ram dass ii: this time it's serious

Our adventures in world literature have taught me a significant amount about listening. Between our meditation activities and also the many discussions we’ve had during class, it has always been emphasized that we should listen to those around us more carefully. To limit ourselves to only our own solutions to problems forecloses the opportunity to benefit from the wisdom of one’s peers. There have been many times in the past two months that I’ve benefited greatly from the thoughts shared to me by my friends in Austin. Ram Dass puts it best when he says that, “as we listen with a quiet mind, there is so much we hear” (111). Ram Dass also believes that we should be attentive to the thoughts and emotions of others around us. The best way to confront suffering is to reveal an honest portrayal of the phenomenon.

i learned how to listen to others

I have been exposed to a greater sense of community since I have arrived in Austin, as well. Living in the dorm, I have found myself more dependent on others for my daily necessities than I have ever previously encountered. Countless times I have failed to purchase flash drives, gotten horrendously sick on Thursday nights, and squandered hours at the bowling alley. Nevertheless, the bonds of friendship that I have formed have helped me persevere. Truly “intimacy is what we're looking for, and it's often there to be found in a helping relationship” (126). Encountering these new relationships has presented realizations about my relationship with my own suffering. Rather than deny that I am in need of assistance, I should refrain from hiding behind “false facades of courage or self-sufficiency” and instead take a more humble posture (136). After all, I have willingly bailed my friends out of their awful decisions many times myself.

sometimes i was sick on friday mornings

There has been a lot of great discussion regarding the explicit messages conveyed by Ram Dass. However, one thing that I found interesting in How Can I Help? was the implicit arguments made by Ram Dass. On an abstract level, it is telling that Ram Dass chose to respond to suffering on an individual level instead of in a broad sense. Many political and philosophical books have been written about the response to suffering on a macro level, proposing solutions to the suffering resulting from the alienation of labor, political disenfranchisement, and material deprivation. While this literature is extensive, Dass makes the decision to focus on different solutions to suffering other than structural change.

Marx searched for structural changes to alleviate suffering

Dass acknowledges the expectation for the “government to relieve suffering” (10). At the same time, Dass also finds that such an expectation is too narrow of a scope to find solutions to the problem of suffering. Dass notes that while governments implement policies that cause suffering, any individual politician would “probably do everything he could, faced with one starving child” (10). Dass is effectually deconstructing the State as an institution comprised of individuals with their own agency to relieve minute instances of suffering. Dass’s reconfiguration of the question of agency to relieve suffering enables each person to alter suffering in their own way.

Charity and service can result from deeper connections with suffering

Some of the Dass passages also relate to the concept of compassion fatigue that many of us discussed in a previous Facebook discussion. We mentioned previously that compassion fatigue causes individuals to respond less and less to the proliferation of images of people suffering. Dass notes that being confronted with suffering sometimes triggers off “an almost morbid fascination. We continually feed ourselves, through newspapers, soap operas, tragedies, and gossip with images of suffering” (55). However, Dass actually offers a solution to the problem of compassion fatigue. He believes that instead we can confront our own relationship to suffering which ultimately frames the way that we approach the suffering of others. By having a different perception of suffering, we can “look anew at how each situation can teach us, how it can help us evolve in our ability to confront and help alleviate suffering” (72). This was one thing that I really appreciated about the Dass book. It genuinely attempted to find solutions to problems that it’s difficult to even conceive of solutions to respond with.

emotional intelligence

I found the passage about emotional intelligence to be particularly compelling. Society places a significant amount of emphasis on measurable forms of intelligence in its educational institutions and on a personal level. We seem to be inundated with the importance of SATs, ACTs, LSATs, and MCATs while other important forms of education are placed on the backburner. Indeed, all of the decisions that we make in life are "determined by both," "it is not just IQ, but emotional intelligence that matters" (334). It seems that all of our actions are determined by our understandings of emotions. It is worth noting the "power of emotions to disrupt thinking itself" (333) which means that we should have a type of focus on emotional intelligence so thinking is disrupted in ways that are good instead of bad. I also felt like the author's attempts to eliminate the dichotomy between reason and emotion was also useful. Creating a paradigm that "harmonize[s] head and heart" has the benefit of taking all perspectives about a matter into account (335). I think that it would be useful for individuals in society as a whole to move past previous understandings of giving preference to reason over emotion and instead to take both aspects in account equally.

standardized testing

Compassion fatigue is a phenomenon where indifference is developed "towards the suffering of others" as a result of being surrounded by too many depictions to such suffering (347). Many cultural theorists have found compassion fatigue to be particularly problematic as humanitarian groups attempt to raise funds to donate towards impoverished people who are suffering. However, I think that this approach to humanitarianism is somewhat nihilistic. If we are constantly afraid of pushing humans' compassion to the fringe, then it seems that the battle has already been lost. The valid concern of compassion fatigue hindering the ability for people to donate moneys to humanitarian foundations is somewhat resolved by later passages about sympathy. Literature distinguishes sympathy from compassion as the attempt to develop an "imaginative understanding of the nature of others" and the "power of putting ourselves in their place" (350). The problem of compassion fatigue should not be read as a call to reject humanitarianism, but instead should push us to understand deeper forms of emotional intelligence and create a personal ethics that is founded upon this new belief. Compassion fatigue seems pretty impossible in a world where one engages in the type of sympathetic approach that the liteature suggests.

images such as these create compassion fatigue

p2

    Although the University of Texas emphasizes the ability for their incoming freshman to achieve a rebirth, Texas has already granted me a rebirth in my past. In the summer of 2008 I attended the University of Texas National Institute of Forensics as an incoming junior. While there is a diverse array of debate camps to choose from across the country, the UTNIF is renowned for pushing the limits in argumentative style. Rather than solely trying to improve the debaters’ win/loss record, the institute emphasized drawing deeper connections with the arguments presented in debate rounds. Generally opposed to the sophistry prevalent in high school speech and debate, the instructors at the UTNIF encouraged debaters to research major philosophical thinkers and deploy their beliefs within a debate round. The personal emancipation that the instructors enlightened me to has sparked my own desire to continue to teach similar lessons to younger debaters.
    Early on in my own participation in speech and debate, I had many instructors who were excellent and teaching me how to win. A common expectation advanced throughout the debate community is that arguments should be approached strategically. While certain teams might advance arguments condemning patriarchal relations that oppress women, a valid response to such arguments could include morally repugnant justifications of patriarchy. Debate rounds are won frequently on arguments with Malthusian, imperialistic, and even implicitly racist assumptions. Despite the extensive amounts of research and persuasive technique exhibited by such hypothetical victors, I have always felt that there is something missing in such an approach to debate. While it is obviously not necessary to intimately believe in every warrant advanced in a speech delivered in a debate round, an approach to debate that creates unique disincentives to defending personal advocacies in favor of more strategic yet less genuine arguments is untenable. Approaches to debate should be fostered that leave room for connecting advocacies to personal agency. Similar to how methods of experiential learning “make the value of education more obvious because you begin connecting information to the “real world””.1 Due to these personal observations, I quickly became disenchanted with the ideologues who emphasized a separation between personal beliefs and positions defended.
    The aforementioned severance was conducive to giving the progressive instructors at the UTNIF a highly influential role in my own development. A significant amount of my time at UTNIF was spent studying the thoughts of Martin Heidegger. Heidegger’s 1953 essay “The Question Concerning Technology” reorients philosophy from being primarily concerned with how to one thinks about action and instead with how one thinks about thinking. In the face of the suicidal drive of modern technological thought, Heidegger advocates incorporating meditative modes of thought into one’s ontology. While there are certainly problems in this world that require immediate action, Heidegger suggests that many more problems are caused by a rush to action without proper reflective inquiry. Such an approach can be aggravating, especially “if we still believe that thinking’s only real purpose is to function as a prelude to action,” which will leave us “feeling nothing but frustration, unable to conceive of ourselves as anything but paralyzed.”2 Although this might be a difficult obstacle to overcome, the end result is certainly worthwhile. This approach to philosophy introduced by Heidegger directly applied to the revelations that the UTNIF gave me in my approach to speech and debate. Because my own personal ontological inquiries became a high priority, debate quickly became a brilliant outlet for my own development. It was through the implementation of Heidegger’s philosophy in debate that the UTNIF instructors affected my personal views of debate.
    These lessons taught to me in Austin remained with me throughout my junior and senior year of high school. Senior year was a time of great existential questioning as I filled out college applications and wrote many essays. As college approached, I was forced to consciously consider what my future career was going to be. My previous experience in speech and debate had made me painfully aware of countless struggles constantly occurring across the globe. My declared major in college would inevitably be conducive to personally influencing a social issue of concern. Although I was resolved to make my choice in career a means to a higher end, determining the proper methodology to use to combat social injustice was particularly problematic. The structural conditions that lock individuals into social hierarchies are largely irreversible by a single individual. This depressing realization forced me to consider prioritizing certain struggles that I would align myself with. When determining how best to use my labor to benefit other individuals, I had no other criterion with which to base priorities upon besides my own personal experience. Remembering the emancipation found through intellectual inquiry taught to me at the UTNIF the previous year, I realized my own personal contentment derived from personal growth instead of a mere shift in material conditions. Such a freedom is inherently derived from the immaterial. Because my own path to emancipation was paved with intellectual enlightenment alone, I was left with no other choice but to lay similar stones for others to follow. While it might be difficult to quantify the impact that an inherently immaterial methodology would have on others, I was inevitably more intimately connected with such a struggle than any other political outlet predicated upon a material struggle that I have not personally experienced.
    My passion for debate provides the perfect means for me to cause other individuals to question their presuppositions in a similar manner. Because of the objective and creative nature of debate, competitors are encouraged to research and create their own unique arguments and utilize the laboratory of the debate round to discover how different arguments interact. More importantly, debaters have the opportunity to defend positions that they personally believe in and teach other competitors about distinct material struggles. This increase about awareness of certain issues translates into interest and activism towards solutions to the particular problem. However, using my influence to strictly increase participation in debate is insufficient. The instructors at UTNIF that sparked my own passion for debate taught me that debate only reaches its full potential when it is pushed to the limits of intellectual inquiry. When debaters can advance positions that they fundamentally believe in instead of falling prey to the sophistry that characterizes debate, the competitors can thereby situated their arguments in a broader context of social struggle. This creation of intrinsic meaning for individual advocacies allows the debate round to become a space for the advancement of personal ethical beliefs.

unique opportunities of debate

    This endeavor is not an end in itself. Preserving public spaces for the democratic contestation of ideas is integral to maintaining freedom within American society. Professor of Cultural Studies at McMaster University Henry Giroux notes in his 2006 essay “Reading Hurricane Katrina” that any resistance to social injustice is impossible when a public sphere does not exist to allow citizens to genuinely consider different political ideas. Giroux writes that we should foster the “creation of a vast network of democratic public spheres such as schools and the alternative media in order to develop new models of individual and social agency that can expand and deepen the reality of democratic public life.”3 By ensuring the emancipatory potential of speech and debate programs in high schools across the United States, such a democratic network of the exchange of ideas is thereby created. This conclusion allows me to connect my own passion for my involvement in high school speech and debate to broader material struggles. Without ensuring that the free exchange of ideas is maintained throughout the nation’s youth (that is not manipulated by corporate or governmental influence on ideas), the hearts and minds behind any future social struggle will never be passionate enough themselves. It would seem safe to conclude that maintaining speech and debate as a public sphere free of outside control is a perquisite to the vitality of American democratic culture.
    My passion for speech and debate as an outlet for expressing certain political beliefs directly translates into influencing the way that others approach speech and debate. In some ways, the indebtedness that I feel towards the instructors at UTNIF for opening my mind years ago only feels resolved when I am able to pass a similar gift onto others. Fortunately, I have several ways to influence high school speech and debate as a college student. Many local Austin high schools host speech and debate tournaments on the weekends that require judges. As a judge, I am able offer encouragement and advice to competitors. Moreover, I am currently involved in coaching several debaters at a local high school. By helping the students learn how to research arguments and also injecting my own personal views on debate, I am able to ensure that the activity is approached in a manner that is conducive to a genuine exchange of ideas. It is also encouraging to note that my passion for sparking intellectual inquiry within others is not relegated to the speech and debate world. I have considered pursuing a future career in teaching as a result of my recent reflection on what constitutes my passion. Even maintaining any involvement with the academy would allow me to pursue encouraging others to take the pedagogical stances that can provide a sense of freedom.

1 Bump, Jerome. Course Anthology. Page 45.

2 Ladelle McWhorter. Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Northeast Missouri State University. “Guilt as Management Technology: A Call to Heideggerian Reflection.” Heidegger and the Earth: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. 1992. pp. 3-9

3 Henry Giroux. Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department. “Reading Hurricane Katrina: Race, Class, and the Biopolitics of Disposability.” College Literature. 33.3: Summer 2006.

covey

These past couple of weeks I’ve had biology on my mind. We had our first biology test recently, so I’ve been studying the functioning of many biological processes in our ecosystem(s). Covey’s claim about how we must relate to the interdependent “world every day” whether we like it or not seems to be in line with the thesis advanced by many biodiversity theorists in biology (51). This is a more significant conclusion than it appears. Covey borders on a hippie’s pipe dream when he describes us as being in “harmony with the natural laws of growth” (52). The fact that this thesis actually has scientific grounding suggests that Covey might actually be onto something. And this is not merely the perception of conservationists in the field. Even Major David Diner warns in the 1994 edition of the Military Law Review that “humans have artificially simplified may ecosystems” (Diner). “Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft’s wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss” (Diner). Even the academics associated with the military, despite their occasionally narrow focus, posit that interdependence may be an integral aspect of the human condition.

edging closer to the abyss

Another fascinating passage that I found in the Covey readings related to language. Covey indicts “reactive language” as becoming a “self-fulfilling prophecy” (79). Reactive language causes people to become reinforced in “the paradigm that they are determined, and they produce evidence to support the belief” (79). Although Covey is obviously discussing these issues in the context of self-help, I can’t help but connect this thought to a conversation that I coincidentally had in Bump’s office today. When I walked in for office hours, Sonali was actually describing the scope of her Project 2 essay and her passions in the area of feminism. One thing that she considered writing about was gendered language and how the male/female binary entrenched within language reproduces gender norms in society (I hope I’m not in trouble for the spoilers on her paper). Although a slightly different but still intimately related thought, many of the writings in Judith Butler’s famed book Gender Trouble also reflect a focus on language. Butler’s primarily concerned with the focus on a static category of “women” that characterizes feminist politics in the 21st century. She calls for an investigation of our presuppositions about representations and understandings of women in order to avoid silencing any voices that might not directly align with traditional understandings of females. Both Sonali and Butler seem to support Covey’s argument that we could fall into dangerous traps because of the language that we use. Covey’s application of these theoretical thoughts to our approach to everyday life (and love, in the example he gives) seem to be relevant. Taking proactive control of one’s language can provide new paths to emancipation previously thought to be impossible.

personal constitution

I did find some of Covey’s advice problematic. Covey advocates the development of a “personal mission statement” similar to a “personal constitution” (107). He proceeds to develop an extended analogy by noting that the United States Constitution has remained “fundamentally changeless” since the creation of the country (107). Covey believes that such a personal statement can be the “basis for making major, life-directing decisions” and can empower “individuals with the same timeless strength in the midst of change” (108). After all, “people can’t live with change if there’s not a changeless core inside them” (108). While Covey’s archaic representation of power remains “under the spell of monarch” and clings to images of power-law traced out by “theoreticians of right and the monarchic institution,” I actually think it’s more important to object to Covey on a personal level (Foucault). From my own personal experiences, I’ve found that the most radical changes to my personal views on life have been the most beneficial. Indeed, if I had developed a personal constitution just a year ago, it would be radically different from the ‘constitution’ that I live my life by now. I instead think it’s more useful to have your own personal roadmap in life constantly in flux. It seems that any change is going to merely be reformist unless one is willing to genuinely allow radical thoughts change their core. I also don’t think having a grounding in a world view prevents the implementation of Covey’s other recommendations. Nevertheless, Covey offers great insight for the most part, and I look forward to discussing this book with the class tomorrow.




Works Cited

David N. Diner. Major and Judge Advocate in the General’s Corps. “The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who’s Endangering Whom?” 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161. Winter 1994. Lexis.


Michel Foucault. The History of Sexuality: Volume 1. 1978. pp. 88-91

pedgagoy cont'd

This liberal arts education can have great potential to change society. Education is seen as an attempt to foster cooperation within society. As a result of this paradigm shift, the civilized life of the university is no longer lived "alone but in concert" (293). Creative thought and innovative developments, previously considered to be the halmark of profit-motive driven forms of education (the benefits of Microsoft's profit margins for us all) are instead rejected in favor of creative thought that benefits society (the developments of open source Linux software, as a counter-example).

pedagogy and the public sphere

Education is in a crisis. Professor of Media at McMaster University Henry Grioux argues in his 2008 article entitled “The Militarization of US Higher Education after 9/11” that neoliberalism has caused education to increasingly focus upon producing productive members for the global workforce while uniquely foreclosing the opportunity to view education as an end in itself. The influence of neoliberalism upon higher education has distorted the focus of curriculum to be oriented towards profit motives instead of towards the genuine appreciation of knowledge or the empowering of society as a whole. The only solution to this problem is to “reclaim higher education as a democratic public sphere, one that provides the pedagogical conditions for students to become critical agents who connect learning to expanding and deepening the struggle for genuine democratization” (Giroux). I personally feel like much of the literature in the assigned reading this past few weekend is focused on a vision of liberal arts education that can achieve many of the goals articulated by Henry Giroux.

Henry Giroux at his finest

A passage in the anthology notes that the purpose of experiential learning is to “make the value of education more obvious because you begin connecting information to the “real world.”” (45). It inherently connects the value of education towards real life struggles that are occurring in the status quo instead of future job opportunities that might improve the country’s GDP. Experiential learning is inherently more organic, and I feel like it translates to more direct benefits to society. This goal for thought is a process that tries to move “an individual to membership in a community; so a thought, begun in the seminary of a single mind, participates in the construction of a citadel of living ideas, of a life organic and yet shaped” (293). This is clearly the purpose of a liberal arts education. Similar to lots of the focus on animals and ethics that we have in Bump’s class, we are trying to connect our thinking with broader notions of empathy and acknowledgement of the material struggle of others. Liberal arts education fundamentally changes the paradigm of thought so that it is oriented towards more ethical goals instead of merely self-interest.

we don't want education to be focused on this

One other problem that I feel like exists with many normal modes of education is what I like to call “thinking in islands” instead of holistically. The separation of different modes of thought into different classes and departments makes it seem like knowledge exists in isolated spheres. However, knowledge is simply the attempt to discover and describe the world. all forms of knowledge inherently compliment each other. Interdisciplinary forms of knowledge function to “unsettle the boundary lines between science and science, to disturb their action, to destroy the harmony which binds them together. Such a proceeding will have a corresponding effect when introduced into a place of education. There is no science but tells a different tale, when viewed as a portion of a whole, from what it is likely to suggest when taken by itself, without the safeguard, as I may call it, of others” (288).  Rather than understanding instances of physics or biology as separate, all of these modes of thought are very intimately related with each other. I feel like the interdisciplinary focus of Plan II and of liberal arts education in general provides a more holistic, and thereby more accurate, world view. The quest for knowledge is situated in a more ethical manner this way.



Henry Giroux. 2008. “The Militarization of US Higher Education after 9/11”. Theory, Culture & Society. Pages 58-59.