Sunday, January 29, 2012

Emails to David 3: Digital Tools and This Teacher


Dear David:

I have a great deal of hard copy resources, in my veteran teacher cupboards, and a great deal of resources stored digitally, mostly in bookmarks and in digital copies of hard copy material. [All photos . . . come from a few keystrokes with Google. So . . . they are NOT my office.]

About 12 years ago, my internet access sped up at the school then employing me. And suddenly, I could access so much stuff of use to me as I prepared classes or just to enhance my scholarship. So I did access it. And I saved stuff digitally, but mostly I printed the material and put the material in 3-ring binders.

Very quickly, I found myself overwhelmed and, frankly, anxious about how much stuff there is "that I must read!"

I quickly noted that the Law of Diminishing Returns had kicked in and I hadn't really noticed. In other words, I had been teaching my classes well, introducing good stuff, changing the curriculum formally and ad hoc, etc. And I had been doing this partially because I had kept orderly . . . cupboards, cupboards which I culled nearly every summer.

I note that a cupboard can only hold so much stuff. The area may not be an ideal space for storing material in that it may be too big or too small. The space was given me and arbitrarily so. But the space is limited and so it does compel me to revisit and reassess material.


Digitally storing? The Cloud is nearly infinite and so I fear I could become more acquisitive and, thus, less discriminating and less thoughtful. I hoard as if hoarding alone increases my scholarship. Moreover, I spend more time with my face in my laptop. Sure, a book is just another technology to convey symbols, but my cupboards and shelves and my library and my desk and my reading chair and my bedstand and my favorite cafe and my dining table and my sofa require somehow more human interactions with material. But this may not seem sensible to 14 year old.

And, I know, it's the human who makes a book or a bedstand human. I'll humanize whatever tech you throw at me. In the future, some child might say, "You could only carry one book at a time and they could be kinda' heavy?!!? It's inhuman!"

The future beckons and it's not beckoning on paper.

g

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Faith


Wonderful high school kids conducted a forum about faith during lunch for three days. Here's my reaction to what I heard:

Believing in a transcendence, a deity, something supernatural . . . requires faith. Faith is what we use when we have no rational reason to expect something. Hebrews 11:1 "Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." So says the Good Book. When the existence of something is wholly irrational, and therefore there is no rational evidence in support of its existence, then "faith . . . is the evidence." A god that can be rationally proven . . . is not a god.

I'm told that atheists use "faith," too, whenever we "park the car and expect it to be in the same place later." But that's not faith. It's rational to expect my car to be where I parked it: I don't need faith for this. When I expect my car to be where it's parked, I don't need and can't use faith that it's there. I have a rational expectation that's it's there. If it's not there, then there's a rational explanation: It was taken or towed or I mis-remember where I parked it. So, no, that's not where this atheist's faith lies.

I'm told that "it's a miracle when I wake up every day." But that's absolutely NOT a miracle. It's to be expected. It's rational and natural. Even for me at 56.

Faith is reserved for what we cannot rationally expect.

There's nothing rational about the existence of the transcendent and nothing rational about believing in it. The whole enterprise is irrational. But that's what makes faith remarkable: We believe despite all the rational world's rational evidence to the contrary. We believe despite the absurdity of it. Jesus: "I am in this world, but not of it." Kierkegaard tells us we must take a "leap of faith." We leap from the rational, over the abyss, to the irrational.


And when we find some other people who believe much the way we do, we congregate with them and start a religion. Or join in one already existing. How could we not? How could we keep this revelation to ourselves, a revelation so grand and absurd, and not share it with others who are similarly ecstatic or confused?

Faith is purer than religion. Faith is one person's commitment to the absurd. All it is is a devotion in heart and mind.

Religion is the human enterprise of bringing the faithful together and thus it is more flawed and fraught. At first, it's a celebration of like-hearted people. Then all too often they force the faithful to toe some line and all hell breaks loose.

Yet, it seems to me, faith as a human enterprise has to be a social enterprise. Unfortunately, it's the congregating that makes it less pure sometimes. Other times, we all see the light. . . together.

Faith should never be conflated with religion. But we do need to congregate with like-hearted people. Just need to avoid the hubris. The Southern Protestant churches I grew up in were all about the holier-than-thou hubris. I took what little faith I had and hid it away from the blowhards in those churches. Big smiles . . . followed by lots of talk of Hell.



I say "we" above, but I'm an atheist and relatively new to my atheism. Actually, perhaps I'm not an atheist. I just don't care if there's a god. If there IS a god, that being doesn't seem to care about us. And if I'm right, then what kind of god is that? Given whatever god there MAY be, what's the point? This god may as well NOT exist. We pray to God for a better relationship with a brother. Why SHOULD god answer that prayer? God or no god, it's OUR responsibility. You may say that the act of praying may help us sort out what we need to do. Well, that praying is also called quiet contemplation.

I do believe in things being greater than the sum of their parts. But not supernaturally so. I am moved by the Bluegrass and African-American Gospel traditions, by Hank Williams singing hymns, by Duke Ellington's "Come Sunday." I recognize that these beauties are an expression of faith. But for me, it's the glory of human expressiveness, not the spirit entering a soul. And this glory of human expressiveness is plenty for me.

I'm fascinated by faith as one of the gloriously human engagements with all things mysterious, with the great Mystery, with the absurd. And while mine never fired up whatever kindling there was in me (though there was an effort back in my 20s), I know also that when people discuss their waning faith with me, I don't tell them to join me on the dark side. I help them and encourage them to rekindle, to find, the faith they think they're losing.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Faith Music: The Substance of Songs Hoped For


I was asked by a magazine to create a CD mix informed by the theme of "Religion" and to write about the mix.


The Substance of Songs Hoped For


Every Sunday, every goddamn Sunday, off to a modest Presbyterian church for white folks like us, where the religious music was desiccated, and faith – an unpalatable medicine, a cure-all we were forced to swallow lest we die and go to hell. This faith did not assure us of eternal contentment so much as it provided bragging rights allowing the faithful to strut around with an “I got mine, you get yours” attitude toward backsliders. It did not uplift even though uplift was demanded of us. Certainly, the music wasn’t meant to uplift, and so it spilled from our mouths like exhalations of bad air. “Why are we singing?” We were certainly not making a joyful noise unto the Lord. The lyrics promised triumph and glory in God’s fold, but our singing, our inhibited, but so earnest singing – even when we’d turned to the rare, felicitous melody – resulted in astringent hymns. Paradise could not, absolutely not, be so tedious; God, not so grim, flinty.

And that’s why I’m an atheist. Because of the goddamn music.


Alright, actually, people, if anything will bring this lost lamb into the fold it will be African-American and Bluegrass gospel music. At a Catholic school in which I formerly taught, I created a Gospel Choir of teens and faculty of all backgrounds. We opened for Maya Angelou once, got invited into African-American churches in East Palo Alto, and rocked the Mass at school. If you don’t feel some spirit move you while singing and swaying amidst the hallelujahs and hollers, and it turns out there is a heaven, well, you ain’t goin’. Hell’d do you some good: at least you’ll feel something!

Bluegrass gospel evokes an ecstasy, too, but unlike African-American gospel, bluegrass compels me to sit perfectly still, shivering.

And while I’m certainly drawn to other music inspired by faith, you won’t find it here. I love it, but . . . no cantors, no Indian ragas, no Persian devotional music, nothing from the European classical tradition, no Rastafarians, no Tibetan chanting, no Gregorian chants, no “Christian rock” (as the term is, and forever must be, an oxymoron). No, here you have black and white gospel, mostly from the 50s or inspired by that era (see the Sounds of Blackness who open the CD), with a few oddities and musical commentaries thrown in: There’s the great multiple Tony award winner Audra McDonald pondering an abortion decision as she writes to her boyfriend in “Come to Jesus,” a lovely melody and lyric by Richard Rodgers’ grandson Adam Guettel, who sings with Audra here, too. Mahalia Jackson sings Duke Ellington’s great devotional piece “Come Sunday” with Ellington and his orchestra. Jamaica’s Jimmy Cliff sings “Many Rivers to Cross,” a Judeo-Christian motif if ever there was one and the song always sounded so devotional to me. The extraordinary and extraordinarily overlooked Percy Mayfield prays to God for Peace on Earth and “if it’s not asking too much, please send me someone to love.”

Then, I get gutsy: I provide the jazz singer Nina Simone’s brief, otherworldly, and, generally considered, definitive version of “Take My Hand Precious Lord,” and I follow it with Elvis Presley’s version in which he lays off the histrionics and sings beautifully, devotionally and, I like to think, well enough to honor and impress Nina. See what YOU think (insofar as I believe deeply in the pre-Army Elvis). We hear Elvis again inspired by the many great gospel groups here from the 50s: the Fairfield Four, the Swan Silvertones, the Pilgrim Travelers (with a young Lou Rawls), the Soul Stirrers (featuring a young Sam Cooke), and the Five Blind Boys of Alabama, with Pops Staples on the guitar, who are heard here in a production of “The Gospel at Colonus,” which is the Oedipus Trilogy presented in the African-American gospel tradition. Speaking of Pops Staples, he and his daughters are here with their weird, haunting, black country gospel.

The Sounds of Blackness add a brief traditional slave lament, “Ah Been ‘Buked,” in response to which the ethereal voice of Alison Krauss sings yet another startlingly lovely melody, this time on the theme of theodicy. But at least three artists aren’t having it: Randy Newman, a Jew and an atheist who has no truck with the “all will be revealed” nonsense of theodicy, caustically ridicules faith in “God’s Song.” Post-Beatles John Lennon is more gently dismissive in “God.” And Hayes Carll has lost his partyin’ girlfriend to Jesus and if he ever finds Jesus, he’s gonna “kick in his ass.” After all, “I’ll bet he’s a commie . . . or even worse yet a Jew.”

Finally, three songs of surrendering to faith, converting: There’s Hank Williams (Senior . . . accept no substitutes except maybe his grandson) seeing the light in one of the greatest white country hymns, John Prine with some extreme backwoods white country accapella, and for fun, a lot of fun, we’re near heaven with the penultimate offering, Stubby Kaye giving up craps and joining the Salvation Army in “Sit Down You’re Rockin’ the Boat” from “Guys and Dolls.”

Then, as promised, heaven: I ended it all with Aretha affirming faith . . . joyously. How can we resist this? Come on up to the altar with me now. Come right here and proclaim your faith in . . . the power of faith to give us all this beauty.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Emails to David 2: Teaching and the Digital Literacy of This Teacher

David is our new and quite excellent Director of Educational Technology. Igor is the king of all hardware and software. I am the old teacher who recognizes that digital literacy may be harder for me . . . . This is the second of three letters.

Dear David:

I have found that one of my more difficult dilemmas in planning curriculum is how to choose from everything I might choose from. How do I create a reader in Econ from the enormous amount of reading I've done? How do I narrow it down? Even with good criteria, I'm left with too much and I have to cull and cull again. Same thing happens in any history class, less so in English, but there, too. And, of course, my reading generates not just reading assignment ideas, but project ideas and different ideas for Greg-centric or Student-centric lesson plans.

And this is just a matter of trying to choose among things I've read with a smattering of movies, videoes, podcasts thrown in.

How much more difficult will it be then, i.e., how much more time consuming will planning be if I add the capabilities and resources made available by digital tools? The prospect is a bit overwhelming! And that's just the prospect!

Now, it will seem less overwhelming to those for whom digital tools do not present other media, alternative media, i.e., people for whom digital tools exist seamlessly with . . . books and periodicals. It will seem less overwhelming to those for whom the technical proficiency already exists or at least the intuition exists which is necessary to develop the proficiency soon. So for someone like me, I really do have to make adjustments while the plane is flying.

Fortunately, the plane is not going down. No emergency here. But the plane IS going, as I see it, smoothly. I am certainly willing to risk some turbulence. And it may very be that kids in the near future will regard my classroom as a plane that can't get off the ground due to some old fashioned pedagogy if I don't learn to use the tech. Nonetheless, I do fear that I won't develop the intuition and that proficiency will always be beyond my grasp as new iterations of the digital tools keep racing to market. And I'm concerned about being even more overwhelmed by choices.

Emails to David: Digital Literacy and This Old Teacher 1


David is our new and quite excellent Director of Educational Technology. Igor is the king of all hardware and software. I am the old teacher who recognizes that digital literacy may be harder for me . . . .


Dear David:

It may be that I've had an inordinate amount of tech difficulties -- perhaps for 6 years now, but certainly for these past couple of weeks -- because I actually try to use a lot of the technology, but I don't think I'm the least bit intuitive about how to navigate/negotiate/trouble-shoot it. And I'm never going to be intuitive about it. I'm always amazed at the solutions shared with me.

I DO try to follow directions, fix it myself, etc., sometimes, but often I have no idea what the problem is and no intuition about how to fix it. I think I am patient with the glitches -- ask Igor. And I'm generally told that the problem, "is not you, Greg, it's something weird with your" whatever it might be. (Ex.: No one seems to know how to permanently rid myself of the "Save this document" message from new Word docs. Having succeeded in the past, I followed the directions in Tech Cafe. Didn't work. Student tech crew member Lindsay worked on it last this summer. No avail. Michaela tried two weeks ago. No luck. ) I also remember or make note of how to fix many things. I also prioritize: what do I need fixed NOW and what can wait (Ex.: I've not asked Igor for help on the "Save this Document" conundrum. Not yet anyway. And another example: suddenly Ctrl-6 does not take me to my FC calendar, but to another one. This can wait.) Yet, I suspect others are more self-reliant and seem to know what to do.

I realize that the learning curve never flattens because the tech/software/whatever just keeps coming at us and once we master one thing, we're gonna have to move on to the next. Still, I have to wonder, why are we using Google docs when FC or Word seem perfectly suited to sending me a list? Even if things go as planned, I have to open an email, click on a link, sign in to something, then click on a document. Why not just give me the info in the body of the email?



I am an old teacher and while I'm willing to learn new tricks, and even enthusiastically engage these new tricks, I might not be as adept at it. I really don't think I'm the least bit intuitive about how to navigate/negotiate/trouble-shoot it. And as I noted, I am willing to commit to tech for tech's sake just to develop the proficiency necessary for imaginative use of tech. And I know that in order to realize the benefits of some new tech (and I gather Google docs is fairly new, at least to some of us at Urban), then there will be some stumbling. And I know that in my role here as an older teacher and a recent Admin member, I have to sort of set an example in attitude and engagement with tech. I never, ever badmouth tech with other faculty members or students.

But what I need now that classes have started, insofar as it's no longer summer and no longer faculty workshop week, is stuff that does not require a too-lengthy bit of trouble-shooting. The kids are here now and I need time to teach and assess.

g