July 3, 2014 - 10:58
I was captivated by the first clip's use of the word "cultural critics." Who isn't a cultural critic? Coming from a social science background, this terminology seems to have a negative connotation (cultural relativism, not ethnocentrism), but we are wired to evaluate and compare, whether by human nature or by the American Ideal. That's what the social sciences do; appraise, relate, etc.
A college counselor visited my high school and described that throughout life, up until college, each individual crafts this beautiful tree full of leaves, or beliefs, imparted upon them by parents, culture, and society. Small, liberal arts colleges, he proselytized, hope to shake these leaves and force students to pick up and retain the ones that really matter. As my father said, "I think you're getting at what college really is...a total mindfuck;" college intends to expose us to the concept of the knitted world and that we are significant in it, influenced by it, and ever changing within it. I knit, and often don't mind when I make errors in my knitting, or "beauty marks" as some might call them. The ones that don't look the same stand out, and not always in a positive way. It's important for me to stand out as an individual; my childhood anxieties culminated in the eerie, echoing visualization of our world from outer space, and how there would be no visible explosion of any kind if I were snuffed out. I am constantly struggling with questioning if my standing out is defined by my own self-worth or by the evaluation of others...the plight of the extrovert.
What are we striving for within society? We have the DNA (what's inherently within us), the knitting of the culture of our society and upbringing (what’s been imparted upon us), and life forces us to choose one thread over the other in many changing circumstances. In order to stand out, must we be an error? Society constantly defines for us homogeneity (which is ever-changing...just look at fashion!), but you will only be remembered if you are significant in the context of this specific version of homogeneity. This concept defines my age group and fuels impulsive actions as well as excessive moping and disappointment ([when success is more difficult] than one originally thought.)
I attended meeting for worship this past Sunday and a man stood up and talked about how, as he was greeting people outside the meetinghouse this past morning, he felt the wind and the breath of God and felt meaningful. This got me thinking about my definition of meaning, and if I could impart that meaning on others; what's something grander than God, that others would die for, put on their bumper stickers, and worship before every meal, night, and other routine activity. Food was the first thought that came to mind, but that's certainly unique to me. Truth could work, but lying is so necessary in so many circumstances (especially if you believe we're all rotten by nature, as I do). The Earth sounds pretty good, if bitter folk could drop the hippie connotations. Ultimately, I endeavored to conceptualize a "great meaning" that would lack a wrongness; one in which mental illness, mistakes, and greediness wouldn't be defined as evil, but rather, naturally occurring.
I guess for this ultimate, great meaning, I settled on people or womankind or some silly thing like that; maybe communication, because of my need for people, feedback, and discourse. We're made up of a lot of different meanings (see earlier on DNA and culture) and more than forcing us to consider our meaning, beliefs, and mortality, what is it that college defines as meaning within the classroom? Furthermore, how can we enable thinking outside of the classroom that can be shared with all students? That is what I see us here to reflect on, through our work on Serendip. There simply must be an overarching goal of academia (there goes my paranoia again). I sure hope it's not capitalism, which seems to guide every formative process in the lives of American youth, and I hope it involves the promotion of learning, change, and errors in knitting, but I can't be sure. This meaning must fight anti-intellectualism, but ultimately work toward "progress," in whatever that means for us. Progress is defined by what you don't have, but want (and have been told to want). Progress, for me, is helping others realize their place in the tapestry knitting of their lives. As long as it means something to you, it's meaningful. You can call it God or food, or keep it sacred to you, as part of your own DNA, not influenced by the external (I hope).
I think the terminology we have developed will enable students to consider themes within their writing, how their writing relates to the expressions of others, while also not limiting them to any sole definition or purpose. In this space, a thought is more than a comment prompted by the post of another; it's something more evocative. Students can pick up leaves of their upbringing and personal opinions, synthesized into their personal version of meaning, weave in the thoughts of others without being defined by others (as I too often feel I am), and point out socially constructed realities (can’t forget that, at Bryn Mawr!) to ultimately create a moving, ever-changing work of art! Forgive my waxing poetic and existential...I'm very excited about this project and its values and implications!
Out of curiosity, would others have characterized this post as an "expand" post? I considered "complexify," but it didn't sit quite right with me.