Relax, We All Make Mistakes; it’s Not the End of the Word

An interesting study of subcultures is one of cults that predict the end of the world.  How do they start?  How do they function?  And what happens, when nothing happens? 

According to Harold Camping, the world was supposed to end yesterday, and after a quick look-around, 6:11 PM, he and his followers have had to face disillusionment.  The group’s culture was based on Camping’s knowledge of God, and his subsequent doomsday prediction.  Now, with that the basis of their collective belief system so summarily attacked, the culture faces destruction.

In America, people tend to think of such cults as pure scams, designed to rip off money from the gullible.  But such a con artist would never build his empire with such an obvious and fundamental flaw, essentially putting an expiration date on his scam and ruining both his credibility and his ability to make money in the future.  So when the end of the world does not come, the “strong leader” necessary to pull people together is just as jarred as his followers.  Doomsday cults deal with this by either disbanding, or by rationalizing the situation: their interpretation was wrong, they were inadequate, the world was inadequate, or even their faith was so strong, God called off the apocalypse.  The Yahoo! article “When Doomsday Isn’t, Believers Struggle to Cope” states that one third of members leave the cult, one third, redouble their belief, and the rest rationalize to reach a state somewhere in the middle.  Some failed doomsday predictions have lead to significant cult fractures, like the one that formed the Seventh-Day Adventist church.  Such dedication shows the power and importance of culture, even in the face of a seemingly irrefutable attack on core ideology and belief.

Name Game

In America, when a man and a woman get married, the woman is expected to shed her maiden name and take on her husband's last name.  As a kid, I thought this was slightly unfair; what if the woman likes her last name, and why does she have to be the one to give it up?  But I never saw it as much of an issue.  Even now, when I know that the tradition does have sexist roots, I do not view it as a negative or prejudicial practice in today's society.  It makes sense for married couples to have the same last name for a feeling of unity, and if taking the man's last name is the norm, there is nothing terribly wrong with it.

Today I read an article about name-changes on Yahoo!
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/112736/name-change-dilemma-women-marriage-wsj?mod=family-love_money#mwpphu-container

The article calmly explains the dilemma that some women face with familiar names and social perception.  Women with careers that involve name recognition (such as artists or those in high-powered job sectors) have to "make a name for themselves" almost all over again, since the original name meant something to people that never knew the woman personally.  College students, at least, tend to view women who take their husband's last name as more caring and emotional, whereas women who keep their maiden names are seen as more ambitious and career-oriented.  Just this difference demonstrates the American tendency to generalize, then take things on face value.  This ignores the complexity behind every choice; there are a myriad of reasons why women might make one choice or the other, and an equal number of reasons why it may be important to her husband, thus influencing her decision. 

More interesting than the article, however, were the comments underneath it.  While the anonymity of the Internet and the optional nature of commenting encourage a disproportionate number of people with more extreme views to comment, I was still very surprised at the number and ferocity of sexist comments. 

• OH, quit your winning, either get married and take your husbands name as it SHOULD be, or stay at home with mommy and daddy as you can't seem to grow up. There is a reason the wedding vows say to love, honor, and OBEY your husband.
• Man was not created for women , but women for man. You are to become one.Take your husbands name
• Get a life, read your bible's God never once said that a lesser woman was ever a MANS equal.
• i know i would never marry a woman who did not want to take my last name. thats just not how its supposed to be. she is a woman, i am a man. if shes trying to separate herself from me all like that anyway then why should i even want anything to do with her?
• If she doesn't want to assume your last name...NOT WORTH MARRYING !
• Don't even bother applying if you have a hyphenated last name. I won't hire you.
• I'm from the old school I guess, because I still think if you LOVE a man enough to marry him, then RESPECT him enough to take his name when you marry him!
• >>>>>>> Any women using a ( - ) name ((ex. Jones-Brown)) are nothing but TROUBLE
• You feminists should remember that men created the safe little world in which you live and think you are just as good. The men are stronger and ultimately can take what they want -if they wish. Western Society is all that is between you and being property again.

The United States is a country where prejudice is not acceptable on the wide social scene, but that does not make it go away completely.  Plenty of people are not bigots, but there is still a significant minority that is.  Most arguments against women keeping their own names stem from either religion, or from traditional gender views, and there is a strong assumption that factors and decisions that are right for the commenters must apply to everyone else, because if it does not, it should.  Of course, this is less cultural and more human.  People in cultures with less freedom and more unity tend to assume their culture observes the proper way of doing things and others should follow them.  In the United States, freedom of speech and religion allow for many different groups with different views, but each of these groups still tends to see its views and ways of life as the "right answer."

Are you finished yet?

Should AP teachers continue teaching after the exam?  Rather than one of rules or practicality, the answer is one of principle.

Teachers who say yes:
Why should AP classes stop when others continue?  They are not smaller commitments.  Learning should not end just because the test is over, because learning is a lifelong endeavor.  Ending lessons after the AP would mean that the entire purpose of the class was to pass a test, not to gain knowledge for personal satisfaction and later use.  Of course, the test is important, but only as a measure and proof of mastery, not as a capstone to intellectual accomplishment.  As long as classes meet, it would be a waste of time and opportunity not to continue learning.  This point of view embraces both individualist and collectivist ideals; it values productivity and using time efficiently, but it also stresses learning for its own sake and moving beyond the "end result" to lessons learned.

Teachers who say no:
AP classes are wonderful opportunities to delve more deeply into chosen subjects and to experience college level curricula, culminating in a college level exam.  Through these rigorous courses, students must exert substantial effort to meet demanding expectations; after all their hard work, they deserve to relax when their task has been accomplished.  This does not mean that any further exploration is pointless, just that the curricula has been mastered and the goal reached.  Further exploration should be student motivated, not externally forced by virtue of the student being in the building.  The argument for learning as a lifelong endeavor is valid, but if practiced earnestly would require unending school, and fails to recognize that learning comes in many forms, and rigid academic dictation to an audience whose mind is already out the door holds no benefits.  This view also embodies both individualist and collectivist ideals; it stresses the result as the expressed purpose of the class, but it allows relaxation and enjoyment, and also recognizes that continuous work is neither the only way, nor always the best one.

How can one behavior be both individualist and collectivist?  How can two opposing views be supported by the same philosophy?  Individualism and collectivism are both perspectives on life, each containing a variety of principles which are not at the heart of the worldview, and so do not all need to be embraced in order for the person or culture to follow the philosophy.  Principles are the reason, but people can apply them to their lives in different and sometimes opposite ways, making the same argument support both practices.  If I were a teacher, I would want my students to leave with an understanding of the subject but also with a desire to learn more about it.  Trying to cram as much "extra" information into their brains as possible just breeds resentment.  Instead, I would show movies that relate to the topic, allowing the students to relax but also showing them some of the fascinating ways that the subject can function in the real world.

Changing Tides in a Social Sea

There is not doubt about it: online social networking has changed the way Americans communicate.  It has even changed the content of our communications.  But has it fundamentally changed how the next generation sees the world?  And more importantly, can it change the worldviews of young people in repressive societies?

People have pointed out the powerful effects of social media on current revolutions: protests organized on facebook and twitter, warnings and plans communicated in real time, information about initiatives disseminated on the web.  The instant, all-reaching nature of the Internet clearly makes it a useful tool, but it seems to become more than that.  Under a veil of silence and fear, people living under totalitarian regimes seldom find the audacity to believe something better could come to their nation, let alone the chance to find and confer with like-minded people, or the support and resources to find courage and purpose.  An anonymous network -- that too-often encourages Americans to reveal the nastier aspects of themselves and pursue destructive behaviors that would not be appropriate in the "real world" -- instead provides dissenters with the opportunity to express themselves and the venue to be heard.  Here, social networking really does change one's view of the world.  The small village becomes the planet.  The personal indignation becomes the shared and manageable plight.  The suppressed secret becomes the revolution.  A thousand candles lighting fires in those that bothered to imagine or dared to believe, drawing light and fuel from the brilliance in each other and the potential in the whole.

Social networking is not the answer to everything.  It provides only a tool; an opportunity, the desire must be there.  But when utilized, for school bullying, free-marketing, or moving against an oppressive regime, the potential inherent in online communication, is really the ability to release the potential within ourselves.