Thursday, January 29, 2004
George Lakoff (UC Berkeley) has written about the effect of language choice and the political process. Fascinating how manipulation of language can create the desired message and persuade people of a particular identity of a person. In fact, Lakoff says that what people want in a candidate is a clear identity of the person, not his/her position on an issue. Who is the person and what will s/he do in a particular situation.
This is so connected to the effective ways of teaching and learning. Students respond when they are motivated. Motivation comes when the student feels engaged in the subject being taught. Engagement comes when we provide the opportunity for students to see themselves in the subject matter, or to imagine how the subject matter touches their lives in realistic ways. How they behave in the context of the subject matter gives them ownership of understanding how it impacts their lives, a way to identify with the subject matter. Similarly, the candidate speaks to us when we can see how we can identify our thoughts, beliefs, desires for action through the candidate who will be acting in our interests.
Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. Therefore, if we talk about "gay marriage", we must understand that most people think about "gay sex" (marriage presumes sex--the framework of marriage includes sex). That is what many people object to, that gay couples can marry and therefore engage in sex. At the same time, most people do not believe that gays should be discriminated against. If we were to talk about the "right to marry", we might not have the initial reaction of revoltion. Or how about the "freedom to marry"? If this were the focus, we might have a meaningful dialogue, and at least force "anti-gay" discussants to reveal their prejudices.
I have not before heard the term hypergraphia (or hypographia?). Alice Flaherty has written about the effect on behavior of not being able to write ("much housework is accomplished by the blank white page"). An NPR interview with her today was most revealing. Motivation is necessary in writing; the process of writing (even though not brilliant or particularly skillful)actually creates more meaningful writing over time. It gets back to the idea that so many writiers reiterate: you need to write every day, preferably at a certain time of day, for a given amount of time.
This is so connected to the effective ways of teaching and learning. Students respond when they are motivated. Motivation comes when the student feels engaged in the subject being taught. Engagement comes when we provide the opportunity for students to see themselves in the subject matter, or to imagine how the subject matter touches their lives in realistic ways. How they behave in the context of the subject matter gives them ownership of understanding how it impacts their lives, a way to identify with the subject matter. Similarly, the candidate speaks to us when we can see how we can identify our thoughts, beliefs, desires for action through the candidate who will be acting in our interests.
Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. Therefore, if we talk about "gay marriage", we must understand that most people think about "gay sex" (marriage presumes sex--the framework of marriage includes sex). That is what many people object to, that gay couples can marry and therefore engage in sex. At the same time, most people do not believe that gays should be discriminated against. If we were to talk about the "right to marry", we might not have the initial reaction of revoltion. Or how about the "freedom to marry"? If this were the focus, we might have a meaningful dialogue, and at least force "anti-gay" discussants to reveal their prejudices.
I have not before heard the term hypergraphia (or hypographia?). Alice Flaherty has written about the effect on behavior of not being able to write ("much housework is accomplished by the blank white page"). An NPR interview with her today was most revealing. Motivation is necessary in writing; the process of writing (even though not brilliant or particularly skillful)actually creates more meaningful writing over time. It gets back to the idea that so many writiers reiterate: you need to write every day, preferably at a certain time of day, for a given amount of time.
