is just a fuckin mess. I think the method and schools lull a lot of parents in with the anti-tech sentiments, the focus on art and imaginative play, and heavy reverence and importance placed on nature and children experiencing nature. But Rudolf Steiner was a big esoteric occultist theosophy head before there was a schism and he formed his own philosophy/spirituality. This philosophy/spirituality informs the Waldorf teaching method even if it doesn't seem so overtly. The delayed academics and importance placed on Preserving the Magic of Childhood seems nice. Until you learn that they believe children should not be introduced to any kind of reading readiness (aka letters and phonics) until their baby teeth fall out; which means children that go through Waldorf education will not learn how to read until 1st through 3rd grade. That is way too late from a developmental standard imo; it wont fuck them up but if they switch to a traditional school they will be behind their peers because well, they ARE behind and this is intentional. Teachers and parents are told to discourage children from seeking out more academic pursuits until they are deemed to be old enough. How is that "child focused"? Also a lot of the things they teach like their specific obsession with wet on wet watercolors and eurythmy IS occultic in nature, the Waldorf true believers will tell you this. They believe that preschool children shouldnt use the color black in art or use any sort of "sharp" art tools like regular crayons and pencils until a certain age because it it's damaging to the soul. Preschool children forming basic shapes and symbols in art like hearts and smiles too early is considered an attack on their innocence. How could an educational method that bills itself as being "imagination and arts focused" say that while herding children into making very specific types of art with very specific colors? It's interesting that a lot of big tech people send their kids to Waldorf schools, Hollywood families as well. It's getting more popular recently. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donates to Waldorf organizations. I still believe that parents have a fundamental right to seek out schools they think is best for their children, and they have a right to raise their children as they see fit barring like, abusive situations or whatever. But I think parents should also be cautious. And I 100% think Christian parents who are interested in Waldorf/"Forest Schools" because of the anti tech and nature walks need to be extra cautious. Anthroposophy and eurthymy ARE absolutely spiritual in nature and Waldorf is NOT "just about nature and art".

[recomvery]

GET TO KNOW ME

About me

My name is Caroline and I am 28 years old. I live in France with my fiancé Raphael (who is the love of my life) and his family on the countryside. I am currently finishing up a bachelor degree in early childhood and pedagogy at Uni and want to do a Masters in counseling. My biggest dream is to one day be a licensed counselor, have an office at home and my own business counseling people online, which lead me to create this blog and spread positivity and encourage people to be gentle to themselves. My passion is helping people accept and love themselves ♡ My biggest hobby is reading fluffy little romance books (about cowboys) on my kindle and relax at home with my cat Ursa. My favorite tv shows are Gilmore Girls, Jane the virgin, adventure time, and silly dating reality tv shows. I am neurodivergent & queer, I like to draw, film youtube videos, and make friends online.

Fun facts:

- I always wanted to get back into Taylor swift as I loved her as a child but I keep putting it off

- I don't like sad media of any form

- I am scared of Zeppelins and how big the Eifel tower is

- I love stardew valley

- pink roses are my favorite

- I'm literally incapable of doing math

- I like reading children's books

Links

YOUTUBE CHANNEL

[jeannereames]

While reading stories of Alexander & his friends, it often feels like they could very well be today's youths. Is it because the authors present Alexander's world in a way relatable to the modern reader? Or there are things about youth common in all eras, like teenage crisis, romance, dreams, bold & adventurous spirit? And if I'm not wrong, you mention at one place that you don't "heroize" Alexander. That's interesting, since he's often worshipped a mythical hero. Why did you move away from that?

Alexander and the boys

This query was really two, or at least I want to separate them into two, so I’ll address the matter of heroizing Alexander in a different post.

The reason teen Alexander feels familiar owes to the simple fact biology makes certain aspects of adolescence universal. That said, while all human beings go through (suffer?) adolescence, whether it’s recognized as a “stage of life” depends on place and era. Does X culture have an adolescent moratorium, or time period between childhood and adulthood when teens are not (yet) saddled with the full responsibilities of adulthood?

Ancient Greece did, at least for some classes; they even had a specialized term: ephebe/έφηβος. Later, it came to signify a specific military class for training (18-20), but originally, it just meant a teenage boy, although the start age was imagined as later, more like 15+. Up to that, the generic pais (child) was more common. Ephebe has the implication of “starting to look like a man.”

Of more import, they invented what’s become the Western pedagogical system. The word pedagogy is GREEK: pais (child) agōgē (guiding/training): a paidagōgos was a nanny, but also a method of teaching children. The specific Spartan schooling system is referred to as the Agōgē, but the word has a generic meaning too. All of that is related to the Greek word for “work” (agōn) but also “to lead” (egōn).

There’s your Greek lesson for the day.

The Greeks had a pretty firm idea of the proper way to train up boys* and shape young minds. By the Classical era, and arguably the late Archaic, city Greeks were sending boys between the ages of 7 and 12 to school. These were private, so parents paid for the privilege of getting junior out of the house so somebody else could run herd on him. Mom and Dad had work to do. What were boys taught? The Three Rs (reading, writing, and ‘rithmatic) but also phys-ed (PE) and music. Again, the basics of a proper European primary-school education.

At 12, most boys returned home to take up their father’s occupation. So these were not all wealthy boys. Some were what we’d call middle class, but their families had enough money to invest in their education, and then, as now, the pricier the tuition, the better the teachers. But most stopped on the cusp of adolescence and went to work; they had no adolescent moratorium.

Only the wealthiest boys could afford to go on to what amounted to secondary education: lessons with a philosopher in order to prep them for their future careers as politicians, generals, and city leaders. What they learned now were rhetoric, eristics (art of argument), some literature, laws, theory on government, etc.

This higher-level tutoring is what Aristotle was hired for. Alexander (and friends) had already had the basics. A “philosophic education” had been around for over a century by the time Philip called Aristotle to Pella, although it wasn’t as set in form as it would become by the Hellenistic and Roman eras. In some of his more famous works, such as the Politics, Aristotle talks about the importance of education in the formation of a state: specifically in Book 7.18, and most of Book 8. He gets very specific in Book 8. He puts forward a number of common ideas the ancients had about the nature of the child. Most believed character was unchanging, so education would work to curb a person’s vices and elevate their virtues.

The Greeks, btw, did not invent schools themselves. Egyptians and Mesopotamians both had schools for children before the Greeks did. Greeks got the idea from them. But they did create their own notion of what school should include, which is what they passed down to the Romans, then to Europe, and finally, to most school systems in the West.

Anyway, when a culture introduces the adolescent moratorium, it frees up teenagers to, well, do “stupid teen shit.” Schools provide an environment where they create their own society with their own rules. In cultures where they begin adult jobs at 12/13 (or even sooner), they’re integrated and don’t have the chance to create these little sub-societies that percolate with all the drama of wildly pumping hormones.

So, a society that creates an environment where groups of teens regularly congregate in disproportionate numbers to either adults or children, like secondary school, squire/military, maid, or scribal training--or the Macedonian Pages Corps--will feel familiar to modern societies that have high schools.

Put a bunch of teens together, suffering through adolescence, and it’ll produce similar results anywhere, any time.

—————-

*Girls were obviously not included in misogynistic Greece.

[marvelstars]

Anakin & Ahsoka in Tales of the Jedi

So while I get where the fandom is coming from when they criticize Anakin´s style of teaching Ahsoka how to protect herself by having their soldiers fire at her at the same time on the jedi temple, compared to real world learning of martial arts, which was an actual inspiration for Lucas when he designed the Jedi Order, Anakin´s way of teaching Ahsoka how to defend herself in a war was very tame honestly. In martial arts training it isn´t unusual for students to break a leg practicing or have their hands bleed from the effort.

I don´t think Anakin could have found a safer way to teach her how to defend herself under overwhelming odds and this is my pet peeve with the fandom because they expect Anakin to use a safer pedagogy used in not combat circunstances for a pair of characters who are active leaders in a war, no matter how good or bad of a teacher Anakin could be, he can´t control under how much fire they are going to be on their next mission, he can´t control Ahsoka being kidnapped, missing or tortured or fired at by hundreds of droids at the same time, he can´t be there to protect her all the time while also leading an army without losing either her or many of their soldiers.

So him having her practice over and over again, because battles last hours, there´s not a thing called breaks in a battle, under the watchful eye of their captain, inside the Jedi temple where she has instant access to an infirmary in case it´s neccesary, is honestly the best thing Anakin could have her do for her to really get at the level she needed to be to survive the war and that isn´t being a bad teacher, that´s him trusting her to practice and having faith in her skills as a padawan.

The reason why Anakin disliked Jedi´s traditional tranning wasn´t because it was set in tradition, he himself passed those trials after all, he was proud to pass them but he, on his first real mission in the war, lost the battle, his master and his men on a sigle day and barely scaped with his life, thanks to the sacrifice of his commander official, this was around the time he had that duel with Ventress when she kidnnaped Obi-Wan and Anakin/the Jedi thought he was dead.

This is why Anakin disliked Ahsoka´s trials even if she passed them, because he knew for a fact they were not going to be enough, many padawans died in battle who passed those same trials but who just were not used to the challenges war would bring to them.

And in the end Anakin was right, Ahsoka was able to survive not only the war but being a fugitive persecuted by their own men, Order 66 and the Empire´s army. So I would say that he did good for Ahsoka as her Jedi Master given he looked to train her under the best circunstances he could find to teach her safely.

[ballet-symphonie]

what's the deal with joy womack ? I got into ballet after the whole scandal at the bolshoi and i've always heard bad things about her but I don't really know the story. Also she apparently lied about her position at POB?

Ooof I'll try to do the quick version based on what I remember, she is basically one drama after another, she tends to...misrepresent information. She left BT after saying she had to pay or even sleep with someone to get soloist parts. This was disputed by some, and confirmed by others.

After she went to work i the Kremlin Ballet Theatre of Moscow, she became a leading soloist with them, despite often calling herself a principal. There was some tension here as she was making vlogs filming class despite her coworkers asking her not to and occasionally sharing some no-so-nice information about her coworkers, things got messy when she divorced her ex and she left, even after she got promoted to principal.

After Kremlin, she won a prize at Varna in 2017, did some unsuccessful company auditions, and did short stints at Universal Ballet in Korea and guesting around Bulgaria and Poland. At one point she was going back Russian State Theatre Arts Ballet Pedagogy and Choreography (GITIS) for higher education in pedagogy. She has repeatedly expressed disdain for both the American and Russian systems, and there is a lot of speculation that this, along with her desire to be a principal *asap* hindered her career.

She was at Boston Ballet for a short period, but didn't like the setup, said she preferred being in Russian/European companies where they provided more individual coaching and often more benefits (housing) and with low layoffs...yet she has also repeatedly complained about the low pay/exchange rate when she was working in Russia. She left here when COVID happened.

After trying a couple of times, I believe she got a "contractuelle" position at POB, where you're generally hired for specific productions (eg, something with a huge corps, or for a specific choreographic nice that a dancer excels in). POB, with its extremely involved hiring and promotion systems/competitions, takes a while to move dancers into the corps sometimes. I'm not sure if she was offered a corps contract and didn't take it, or didn't get one, but regardless, she's no longer working with POB.

And now, if you go to her website she's starting a foundation and a school and company....? This is in addition to her freelancing around and the project prima bars that I think no longer exist and some film work. She's just a lotttttt and does not portray herself as the most self-aware or humble person.

As far as my personal interactions with her go, I know she came to audition at my company before I started my professional career and was not accepted. I took a couple classes with her in NYC by chance, the diva attitude was overtly present.

I didn't do much googling here, of course open to corrections of this mass of speculation

[noonaishere]

Music of the Heart [J.YH] - seventy-five | pedagogy

When you walked into the building the next morning, Mina had already been told of your appointment with the CEO, and decided to escort you there herself, more than happy to talk your ear off since you hadn’t talked to each other since you were hired.

“And you can see all the awards the company itself has won from labor boards and unions and all different things.” She pointed them out even though they were really obvious on the walls leading to Mr. Ji’s office.

“Why aren’t they all downstairs with the other ones?”

“I don’t know. Maybe because most people coming in wouldn’t be interested in them?”

“They should show them off to everyone though. Especially because, I think these probably show more of what the company is about, like, per the manifesto on the wall downstairs.”

“I think so too,” a voice from behind you said. 

Both of you turned. Mina smiled widely and bowed as Mr. Ji walked over from where the elevators were, his assistant in tow. 

You bowed nervously.

“I wanted to put them downstairs originally, but the board thought they might look a bit strange next to all the albums and music awards - being more about business than most people care for - so I had them moved up here.”

“Oh… I would think that they would want to show off to prospective talent that your company’s standards are as high as you aspire for them to be.”

He smiled. “I’ll make that point to them at the next meeting.”

You nodded nervously.

He turned to his assistant. “Ms. Lee, this is t/l/n t/f/n, my 9:30. Could you hold my calls?”

“Yes, sir.”

He then turned to Mina. “Miss Kang, you didn’t have to go through the trouble of escorting Miss t/l/n up here yourself.”

“It was no trouble Mr. Ji, I didn’t want her to get lost on her way up.”

He smiled. “Well thank you for taking the time to do so. If you’ll both excuse us, we have a meeting to get to.”

The two women bowed and turned to leave. As they walked away, you could see Mina link her arm in Ms. Lee’s, and they began chatting like old friends - which - if they’ve both been working there for a while, they probably were.

Mr. Ji walked the remaining few feet to his office door and held it open for you. “Miss t/l/n?”

You walked in. “Shouldn’t I hold it open for you? Since you’re the CEO and all?”

He chuckled. “You’re my guest.”

You nodded nervously. You hadn’t thought of it like that. Everything you’d seen of CEOs on tv and in movies always portrayed them as abusive, power tripping creeps, so you really couldn’t be faulted for your sudden case of nerves.

“Would you like something to drink?” He gestured to a station with a coffee maker and an electric kettle, and what appeared to be an array of different teas and coffees.

“Um, no thank you. I think Maddox is probably going to get us coffee or something when I show up, so I don’t want to disappoint him.”

He smiled. “Lord knows I wouldn’t want that boy to be sad, by any means.”

You chuckled.

He took off his suit jacket and hung it up. “Let’s sit here at the table while we work.” He walked over to a small, circular table and pulled the chairs out.

“Not at your desk?” You asked, confused.

“I prefer to sit as equals with someone if we’re working on something together.”

You supposed Hongjoong was right; he really was different. You sat at the table.

“Now, what was it that you wanted help with? Hongjoong said you were having trouble figuring out a lesson plan?”

“Um… I think it’s more than that. I’m just…” you mulled over how to phrase your issue.

“Say whatever’s on your mind.”

“Well,” you laughed awkwardly, “I don’t want to be too honest.”

“Why not? I’ve always found it to be the most helpful thing.”

“...I don’t want you to think that I’m ungrateful or… or that I don’t belong at the company.”

He smiled. “t/n, Hongjoong sees potential in you. When you were hired, I heard from Maddox’s own mouth that he was going to try to fight Hongjoong if he didn’t hire you.”

“Wha-- try?”

“He’s a sweet kid who’s never been in a fight in his life, but he was going to make that his first.”

“What? For a bassist?”

He shook his head. “For someone who makes mashups so good that it was plainly obvious they should have started producing years ago. When he finally convinced Hongjoong to watch them, I got a message from him shortly after asking if he could be the one to hire you as the third for their group.”

“What? They didn’t tell me that.”

He smiled. “They might have been trying to ease you into it, to lessen the amount of pressure, but they were right; I watched your mashups too and I think you have a bright future ahead of you.”

You felt your face heat up and you hid behind your hands for a moment. “This is so embarrassing.”

He laughed. “Why? You do good work and we all think you can keep doing it. I was rather impressed with your pitch for Ans:wer, considering you hadn’t been with us for too long when you made it.”

“Well, I had Hongjoong and Maddox helping me with putting it together. I just came up with the idea and they really liked it.”

“See? You’ve fit into their little group quite well.”

You nodded. “I’m still not sure if I should teach though. That’s sort of my concern right now.”

He leaned back in his chair and viewed you, crossing his arms across his chest.  “Why is that?”

“Well… I’m self taught. And, like… I think I’m a pretty good player, but I don’t know if I’m good enough to teach. And I don’t know how to put a lesson plan together, like you said.”

He nodded and thought for a moment.

You sat with your hands in your lap and waited.

“Hongjoong told me your bass skills were incredible when you auditioned, so I don’t think that talent is really an issue. If you’re thinking about it this much, then you probably are good enough-- otherwise you wouldn’t care so much.”

You nodded slowly.

“And you’re already better than she is, so if you teach her what *you* know, she’ll at least be at your level.”

You nodded again. 

“Hongjoong told me you can sight read because you took violin lessons when you were younger?”

Your eyes snapped to him. How much had he told him?

“Then you’ve already experienced the structure of a music lesson, so you can use that knowledge.”

That honestly hadn’t occurred to you, probably because you purposely tried to forget them. Your brow furrowed as you thought.

“Something wrong?”

You shook your head. “It just… wasn’t a great experience… It made me hate violin. I don’t think I’d want to teach someone the way my violin teacher taught me.”

He looked at you for a moment and seemed to consider what you might mean. He uncrossed his arms and leaned forward, resting his arms on the table.

“At the very least, you know how you don’t want to teach, and that’s as good as knowing how you do want to teach. You can run your class in a way that makes your student love learning.”

You looked away for a moment as you thought. “But… how do I do that?”

He smiled. “What made you want to play bass in the first place.”

You shrugged. “I liked the music and it sounded really cool.”

“So use that.”

You looked back at him blankly.

“So many people seem to think that technical skill is somehow divorced from musicality, as if they’re two schools of thoughts of tackling the making and enjoying of music.” He shook his head. “Technical skill is what music is based on, like how an artist has to learn how to draw a realistic figure and know the rules of art before they can break them in the way famous artists do. Technical skills shouldn’t be chains to constrain us, they’re the skills we use to express what we feel.”

You nodded.

“How did your teacher teach you?”

“...You mean aside from the yelling?”

He grimaced. “I’m sorry.”

You shook your head. “Um… they taught a lot of technique.”

“In the context of songs? Or as an afterthought?”

You thought for a moment. “Mmm… wow, I’ve never thought about it. Umm… music felt like an afterthought. There was a lot of scales and drills for bowing and stuff, I just felt like--” You shook  your head.

“Like what?”

“...Like a machine. Like someone was just inputting musical information and not like… teaching a kid the joy and wonder of music. Like a… if someone made a painting for the purpose of being pretty, but it didn’t make you feel anything.”

He closed his eyes and sighed. “There’s an intersection between music and money making that I’ve really come to hate. Where the amount of sales is the sole arbiter of if music or a musical artist is good or not…” he thought for a few more moments and shook his head. “There are so many artists in this business who are treated like machines instead of thinking, feeling humans.”

“Is that why you made Wonderland the way it is?”

He smiled and nodded.

You nodded back.

“I wish I could upend the system-- organize unions and guilds and give artists and staff more bargaining power. I have this nice office as a means of showing the power of the company to people who care about that kind of thing, but I much prefer being able to talk to my producers, talk to the CEOs of TTB, ask the head makeup artist and stylists how everyone is doing… I suppose Wonderland is my attempt at trying to change something that’s way bigger than any of us, even if it’s so small in comparison to the institution it’s in.”

“Well… you’re doing a pretty good job so far.”

He smiled.

“And, um… about Doyun… Thank you for taking action. I know a lot of other companies wouldn’t have.”

“I’m glad you’re happy with the result, but you don’t have to thank me for doing the bare minimum. Companies should protect their employees.”

You nodded thoughtfully.

“Why put yourself in charge if you’re not going to act like it?”

You looked at him. That phrase - though in other words - sounded awfully familiar. You smiled and nodded again. He was right.

The two of you sat in silence for a moment before he stood and grabbed a notepad and pen off his desk.

“How about, I show you how I structured my lessons when I taught Hongjoong?”

“Ooh, the trade secrets.”

He laughed.

Your heart was fluttering.

You weren’t sure it ever did that.

Were you excited to see him at the party? Sure, the party was probably going to be a wash: all you really wanted to do was make music, not drink and schmooze with randos, you were never really good at the whole ‘Hello Fellow Human, I Too Enjoy Talking About the Most Shallow and Banal Topics As If They Are Very Important’ thing. Talking about music or instrument modification or anything that requires real depth, that you were good at. But not whatever it was people did at industry parties. 

You remembered when your parents would force you to go to the ones all the other violin students went to; bored parents just held socials with the excuse that it was for their kids to get to know each other - because if they all play violin, they all must have everything in common, right? - but really it was just so they could hang out with each other… and also do retcon on whose kid might win the next competition. It was equal parts strange and awful.

Maybe one held by Wonderland would be different.

And: Yunho would be there at this party. You wondered if he’d go with Satbyeol. Did they even go out yet? Should you ask if he was going with her? Sure, he had asked you if you were going, but that was just because you guys were friends again. Everyone always asks if their friends are going to parties; at least then if there’s no one else to talk to, they can talk to each other. You weren’t very close with Satbyeol though, so it might seem weird if you asked him if he was taking her.

You supposed you’d just find out when you got to the party.

And suddenly, sleeplessness that started over excitement, had become sleeplessness over worry.

  previous | main cast | masterlist | next

Send an ask or leave a comment if you want to be added to the tag list! 🎵

@luvvvx • @iamthehotdemon • @hrts4hanniehae • @rachs-words • @stayatinykatsy •

[historicalfightingguide]

“The Perception & Action Podcast began in May 2015. It explores how psychological research can be applied to improving performance, accelerating skill acquisition and designing new technologies in sports and other high performance domains.

 It covers disciplines including sports science, psychology, human systems engineering, sport analytics, human factors, neuroscience and cognitive science. The podcast reviews basic concepts and discusses the latest research in these areas.

 It is targeted at academics, researchers, coaches, performance analysts, technology developers and students working in/studying these areas. Formats include: 

(i) full episodes covering key topics in detail (ii) Perception & Action News which examines recently published journal articles, (iii) Sports Science Shorts which discuss current issues, and (iii) interviews with academics, practioners and product developers. 

Hope you Enjoy!You can listen to the podcast in a variety of different places and subscribe (for free!) so that you automatically receive new episodes“

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Julian Adorney

Published: Jun 1, 2024

When I first heard about queer theory, I assumed that it had to do with gay rights. I was familiar with the LGBTQ acronym, and I assumed that a field called “Queer Theory” would have as its central focus helping to advance lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans rights. But while queer theory does focus a lot on advancing negative and positive rights for trans people (for those not familiar with the philosophical distinction, negative rights don’t infringe on others’ rights, and would include in this case the right for adults to get gender-transition surgery; positive rights do infringe on the rights of others, and would include in this case the “right” of trans-identified males to enter women’s bathrooms), its central focus is very different.

The central focus of queer theory is on rejecting the received wisdom of our ancestors. That is: our society has certain things that we consider “normal,” such as monogamy, having a job, or the notion that there are two (and only two) separate and distinct sexes. The central aim of queer theory is to subvert, problematize, and ultimately undo these norms. Here’s how women’s and gender studies professor David Halperin defined queer theory in his book Saint Foucault:

As the very word implies, ‘queer’ does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.

What does this attack on social norms look like in practice? It can take almost any form; society has a lot of norms, and a field that defines itself in opposition to these norms will have a target-rich environment.

But let’s walk through a few examples.

First, queer theorists reject what they call “homonormativity.” This is the idea that gay people are just like straight people, and want to fit into the mainstream of society rather than simply living at the margins. It’s the idea that gay people, like straight people, mostly want to put on a suit and tie, go to work, get married, and have children. For queer theorists, this is problematic. Here’s how professor Tyler M. Argüello put it in a paper for the Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services:

Extending modern capitalism and consumption, homonormativity has emerged in queer theory, entrenching a transparent White, neoliberal subject, one who replicates heteronormativity (Duggan, 2004). In this variation, homonormativity anesthetizes queer communities into passively accepting alternative forms of inequality in return for domestic privacy and the freedom to consume (Manalansan, 2005).

This rejection of homonormativity can even lead queer theorists to oppose (or at least problematize) the gay and lesbian community’s long fight for marriage equality. Argüello, again: “A preeminent example of this is the fight for “marriage equality,” which privileges a specific form of intimacy and relationship-making (i.e., legal marriage) while silencing and eclipsing other aggrandizing notions of intimacy, domesticity, sexuality, and sociality, among other discourses.”

That is: it’s problematic that gay people fought for the right to get married because this prioritizes (or “privileges”) monogamous relationships over other expressions of sexuality and intimacy (such as hook-ups or open relationships).

Queer theorists also take aim at traditional gender norms. In their paper “Drag pedagogy: The playful practice of queer imagination in early childhood,” co-authors Harper Keenan and Lil Miss Hot Mess (no, really) complain that society and schooling can reify traditional gender norms.

Although individuals’ experiences are profoundly complex, schooling often categorizes people in ways that train each of our ways of being into compliance with an inflexible ‘script’ (Keenan, 2017b). That script, which is enforced through formal institutions as well as through social interaction, operates on multiple levels. The script of gender teaches the public not only what gender is in some essential sense – setting up a binary between womanhood and manhood – but that some gendered ways of being are acceptable and others are not. In the USA, for example, many people learn that the most valued boy will be white, engage in rough-and-tumble play with other boys that will toughen him up and straighten him out, allowing him to mature into a man who wears a suit and tie, makes a lot of money, enters into a sexually monogamous marriage with a woman, buys a home, and has enough but not too many children. In other words, a script that may begin with gender shapes how individuals are taught to understand their expected roles in society in ways that extend far beyond gender alone.

For queer theorists, even the existence of this script is problematic—adhering to it even more so. Boys shouldn’t be encouraged towards rough-and-tumble play, and men shouldn’t be encouraged towards monogamy, high-paying jobs, or buying a house. According to queer theory, men who find a wife and a high-paying job aren’t following their passions or a well-worn societal template that mostly works. Instead, they are merely playing roles that were not written for them, adhering to rules not of their making but imposed by societal pressures.

Queer theory sees these scripts, especially around gender, and delights in breaking them. Keenan and Lil Miss Hot Mess’ paper is about drag queen story hours, which involve drag queens teaching children. A key aim of these story hours, they argue, is to allow and even encourage children to break conventional rules. Because the teacher in this setting is a drag queen, he “breaks the limiting stereotype of a teacher: she is loud, extravagant, and playful.” As a result, he “encourages children to think for themselves and even to break the rules.” They note that drag, which is a powerful manifestation of queer theory, “ultimately has no rules – its defining quality is often to break as many rules as possible!” Of course, this goal makes sense because the authors don’t believe that rules (even the rules of a classroom) matter. They talk about the “arbitrariness of rules” and how drag queen story hours can make this arbitrariness apparent.

Because queer theory focuses so much on sex and gender, norms and social rules of decency are frequently in its crosshairs. In their book Queer Theory, Gender Theory, Riki Wilchins describes a surreal interaction with one of their trans-identifying friends.

I am reminded of the first time my friend Tony pulled down his jeans to show off his new $33,000 penis. As I looked on with fascination, he began razzing me with various invitations, all of which had the words “my dick” and “suck” in them. I quickly found myself immersed in the usual complex reaction I have to the idea of giving head, until it dawned on me that—given the donor site for his graft—I would be sucking off his forearm.

As far as I can tell, there’s no point to this story. It doesn’t advance any of the conscious arguments that Wilchins makes in their book. The only point seems to be that it’s subversive. Wilchins gets to talk about performing oral sex on a simulated penis in a quasi-academic book, which certainly breaks some social norms.

It gets worse. Wilchins, to their credit, wrote their sexually subversive passage in a book primarily read by adults. However, some other queer theorists target a more foundational and essential norm: the idea that we shouldn’t sexualize children. Michel Foucault might be called the grandfather of queer theory. While not himself a queer theorist, he (along with Jacques Derrida) founded the school of postmodernism which has heavily influenced queer theory. Celebrated by queer theorists from Wilchins to Judith Butler, Foucault, in The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, dismissed the criminalization of pedophilia as a solution in search of a problem. Here’s the relevant passage:

One day in 1867, a farm hand from the village of Lapcourt, who was somewhat simple-minded…was turned in to the authorities. At the border of a field, he had obtained a few caresses from a little girl, just as he had done before and seen done by the village urchins round about him; for, at the edge of the wood, or in the ditch by the road leading to Saint-Nicolas, they would play the familiar game called ‘curdled milk.’ So he was pointed out by the girl’s parents to the mayor of the village, reported by the mayor to the gendarmes, led by the gendarmes to the judge, who indicted him and turned him over first to a doctor, then to two other experts who not only wrote their report but also had it published. What is the significant thing about this story? The pettiness of it all; the fact that this everyday occurrence in the life of village sexuality, these inconsequential bucolic pleasures, could become, from a certain time, the object not only of a collective intolerance but of a judicial action, a medical intervention, a careful clinical examination, and an entire theoretical elaboration. 

Got that? The man in Foucault’s story paid a small girl to give him sexual favors. Foucault dismisses this act of sexual abuse as one of life’s “inconsequential bucolic pleasures.” He’s struck most by the “pettiness” of putting this man in jail, a man who until then had been “an integral part of village life.” For Foucault, it seems that laws criminalizing sexual abuse of children represent just one more socially constricting norm that we should interrogate, problematize, and ultimately do away with.

Why have queer theorists built an entire field centered around identifying and rejecting societal norms?

First, because they think that all knowledge is socially constructed. This idea goes back to Derrida, another grandfather of queer theory. Derrida rejected the idea that we can ever find or know capital-T truth. Instead, all of our knowledge is arbitrary; and we only think that it’s all true because we’ve been conditioned to think this way. Here’s how Wilchins summarizes Derrida’s argument: “Derrida’s constructedness is like what you get when you use a cookie cutter on a freshly-rolled sheet of dough. There is no truth to the cookies, and no particular shape was any more inherent in the dough than any other.” Our “discourse”—the intellectual paradigm of our society, the ideas in which we swim—is the cookie cutter, and it determines how we see the world.

Given this premise, we could have a discourse that emphasizes and focuses on the separateness of men and women. Or we could have a discourse that emphasizes their sameness. Or a discourse that has six sexes, or none. We could have a discourse that sees penises and vaginas as different. Or, as Wilchins argues, we could have a perfectly valid discourse that sees a vagina as just an inward-facing penis (no, really); as “providing, not primal difference, but strong evidence of [male and female] bodies’ underlying and inherent similarity.”

Of course, this can take us into territory that normal people find pretty offensive. For instance, Wilchins argues that there’s no such thing as a real woman. Drag performers frequently seek to imitate women, but for Wilchins, they aren’t imitating anything real. What they’re imitating is itself an imitation. Biological females, in their view, are simply “doing” their best impression of womanhood in an attempt to fit in, and their performance is no more or less authentic than the performance of men wearing dresses and makeup who are also trying to “do” womanhood (in Wilchins’ sort-of defense, they’re not singling out womanhood as fake; to them, manhood is equally fake). Here’s how Wilchins puts it: “Woman is to drag—not as Real is to Copy—but as Copy is to Copy. Gender turns out to be a copy for which there is no original. All gender is drag. All gender is queer.”

Not only is all knowledge socially constructed in the worldview, but it’s constructed for a particular reason: to keep the dominant people in society in power. Knowledge is a weapon used to build some people up and keep others down. Or as Wilchins quotes Foucault: “Knowledge is not made for understanding; it is made for cutting.”

This brings us full circle to why queer theorists reject social norms. For the queer theorist, norms are built from knowledge that is arbitrary and socially constructed, and in turn are constructed only in order to help the ruling class to maintain its power. In this worldview, the dominant intellectual paradigm of any given period doesn’t tell us any more or fewer true things than would a different paradigm. Indeed, the current paradigm is particularly bad because it’s a tool for perpetuating racism, sexism, homophobia, and (worst of all, and somehow intermingled with all of them) capitalism.

The second reason that queer theorists reject so many social norms is that there’s a certain presentism to queer theorists’ worldviews. The idea is that what’s come before hasn’t worked, and so we need a radical break from tradition. In a discussion on HIV, Argüello argues that “Queer theory can be a productive, additive analytic to comprehend risk and radicalize this longstanding war [against HIV].” Why? Because existing tools haven’t worked: “Frustratingly, incidence (of HIV) persists to be stable annually in the United States.” Our progress has stalled, and so we need to try new and different tools.

Of course, our society has made (and continues to make) remarkable progress in many areas. This means that sometimes presentism has to rely on claims that aren’t true. In the case of HIV, for instance, the CDC notes that we have made tremendous progress in reducing incidence of this deadly disease. New HIV infections per year fell from over 130,000 in 1985 to just 34,800 in 2019. 34,800 is of course still far too high, but it’s tough to look at a decline of 73.2 percent in just over 3 decades and conclude that our tools aren’t working.

So queer theory sees all knowledge as socially constructed in order to entrench the dominant group’s power, and sets itself in opposition to what it sees as the rigid and oppressive norms that this socially-constructed knowledge creates. Fine. In queer theorists’ defense, sometimes knowledge production does look like what they describe. For example, the 19th-century science of phrenology, where white intellectuals sought to maintain dominance by promoting a false science claiming genetic inferiority in non-whites, supports this view. The pathologization of homosexuality is another example where knowledge production looks both arbitrary and malicious. Pathologizing people for wanting to have sex with other consenting adults isn’t something we should ever have done.

However, many social norms are generally good. Keenan and Lil Miss Hot Mess bemoan the idea that men should get married and put on a suit and tie and go to work. But, for most men, this lifestyle works. Monogamous relationships endure better than polyamorous ones. Humans’ willingness to go to work is one reason that our society is so wealthy and that we’re able to provide materially better lives for our children than we ourselves were given (economic data show that Generation Z is on track to be the wealthiest generation in human history).

More broadly, capitalism gets a bad rap from queer theorists, but it’s also lifted billions of people out of poverty.

[ Source: World Bank ]

Norms against pedophilia are unequivocally good. So are norms against cheating on our spouses, abandoning our kids, and (I would argue) biological males hanging out in female locker rooms.

In their campaign against social norms, queer theorists might accidentally do a lot of harm. For instance, Argüello bemoans the fact that “barebacking [having sex without condoms] is met with social and public health policing.” He argues that barebacking isn’t “reckless,” and that, “Instead of indictment, a queer epistemology would be interested to regard this phenomenon as one of strategic behavior and dialectical.” But normalizing barebacking might do a lot to increase the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections, for the simple reason that using condoms actually does work to reduce transmission.

It seems to me that knowledge can fit into one of two categories. First, it can be born out of, and reify, our existing biases. Phrenology and the pathologization of homosexuality are examples of this kind of “knowledge.” Alternatively, it can represent the received wisdom of our ancestors: what millions of humans have learned through trial and error before us, and passed down to us so that we don’t have to make their same mistakes.

Sometimes, knowledge can fit into both categories. For example, monogamous marriage grew out of a Judeo-Christian norm, which might be called a bias. But data also suggests that this norm works. Research is hard to come by, but one study suggests that open marriage has a 92 percent failure rate. The rate of failure for monogamous marriage is much lower.

Queer theorists assume that all knowledge fits into the first category. This makes them good at seeing the flaws in society and the areas where our collective biases are running away with us. However, it makes them bad at seeing the areas where our accumulated inter-generational knowledge actually makes life better for almost everyone most of the time. 

If queer theorists consider social norms to be oppressive and want to tear them down, what do they want to put in their place? No one knows—not even the queer theorists. In a book that otherwise spends a lot of time praising both deconstruction and postmodernism, Wilkins acknowledges that:

Deconstruction and postmodernism are not so much a set of truth claims as a set of philosophic tools and ideas for dismantling existing truth claims. That it, is [sic] intended to take knowledge systems apart rather than to suggest what might take their place […] It’s more than a little like Scarlet O’Hara, promising breathlessly that ‘tomorrow…is another day,’ without knowing that tomorrow will be better, or even explaining why it should be. In this sense, postmodernism seems to trade on the assurance that newness itself is filled with enough promise.

In his book Cruising Utopia, queer theorist José Esteban Muñoz put it even more bluntly.

Queerness is not yet here. Queerness is an ideality. Put another way, we are not yet queer. We may never touch queerness, but we can feel it as the warm illumination of a horizon imbued with potentiality. We have never been queer, yet queerness exists for us as an ideality that can be distilled from the past and used to imagine a future. The future is queerness’s domain. Queerness is a structuring and educated mode of desiring that allows us to see and feel beyond the quagmire of the present. The here and now is a prison house.

To put it another way: queer theory is nihilistic. It’s better at throwing bombs than creating blueprints. It wants to tear society down, but has no idea what to build in its place. It promises that once we tear down the oppressive norms, our politics can have a different shape; but theorists openly acknowledge that they don’t know what that shape is.

The received wisdom of our ancestors is part baby and part bathwater. Queer theorists are very good at identifying the bathwater, though they’re far from the only ones. But they assume that it’s all bathwater; they’re completely blind to the existence of the baby. Queer theorists deserve a seat at the table, because no society is perfect and they might be able to see bathwater that other people can’t.

Those of us who see the baby need to have the courage to speak up to ensure that, in the pursuit of progress, we don’t inadvertently transform our world into something far worse than it is now.

--

About the Author

Julian Adorney is the founder of Heal the West, a Substack movement dedicated to preserving our liberal social contract. He’s also a writer for the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR). Find him on X: @Julian_Liberty.

==

Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence. “Queer,” then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative—a positionality that is not restricted to lesbians and gay men but is in fact available to anyone who is or who feels marginalized because of her or his sexual practices. ― David Halperin, "Saint Foucault"

That is, you cannot be "queer," you can only do "queerness." Those who claim to be 'queer" - usually heterosexuals - have no idea what they're talking about, that it's performative.

Whatever is the norm, do the opposite, or just something else. It's just being contrary. It's rebellion without a point or cause.

"Lisa, what are you rebelling against?" "Whaddya got?"

Because when whatever is currently "queer" becomes the norm, that then needs to be "queered." Just look at "non-binary" and how much of a stereotype and trope that is now.

It's pathologizing everything that's normal, and normalizing everything that's pathological.

Gay people fought to blend in with society, for their lives and relationships to raise no more eyebrows than any heterosexual relationship. Queer Theory's goal is the exact polar opposite of this.

[fatehbaz]

[D]eviance and mischief. [...] [F]urtive [...]. [O]ther poetically inspiring words: secretive, surreptitious, clandestine, covert, conspiratorial, oblique [...]. We must fold these small acts of love and creativity and play (and laughter and irreverence and whimsy) into other resistant projects against white supremacy [...]. In various trans-American imaginaries, the boonies are raced as nonproductive land inhabited by people who are not fully part of the Western episteme. [...] Caribbean(ist) people are familiar with el monte, the hills, or les mornes. El monte is always just around the corner, encroaching, sprouting persistently [...] amid the rubble of hurricane disasters or abandoned plantation and industrial sites. [...] The hills, like much of our hemisphere, are sites of damage containing the residual energy of violence, [...] the “places of irresolution.” [...] [T]urn over rocks and push thorny vines to the side to find wet dirt, small creatures, and, perhaps, delightful hidden treasures [...]. I open my hands so that these and other surprises "jump into [them] with all the pleasures of the unasked for and the unexpected" [...]. Remaining open to these gifts of the nonhuman natural world [...]. How much ruddier might we be against the multiheaded hydra of white supremacy as “a world of mutually-flourishing companions” [...]?

Text by: Dixa Ramirez D'Oleo. "Mushrooms and Mischief: On Questions of Blackness." Small Axe 23 (2 (2)): 152-163. July 2019.

---

Every day I wake up and rehearse the person I would like to be. […] To use the words of [...] C.L.R. James, “every cook can govern.” [...] [T]his is what happens when people consciously decide to come together and “shape change,” to think with Octavia Butler. And to move through the world with the intention of making it a better place for living creatures to inhabit. […] And most importantly, it’s an invitation to join in. And it is a reminder that liberation is not a destination but an ongoing process, a praxis. Every day, groups of parents, librarians, nurses, temp workers, ordinary people, tired of the horrors of the present, come together to decide what kind of world they want to inhabit. […] [W]e bear witness to rehearsal, study, experimentation in form, a multiplicity of formations of struggle being waged, often most strongly by people for whom freedom has been most denied. [...] “If We Must Die”: “Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!” [...] [F]or so many people, whether abandoned by the state [...] or abandoned by society in a carceral site, fighting back, by virtue of necessity as well as of ethics, is building, always building. This is the freedom work, and the love work, and the care work, of rehearsal.

Text by: Robyn Maynard. “Every Day We Must Get Up and Relearn the World: An Interview with Robyn Maynard and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson.” Intefere: Journal for Critical Thought and Radical Politics Volume 2, pages 140-165. 19 November 2021.

---

The no of refusal is a mode of survival: an impenetrable boundary, silent or shouted. It is a refusal to be killed or to succumb [...]. Vast ecosystems flattened for plantations and fields, raw minerals pulled from the ground and sea for the building of nation-states [...]. Being-with requires a pause from which to imagine this otherwise, in all of its vastness and uncertainty. [...] To be-with [...] needs a disposition of attentiveness, listening, curiosity and noticing, [...] a "pedagogy of deep engagement". [...] The scale of violence [...] is immeasurable. [...] The immensity of the loss of people and ecologies to capitalist brutalities exceeds what we can comprehend. But [...] so do the myriad, and insuppressible flourishings and alliances, the joyfulness and love, the lives lived otherways. Attunement leads us to the gaps and silences and soundings that run through everything [...]. [T]hose imaginations of life [...] might rise to the surface.

Text by: AM Kanngieser. "To undo nature; on refusal as return." transmediale Almanac. 2021.

[eponymous-rose]

One of the very fun parts about getting more seriously into pedagogy and student mentoring has been reexamining some of the lessons I learned back in high school and realizing which of them were especially effective and why.

One that comes to mind was our English teacher starting out the semester by telling us that using the phrase "it's human nature to XYZ" was the pinnacle of intellectual laziness and he could guarantee a failing grade to any essay that fell back on it. As a kid, you just take that as a rule of thumb alongside "follow up the word 'this' with a noun to ensure a lack of ambiguity" or whatever.

But in the nearly-two-decades since then, it's become such an easy way to flag cultural/social interpretations being parroted as Absolute Truth and Fact. And when you see that "human nature" idea being pushed, that now leads to the important questions: "what motivation is being served by stating this norm as something inherent in all humanity? what is implied about those who don't follow this norm? what social forces are being obfuscated by implying this trait is something innate in all humans?"

It's just a really great example of critical thinking being integrated into coursework. Language means something, and the more technical writing and editing I do, the more I realize how easy and important it is to slip lessons about reproducibility and scientific ethics into the writerly rules of thumb I pass along.