As everyone in Melbourne knows, we are now entering September Fever. September Fever in Melbourne can be the almost tactile electricity of the Footy finals, or the excitement of the coming Spring Racing Carnival. For me it has become the cold sweat I break into waiting to find out if I will have ongoing employment at my ‘school for the year’.
It happens in September so that teachers in my position have the opportunity to secure a job for the following year. I’m sure most of them do; and do so early on. I however do not.
After 20 years living overseas, I returned to Australia 6 years ago. I had been a teacher both in Australia and in Israel and did not expect it to be too difficult to find work. Happily I can report that I have maintained almost constant employment since returning. This has included teaching at various schools, a University, a TAFE and a dishwashing job in a cafe.
For five consecutive years the cold sweats have been true indicators. Five years in a row of being told, usually politely, that I was not really needed the following year. Five years in a row of establishing myself at a new school, of feeling your my way around the teacher community and the politics therein and of hoping that this time I had dotted all the I’s and crossed all the T’s. An interview or letter then places the boot firmly in my guts.
You, the reader, will be happy to learn however that that is not my topic here. It is mentioned only to “create the mood”. Soon after learning that I need to seek employment elsewhere, my colleagues learn about it too. An interesting dynamic is thereby created. All of a sudden I’m on the outer.
Certainly, it is awkward for everyone. It’s not pleasant to talk to someone who has lost their job, especially if he is bitter. This creates a foundation for wariness in discussions. On the flip side of the coin, self-confidence is low and the world is bleak. Awkwardness on the part of colleagues only underlines any feelings of all of a sudden not being in the know and not being included.
It is hard not to let personal issues be part of this problem. Whatever things I have going on in my life should not impinge on my professional life. This is a basic rule of thumb at work and a social skill, yet it is difficult to master. This year I emerge from my Spring Fever deflated, but more confident about myself. I hope that I won’t have the feeling of sitting on the outside looking in.
The dynamic evolves over the final term of the year. It will be interesting how it evolves this time.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Good vs Evil
(Chaos vs Order-: with thanks to M. Smart)
An Absolute-:Something that is conceived or that exists independently and not in relation to other things; something that does not depend on anything else and is beyond human control; something that is not relative; “no mortal being can influence the absolute”[i].
An absolute belief in the right of man and the importance of democracy were enough to stir western nations to war in the past. Things seemed to be much more black and white in those days, not just television. It was of course partly, because we did not have television then. Today war zones are shown on our TV screens, as are horrfic terrorist attacks. We are a 'global vilage' conneced through the super highway of the internet, cable tv and various satellite technologies . A Jewish woman in Tel Aviv could theoretically sit and chat with a Syrian woman in Damascus. Could, but most likely won't. Why not? They no doubt would have much to discuss.
Today we frown upon absolutes as extreme and of course they are. They are, because of the very fact that they cannot be influenced by man, at least in the eyes of the believer. They are dangerous, because if they are beyond man's control, what happens to one man, becomes insignificant. All for the glory of the greater good.
Absolute truth varies from region to region and culture to culture (see my basic premises). We may believe in the absolute right of man to Human rights. Believing in this absolute has been the reason for western countries in the 20th and 21st centuries to engage in conflict; yet this absolute right/truth only dates back to the 18 century as a popular concept.
Generally when use the expressions absolutism and extremism in one sentence we tend to be talking about religion. We of course could talk about any “isms” in exactly the same vein. Wordweb defines an “ism” thus: A belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school. Plainly Socialism, Communism and others fall under this category.
What about Atheism? Is it possible that the atheists rejection of a greater being an absolute belief. It allows the Atheist to label the religious believer an extremist, unable to deal with the realities of the scientific world. In this way a large percentage of the world’s population can be “swept under a convenient rug”, by labelling them unquestioning ignoramuses. This is done unquestioningly, because clearly they are wrong. Is this not "the pot calling the kettle black"?
Therefore it clear that the extremism is not born out of belief, but rather, out of never questioning that belief. The religious Jew, Christian or Muslim living in an insular religious environment has no understanding of the society around them. In that situation it is easy to look outwards and only see Evil, because it is a society that does not reflect theirs. The atheist or even scientist that is not prepared to look past their comfort zone have their heads in the sand in much the same way as their religious counterparts. They too, feel more comfortable within their own “zone”. It is a fear of the unknown.
Evil is the unknown, because we have no understanding of it. That is how we feel about other people’s religions, cultures and ways. This feeling is multiplied when those strange people reject our lifestyle and our beliefs. Killing the Evil enemy becomes easier when they lose their human face.
All absolute beliefs portend to represent pure good. By definition then, anything outside of that world must necessarily represent the opposite. We will never stop people believing, or their beliefs; nor should we. We must however encourage a review of how the "outside world" is approached.
We must try to understand other people's beliefs; not necessarilyaccepting them as our own, but as beliefs that exist around us. This reduces the fear of the unknown and the extremism. That is why most people can live with their neighbours. Our beliefs must live side by side with other beliefs. We need to be able to explain our beliefs and listen to others explain theirs. We don’t have to accept their ideas, but do have to accept that they believe them. And of course visa-versa.
One of the problems of an overly politically correct western world is to assume that if we are sympathetic to "them", it follows that "they" will be sympathetic to us. Not true. We have to listen with the same goals in mind. We have to be able to discolour the language so that both sides can understand the substance before getting lost in argument over terminology.
Groups or societies who have been in conflict for years or generations need to completely reeducate their society and employ Orwellian 'Newspeak' to overcome the jargon of the past, the jargon of conflict.
I believe, questioning your own beliefs should reaffirm them, rather than weaken them. Of course, if it doesn’t then.........well draw your own conclusions.
[i] Wordweb
An Absolute-:Something that is conceived or that exists independently and not in relation to other things; something that does not depend on anything else and is beyond human control; something that is not relative; “no mortal being can influence the absolute”[i].
An absolute belief in the right of man and the importance of democracy were enough to stir western nations to war in the past. Things seemed to be much more black and white in those days, not just television. It was of course partly, because we did not have television then. Today war zones are shown on our TV screens, as are horrfic terrorist attacks. We are a 'global vilage' conneced through the super highway of the internet, cable tv and various satellite technologies . A Jewish woman in Tel Aviv could theoretically sit and chat with a Syrian woman in Damascus. Could, but most likely won't. Why not? They no doubt would have much to discuss.
Today we frown upon absolutes as extreme and of course they are. They are, because of the very fact that they cannot be influenced by man, at least in the eyes of the believer. They are dangerous, because if they are beyond man's control, what happens to one man, becomes insignificant. All for the glory of the greater good.
Absolute truth varies from region to region and culture to culture (see my basic premises). We may believe in the absolute right of man to Human rights. Believing in this absolute has been the reason for western countries in the 20th and 21st centuries to engage in conflict; yet this absolute right/truth only dates back to the 18 century as a popular concept.
Generally when use the expressions absolutism and extremism in one sentence we tend to be talking about religion. We of course could talk about any “isms” in exactly the same vein. Wordweb defines an “ism” thus: A belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school. Plainly Socialism, Communism and others fall under this category.
What about Atheism? Is it possible that the atheists rejection of a greater being an absolute belief. It allows the Atheist to label the religious believer an extremist, unable to deal with the realities of the scientific world. In this way a large percentage of the world’s population can be “swept under a convenient rug”, by labelling them unquestioning ignoramuses. This is done unquestioningly, because clearly they are wrong. Is this not "the pot calling the kettle black"?
Therefore it clear that the extremism is not born out of belief, but rather, out of never questioning that belief. The religious Jew, Christian or Muslim living in an insular religious environment has no understanding of the society around them. In that situation it is easy to look outwards and only see Evil, because it is a society that does not reflect theirs. The atheist or even scientist that is not prepared to look past their comfort zone have their heads in the sand in much the same way as their religious counterparts. They too, feel more comfortable within their own “zone”. It is a fear of the unknown.
Evil is the unknown, because we have no understanding of it. That is how we feel about other people’s religions, cultures and ways. This feeling is multiplied when those strange people reject our lifestyle and our beliefs. Killing the Evil enemy becomes easier when they lose their human face.
All absolute beliefs portend to represent pure good. By definition then, anything outside of that world must necessarily represent the opposite. We will never stop people believing, or their beliefs; nor should we. We must however encourage a review of how the "outside world" is approached.
We must try to understand other people's beliefs; not necessarilyaccepting them as our own, but as beliefs that exist around us. This reduces the fear of the unknown and the extremism. That is why most people can live with their neighbours. Our beliefs must live side by side with other beliefs. We need to be able to explain our beliefs and listen to others explain theirs. We don’t have to accept their ideas, but do have to accept that they believe them. And of course visa-versa.
One of the problems of an overly politically correct western world is to assume that if we are sympathetic to "them", it follows that "they" will be sympathetic to us. Not true. We have to listen with the same goals in mind. We have to be able to discolour the language so that both sides can understand the substance before getting lost in argument over terminology.
Groups or societies who have been in conflict for years or generations need to completely reeducate their society and employ Orwellian 'Newspeak' to overcome the jargon of the past, the jargon of conflict.
I believe, questioning your own beliefs should reaffirm them, rather than weaken them. Of course, if it doesn’t then.........well draw your own conclusions.
[i] Wordweb
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Multi-Culturalism in Australia
Al Grasby changed Australia, when he introduced and became the face of the new Multi-Cultural policy. Wow! The idea was huge.
Up until the early 70’s Australia largely adhered to White Australia Policy and was still “relocating” children of indigenous Australians (known as Abos). The idea was mind-blowing. An approach so different to the American’s “melting pot” idea.
It was a vision that would allow for Australia to become a favourite destination for many. A vision that would/will ultimately lead to Australia emerging as new, yet to be defined, independent nation, with its own unique cultural identity. Yet Australia is an island and its isolation inspires isolationism, xenophobia and parochialism; problems that we have yet to completely overcome.
Today Australia is a multi-cultural society. We encourage the various ethnic groups to embrace their cultural heritage and somehow weave it into the national blanket that is Australia. I went to school in the 60’s and 70’s of the last century/millennium. It was a very different Australia then. Certainly not multi-cultural yet was inclusive up to a point.
The emphasis was on being Australian. The choice was clear; you were either an Australian or a “Wog”. A “Wog” was anyone that looked or sounded different (at my school they were mainly Greeks and Italians. I fell into no-man’s land. My name, Jacques, was so often mispronounced that it quite quickly became Jack. I believe that if you look at many of my generation they would have anglicized their first names.
I grew up Jewish, in Adelaide, a city of just under a million people and 800 Jews. I went to state schools, except for in Years 11 and12. To all of my former schoolmates who felt the need to beat me up at Easter, because apparently I killed Jesus, I send my regards. Ironic, that while it is not part of my personal or cultural heritage, it was I that turned the other cheek. I really had no choice as I was so outnumbered. Apparently this was something that “Skips” and “Wogs” could agree on.
There was no doubt that sport played an important part in the development of an Australian Identity (and I will discuss this in a future article). Soccer or “Wogball” was rarely played by “Skips”. Cricket, Footy, Netball and Softball were the team sports of choice.
We have come a long way since the early 70’s, or have we? Could it be that the world is just getting smaller and our sense of isolation less? Is there less racism in Australia today? One thing for sure it, it is certainly less overt. Most people are more politically correct and not just in public.
Most of the “Western” world tends to be politically correct, a product of a more inclusive democracy in our shrinking world. Is this a positive trend or are we just creating a veneer? Maybe a veneer creates a reality. What I do believe, is that we would be naive to expect people who live outside of western democracies to hold a similar world view, or have a similar mentality. Too frequently I will hold discussions someone who bases their argument on the assumption that "They" hold the same values as "Us"[i].
[i] See “A basic premise from which I build my views”..
Up until the early 70’s Australia largely adhered to White Australia Policy and was still “relocating” children of indigenous Australians (known as Abos). The idea was mind-blowing. An approach so different to the American’s “melting pot” idea.
It was a vision that would allow for Australia to become a favourite destination for many. A vision that would/will ultimately lead to Australia emerging as new, yet to be defined, independent nation, with its own unique cultural identity. Yet Australia is an island and its isolation inspires isolationism, xenophobia and parochialism; problems that we have yet to completely overcome.
Today Australia is a multi-cultural society. We encourage the various ethnic groups to embrace their cultural heritage and somehow weave it into the national blanket that is Australia. I went to school in the 60’s and 70’s of the last century/millennium. It was a very different Australia then. Certainly not multi-cultural yet was inclusive up to a point.
The emphasis was on being Australian. The choice was clear; you were either an Australian or a “Wog”. A “Wog” was anyone that looked or sounded different (at my school they were mainly Greeks and Italians. I fell into no-man’s land. My name, Jacques, was so often mispronounced that it quite quickly became Jack. I believe that if you look at many of my generation they would have anglicized their first names.
I grew up Jewish, in Adelaide, a city of just under a million people and 800 Jews. I went to state schools, except for in Years 11 and12. To all of my former schoolmates who felt the need to beat me up at Easter, because apparently I killed Jesus, I send my regards. Ironic, that while it is not part of my personal or cultural heritage, it was I that turned the other cheek. I really had no choice as I was so outnumbered. Apparently this was something that “Skips” and “Wogs” could agree on.
There was no doubt that sport played an important part in the development of an Australian Identity (and I will discuss this in a future article). Soccer or “Wogball” was rarely played by “Skips”. Cricket, Footy, Netball and Softball were the team sports of choice.
We have come a long way since the early 70’s, or have we? Could it be that the world is just getting smaller and our sense of isolation less? Is there less racism in Australia today? One thing for sure it, it is certainly less overt. Most people are more politically correct and not just in public.
Most of the “Western” world tends to be politically correct, a product of a more inclusive democracy in our shrinking world. Is this a positive trend or are we just creating a veneer? Maybe a veneer creates a reality. What I do believe, is that we would be naive to expect people who live outside of western democracies to hold a similar world view, or have a similar mentality. Too frequently I will hold discussions someone who bases their argument on the assumption that "They" hold the same values as "Us"[i].
[i] See “A basic premise from which I build my views”..
There is no Right or Wrong, Just Fact and Opinion.
Talking the Talk is what makes us what we are.
Most Australian Jews (and in fact 60% of the general Australian population) are either new immigrants or 1st generation citizens . The significant majority of the American Jewish community is 2nd or 3rd generation. Their bond with America strengthened by the belief that it is a safe haven from European pogroms, Anti -Semitic restrictions on daily life and religious freedom. Of course we are only talking about relative safety and relative acceptance. The United States at least (talked the talk) spoke the language of inclusion and it even walked the walk (albeit with a heavy limp).
As I said in the previous post, I believe our Frame of Reference[i] is based on the influences on and in our life; and while most of these are chosen, some are not. In theory we can all look at a situation, examine all options, match it up with our general knowledge and make a decision (e.g. Mother says don’t go out with wet hair, but doctor says it makes no difference. I either listen to the doctor, or wear a hat; if only to make Mum happy). Most don’t and some can’t. Some choose not to choose and are happy with whatever explanation they’re presented with. They are our "sheep" and they are many. A majority in a democracy.
As an educator I am interested in the questions, Are we indoctrinated? and Do we indocrtrinate our children? Those that answer yes, must then explain how it is possible to educate without indocrinating. How can we explain an abstract idea without implied values. I don't have a problem giving over values to my students, although some believe this should be the exclusive role of the parent of spiritual guide. It is possible to remove outside influences like television and internet, but that also removes you from our shrinking world.
Often it is hard to see outside the box. To see 'past the end of our noses'. Frames of References being what they are can only create a subjective and not an objective view of a situation. This means there is no right or wrong, no black or white; just opinions and various shades of grey; the world is made up of facts and then opinion. Weight of opinion usually wins, but does not necessarily imply that right won, just that the majority prevailed (arguably the weakness of democracy). The inability to accept this basic premise makes cooperation difficult.
We need to learn to walk in the blind man’s shoes, to understand the world as he does, to feel his pride and his hurt. Our adversaries must do likewise. This does necesssarily lead to understanding. I lived in Israel for 20 years and feel I have a reasonable grasp of issues in the area. One thing obvious to me is that education has played a major role in making peace the difficult choice. Peace meant acceptance.
As an example, May 15 1948 is celebrated by Israelis as Independence Day, while Palestinians mark the day as Al Nachbar, 'the Tragedy'. Is either side right or wrong? More to the point, does it really matter? We all have an opinion on the issue, but that's all it is, an opinion. It is 100% subjective. It has to be; especially if the other side doesn't even accept the basis of your raison d'etre. Peace and cooperation come with an understanding of the others position, not in order to exploit it, but in order to further the understanding between parties.
Of course that is not to say that there is no legitimacy to either side’s arguments, but that they need to be put aside once it has been decided that the way forward is together. Going forward together doesn’t necessarily mean in harmony, just in understanding that it is necessary. I believe this approach central to all conflict resolution.
[i] Please see "A basic premise from which I build my views."
Most Australian Jews (and in fact 60% of the general Australian population) are either new immigrants or 1st generation citizens . The significant majority of the American Jewish community is 2nd or 3rd generation. Their bond with America strengthened by the belief that it is a safe haven from European pogroms, Anti -Semitic restrictions on daily life and religious freedom. Of course we are only talking about relative safety and relative acceptance. The United States at least (talked the talk) spoke the language of inclusion and it even walked the walk (albeit with a heavy limp).
As I said in the previous post, I believe our Frame of Reference[i] is based on the influences on and in our life; and while most of these are chosen, some are not. In theory we can all look at a situation, examine all options, match it up with our general knowledge and make a decision (e.g. Mother says don’t go out with wet hair, but doctor says it makes no difference. I either listen to the doctor, or wear a hat; if only to make Mum happy). Most don’t and some can’t. Some choose not to choose and are happy with whatever explanation they’re presented with. They are our "sheep" and they are many. A majority in a democracy.
As an educator I am interested in the questions, Are we indoctrinated? and Do we indocrtrinate our children? Those that answer yes, must then explain how it is possible to educate without indocrinating. How can we explain an abstract idea without implied values. I don't have a problem giving over values to my students, although some believe this should be the exclusive role of the parent of spiritual guide. It is possible to remove outside influences like television and internet, but that also removes you from our shrinking world.
Often it is hard to see outside the box. To see 'past the end of our noses'. Frames of References being what they are can only create a subjective and not an objective view of a situation. This means there is no right or wrong, no black or white; just opinions and various shades of grey; the world is made up of facts and then opinion. Weight of opinion usually wins, but does not necessarily imply that right won, just that the majority prevailed (arguably the weakness of democracy). The inability to accept this basic premise makes cooperation difficult.
We need to learn to walk in the blind man’s shoes, to understand the world as he does, to feel his pride and his hurt. Our adversaries must do likewise. This does necesssarily lead to understanding. I lived in Israel for 20 years and feel I have a reasonable grasp of issues in the area. One thing obvious to me is that education has played a major role in making peace the difficult choice. Peace meant acceptance.
As an example, May 15 1948 is celebrated by Israelis as Independence Day, while Palestinians mark the day as Al Nachbar, 'the Tragedy'. Is either side right or wrong? More to the point, does it really matter? We all have an opinion on the issue, but that's all it is, an opinion. It is 100% subjective. It has to be; especially if the other side doesn't even accept the basis of your raison d'etre. Peace and cooperation come with an understanding of the others position, not in order to exploit it, but in order to further the understanding between parties.
Of course that is not to say that there is no legitimacy to either side’s arguments, but that they need to be put aside once it has been decided that the way forward is together. Going forward together doesn’t necessarily mean in harmony, just in understanding that it is necessary. I believe this approach central to all conflict resolution.
[i] Please see "A basic premise from which I build my views."
A Basic premise from which I build my views.
It isn’t until we develop a sense of others that we can begin to appreciate that, not only can people look different and act differently to us, but they can also understand the world differently.
Everyone has a “Frame of Reference” (Fof R) from which they build their world-view.
Who our parents are, how we were educated, who influenced us and where we grew up form the basis for this “Fof R”. Remembering that this is true for everyone, it means that our understanding of the world is decidedly skewed to incorporate the experiences of our teachers and parents. Therefore our “FoR” is as much communal as it is personal.
Personal in as much as it forms our own personal belief system; Communal in so far as we identify with communities and have allegiances to those communities based on common experience and understanding.
So would we expect Jews or Muslims from different countries to have a common view of the world? Would the commonality be more than with their fellow countrymen? Certainly the answer to both questions should be that it depends on which particular subject you’re discussing or dealing with. Who you identify with in a crossover of interests would seem to indicate with whom you most identify.
However the truth is, of course, so much more complicated. While we are always able to generalise, we understand that generalisations are exactly that. Growing up as a Jew in Australia I was challenged with the question of identity. Was/ am I an Australian Jew or a Jewish Australian? Do I accept that both identities are necessarily a part of my life? And perhaps most importantly, what factors played a part in crystallising my identity.
I am first of all a person, a citizen of Earth, if you will. As corny as that sounds, it is how I feel; having said that, I have allegiances, likes and dislikes. I like to express my opinion and get feedback from others. I hope I am tolerant of other’s opinions and I hope they are tolerant of mine. Where we differ we should either respect the difference and move on, or try and resolve through discussion. Violence and violent options should be unnecessary. Whether they are or not......well another time.
Everyone has a “Frame of Reference” (Fof R) from which they build their world-view.
Who our parents are, how we were educated, who influenced us and where we grew up form the basis for this “Fof R”. Remembering that this is true for everyone, it means that our understanding of the world is decidedly skewed to incorporate the experiences of our teachers and parents. Therefore our “FoR” is as much communal as it is personal.
Personal in as much as it forms our own personal belief system; Communal in so far as we identify with communities and have allegiances to those communities based on common experience and understanding.
So would we expect Jews or Muslims from different countries to have a common view of the world? Would the commonality be more than with their fellow countrymen? Certainly the answer to both questions should be that it depends on which particular subject you’re discussing or dealing with. Who you identify with in a crossover of interests would seem to indicate with whom you most identify.
However the truth is, of course, so much more complicated. While we are always able to generalise, we understand that generalisations are exactly that. Growing up as a Jew in Australia I was challenged with the question of identity. Was/ am I an Australian Jew or a Jewish Australian? Do I accept that both identities are necessarily a part of my life? And perhaps most importantly, what factors played a part in crystallising my identity.
I am first of all a person, a citizen of Earth, if you will. As corny as that sounds, it is how I feel; having said that, I have allegiances, likes and dislikes. I like to express my opinion and get feedback from others. I hope I am tolerant of other’s opinions and I hope they are tolerant of mine. Where we differ we should either respect the difference and move on, or try and resolve through discussion. Violence and violent options should be unnecessary. Whether they are or not......well another time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
