Learning HOW to Think

I watched a short video for class today called "Shift Happens." It is a play on the old saying... well you know... anyways, it threw out some interesting statistics and thoughts on the ever moving culture and world that we live in. I see this all around me when I think back on my own lifetime and how much the world has changed. When I was a kid I loved to read Goosebumps, now I see students at the school I teach at coming to class with a Kindle. As teachers we are constantly trying to reshape the way we approach the way these students learn in a shifting environment.

This short video made me think about the future. I am interested to see what lies ahead for us as individuals and as a nation. It brought up some interesting points about the changing technology and the simple fact that new technology moves faster than the educational system that teaches students to use it. When I think of my students and the difficulties that lie ahead of them in high school and then college, I believe the challenge for their teachers and professors is to teach in a way that makes them think creatively. Anyone can study, memorize and repeat but the upcoming generation of students are entering an environment that moves so quickly they need to be equipped to change as the technology develops around them. So learning HOW to think about situations and technologies may be a skill that needs to be focused on in this changing environment.

In undergrad I was always struck by the kinds of students who were smarter than me in class and often did better on tests but who had little to no people or critical thinking skills. Their educational world has developed in such a box that when the real and shifting world hits them, they will be unable to follow. In a system of technology that becomes faster and a world that grows in its connectedness in unique ways, we must teach a future of individuals who are able to get outside of the box that is traditional learning and be able to flex along with the moving world around us.

Wipeout...

I am driving home from work yesterday and you would think everything was normal if it wasn't for the intense rain hitting the region causing mass flooding around the DMV. I work in Maryland and had to get to the Alexandria campus for an evening class and of course was met with an onslaught of crazy traffic. I know living around the city you expect to get a certain amount of traffic no matter what road or time of day, however this was bad...

So many people work in the city and travel to work each day, it was interesting to read this week about the trends and statistics regarding urbanization the decline of rural America and the population movement away from cities known as suburbanization. When I think about my life and the places I have lived, I was interested to read about the history of suburbs (the place I mostly resided). My mom was a teacher and able to live and work in many different areas so the choice of our residence was placed mainly on my dad. He initially worked in a suburb of Los Angeles then got a job working on Capitol Hill and we moved to a home in Northern Virginia.

According to our sociology book urbanization increased during the 1950's in a post WWII era and many people were seeking out the American dream of owning land and a home. Thanks to government programs that assisted families in receiving mortgage loans areas outside of major cities developed and drew large populations in. In my life I have not seen this specifically but I have lived in these areas. I have seen what the social scientists today describe as the movement to newer outer-ring suburbs. I lived in Reston, VA which was the first post-WWII planned community which I believe makes it a "first suburb." In high school I played sports against and new many kids from the new outer-ring suburbs like Centreville, Chantilly and Sterling.

I also went to high school where as a white male I was in the minority. This is example of another important change in the makeup of the suburbs today because it has a growing number of racial and ethnic minorities. This was not so much the case for the outer-ring suburbs, although I would be willing to bet that it is trending that way.

The People Rule?

I recently went on a trip to the Newseum with a group of my 7/8 graders. We spent time in class discussing our freedom here in America and what we are allowed to do or not. The subject was our first amendment rights and the extent to which that applies to what we do and say. According to the information presented to us the average American citizen can easily name all 5 main characters from The Simpsons however had trouble naming the five rights given to us in the first amendment.


When we started studying government in the next section of our sociology textbook I was challenged with the question of who really rules our country? We live in a democracy which by definition says the people rule, however is this actually the case? When it comes to this question I went back to our time at the Newseum, put together some of the facts written about in the book and it got me thinking that the people don't actually rule but I do not think they really want to rule.

Our country has a free and open voting system, yet less than half of our citizens show up to voice their opinion. According to our textbook this results from a fairly difficult system of signing up to vote and a general indifference to the voting system that comes from people not believing their vote will truly make a difference.

Low voting rates contribute to a system that pluralists theorists would claim give individual citizens little or no direct influence on political decision making. I think this is the case in the United States. Government is less influenced by individuals and more by interest groups that lobby as a representation of a group of people. This as well as a well established system of checks and balances that exist in government keep the government from becoming too centralized.

So, do the people rule? In some ways yes and in some ways no. With the explosion of social media such as twitter and facebook many more citizens are using unique ways to have their voices heard. This may be the new face of interest groups and lobbying our government, however as it stands now this still is a small portion of a population who is less versed on their given freedoms and more likely to name someone who lives in a pineapple under the sea...

Wally World

I love me a good road trip. Usually I head down south and on the way back we might stop on the way to visit our favorite large retail store... Wal-Mart! We get out the car, run around and maybe buy a few fun and cheap things. In my class I watched a PBS special about Wal-Mart discussing its rise and growing impact on the US and world economy and come to see that we might be better served to just stop at a gas station and grab a coach instead. The company gained economic prowess by using the power of information to analyze the supply and demand to create a "pull" system that focuses on what the consumers are buying and enforcing that need to manufacturer.

This change in the focus of power is something that is not normal in the history of our economy. Generally the manufacturer produces and sells at a specific price, where as with Wal-Mart they tell the manufacturers at what price they want to buy the products being manufactured. This puts supplier in a bind because they are forced to create the same product at a lower price. Thus, if the manufacturer sells at a lower price, it means the drop in costs must come from somewhere along the supply chain. One of the results is a movement of manufacturing towards other countries that can provide the product for cheaper. This often puts American companies out of business or makes them cut back.

Another impact is on the use of cheap labor and manufacturing that is solely focused on global cost cutting. The lower prices of Wal-Mart lead to lower wages for employee's making the products and to a lower standard of living. It all stems from a need to provide the maximum profit for investors each quarter. I believe this should not be the way.

One company that is focused on not just profitability but sustainability is the Mars Corporation. You all know the candy people but they are doing some really interesting work when it comes to this idea of profitability vs. sustainability. They posit that over time, maximizing profit is not beneficial to the company, its workers or the world. According to a document put out by Mars this idea is described as this:

"In the mid-1990s consultant John Elkington coined the notion of “triple bottom line” accounting, hoping to define how a company can extend its decision-making criteria beyond profit alone. This idea expands traditional reporting frameworks and seeks to quantify corporate environmental and social performance alongside traditional measures of financial success. The triple bottom line has been – and remains – a useful tool for identifying problems and integrating sustainability into a company’s agenda." (Sustainability at Mars, 2007)

This, I believe should be the way a company views its goals. Not just looking at profitability (like Wal-Mart), but seeking to make a product that has the mutual benefit of the company and all those along the supply chain (including the environment).

Ok, I will get off my soapbox now...

Let's Spin The Chore Wheel

Ok, confession time... when I was a kid, I had a problem. Dinner would be winding down and I would always sneak away to go to the bathroom. It happened so often that it would catch the eye of each one of my family members. I would sit on the toilet, not necessarily needing to use the restroom, but rather I was trying to get out of my duties of cleaning up the dishes. I would sit and wait til I heard they were all done then magically reappear from the hallway to see the great accomplishment my siblings had done. This did not last long in my family and I soon learned that the more I tried to get out of my clean-up duties, the more dishes they left for me to clean up when I would return.

Growing up I remember sharing a great deal of the household chores. Everyone had their respective roles, even my parents. The "family duties chart" shed some light on the fact that there are specific responsibilities that fell to certain members of our family. While the kids had specific chores we would rotate them throughout the year. My mom and dad had specific tasks that they would generally continue to complete throughout my formative years. While it was not a absolute reality, my mom would often be the one responsible for cooking. However she would rarely be the one to clean up the dishes afterwards. The rule is if you cook, you don't clean.

The list of typical family duties often left me choosing both parents as responsible for certain tasks because I remember them sharing much of the burdens. Because my mom was a teacher, she watched my siblings and I during the afterschool hours, but when my dad came home from work, he also was helping out around the house. This type of sharing of duties is different from how Sociologists would describe the nuclear family.

Sociologists describe working mothers as having a "second shift" when they come home from work and have to take care of much of the house chores. This was the case for my mom yet I would argue it was also the case for my father. I rarely remember him relaxing once he came home from work any more than I did my mom. That being said, my parents are not perfect. Before I can remember they got separated and talked about divorce, luckily they got back together and I am sure realized that marriage is very difficult and requires a sacrifice of themselves to the relationship and the family to make it work. My mom is also the kind of strong woman who would speak her mind and it would be difficult for her to allow what writer Betty Friedan described as an oppressive domestic life without communicating to my dad where he needs to help out.

Secular Nation

Just how secular are we? I am interested in the religious trends in found in our society and was intrigued by the information regarding the secularization in America found in my sociology textbook. The debate that exists either see's secularization as a trend in society that diminishes the power of religion or simply a non-factor when it comes to the significance of religion around the world.

I can only speak for my experience when it comes to this topic and it seems clear to me that there is a growing secularization of society. The statistics from the 1970's to 2008 show the same percentage of young Americans still believing in "God" but less and less individuals consistently going to church. The new testament writer James says that a faith without works is nothing. In the same way sociologists say that religion should "take the form of ritual practices, specialized activities." (Giddens, 528) While just as many people believe in some spiritual form of "God," less are attending any kind of clear meeting which can remind, focus and guide people to live with a greater purpose. I believe this creates a more personal form of God that has no clear boundaries for how to live life.

As our society grows more individualistic, the role of religion will have a similar effect. Choices, consequences, and habits become a personal thing for each person to decide for themselves. This focus on the religiosity of people is just one dimension sociologists look at regarding secularization. Other ways to view secularization is in the degree to which churches maintain influence in society through wealth or status. I think that the individual response to religiosity is a better way to discuss this issue and ultimately influences the role of religion on a larger scale in society.

I Had No Idea

When I was at dinner during my senior prom night in High School, something very embarrassing happened. I was enjoying my pasta meal with a large group of my close friends when my chair BREAKS from underneath me! I fell straight to the ground in one of the most embarrassing moments of my life. Luckily I was able to brush it off, but once I got to the dance everybody knew what had happened. Did I want to talk about it? Of course not. I still don't like to bring it up...

While listening to some stories about the Japanese incarceration at the onset of WWII as part of my homework for Sociology, I immediately thought of one of my co-workers who is a Japanese American. I had talked with her briefly about her family and where she comes from and we connected on the fact that we both grew up in southern California. When I asked her this week about this she was fairly open about her families experience during this time. While she was not yet born, her parents spent time in the camps shortly after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. I was shocked to hear this, something I believe she could have shared with me at some point over the past three years of working together.

She told me that it is a more private event for her parents than I would expect. Nothing much interesting has happened to my parents throughout their lives, but I wonder if something similar were to have happened, if I would tell people about it. I wondered, would my parents talk about it to me? According to one families story posted on the educational website densho.org, Japanese children will live their whole lives without hearing about the fact that their ancestors were put in these concentration camps.

I understand wanting to keep a level of privacy, but from your own family? It seems to me like the hurt of the past needs to be addressed in order for some sort of healing process to start. Ethnic discrimination of this sort needs to be addressed and brought out into the light to make sure nothing of the sort will ever happen again.