Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Who's the real genius?

Progress, innovation, sustainability, hard work. Staples of pride for Americans. The progress of technology is essentialized, idealized, placed on a pedestal of praise. Advertisements are great representations of what the people are interested in. What we want, they sell; and how we want it, well, that’s how they present it. Maybe you’ve seen this commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHvUZ9THmNU . The obvious selling point is progress, and the ad celebrates its inevitability. We enjoy the idea of progress and love to show it off, as if having the newest technology demonstrates our ability to progress, and we embrace that. There’s nothing wrong with embracing progress, or arguably even showcasing it. Take pride in our achievements because they truly are phenomenal. Just look how far we’ve come! Not even Benjamin Franklin could’ve envisioned the ipad and that dude came up with some really innovative creations. Even in the last fifteen, ten, FIVE years, the progression our technology has achieved is remarkable. Let us remark upon it. Let us bask in our certain demonstration of human achievement. And we all know there’s some crazy stuff going on in GE, Google, Audi, Apple, and countless other centers of innovation that we may or may not have heard of (yet). We rightfully applaud these creators. Our politicians are dedicating a huge portion of our educational budget to these types of innovations. We do big things, and we are going to Race To The Top of the world’s technological strata once again. It’s a technological arms race and we’re dedicated to demonstrate our abilities. All it takes is for us to work hard, and study hard in school and we’ll be a nation of innovation!
But…
What if we celebrated progress as a society? No, not givin’ it up for MLK on that day off from work in Mid-January. No, not dedicating an entire 1/12 of all the months of the year to black history. No, not showing the pity of that nice white family in Memphis that made Michael Oher’s dreams come true. No, none of these superficial ways of making everyone feel better about not being as oppressive as we used to be. What if we celebrated progress as a society in the same way we celebrated technological progress? What if we thought of Martin Luther King, Jr. like we did Albert Einstein? (But Einstein’s b-day doesn’t get us a day off… But who do we reference when we call someone a genius?) I can’t and don’t wish to argue against Einstein’s brilliance. He was truly a hero for the progress of science. But what if we considered the two as at least equal? What if we treated Dr. King as a superior thinker? After all, Einstein had to have his own door painted red so he could know which house was his. MLK knew where his home was, America. MLK led a revolution that has made his home better for MILLIONS of people. And not just for black people, not just minorities, but all of us who have lived since the civil rights era. Our world, our homes, the lives of our American and human brothers and sisters, are all vastly better of because of Martin Luther King’s brilliance. His articulate speech, his philosophical prominence, his dedication, his hard work, his leadership, and his innovation combined to make one hell of a man. And what progress he made and initiated! What if we thought of him in such a way, the way that he truly was. The way that his everlasting influence will put the United States back On Top of the world for its progress in equality, freedom and standards of life for all. 3-D tv’s don’t mean much if you can’t afford cable. Things don’t bring us the same happiness that love and liberty do. If they did, I would have no use for anyone besides the ones making all my stuff. And shoot, in twenty years we’ll have the technology that we don’t even need them at all! In that same twenty years, what if we have a land where all people are created and treated equal?
Our constitution doesn’t base its principles on laptops, robots and the pursuit of the next new thing. Our founding fathers didn’t start a revolution so we could have the best technology. So why are we praising the wrong things? I have nothing against scientists and engineers. I have a bunch of friends that are engineers. (Irony intended, but it is indeed true.) I love my computer, my car, the keyboard on my phone and the lights above my head. But what about those things that give us love, hope, knowledge, freedom and justice? What about teachers, preachers, activists and revolutionaries, even at the small scale? Why don’t we recognize the difficulties of teaching? Why don’t we say, “that Jimmy’s a smart boy, he’s probably going to grow up to be a teacher!”? Why don’t we recognize? Why is our focus shifted in such a way? Why do we operate in these paradigms? I would love to know.
Hess’ “Conclusions: Science, Technology and Multicultural Education” presented us with an interesting statistic form the 1990’s that “in the year 2000, only fifteen percent of new additions to the American labor force will be native-born white males.” The rest will be made up of immigrants, people of color and women. Or so it wrongfully speculated. The statistic was widely used, according to Hess, and similar ideals are falsely promoted in boardrooms across America. “ ‘Our country is a United Nations of people from all over the world: men, women, foreigners, blacks, whites, Hispanics. We all get along because we treat each other as individuals.’ “ These folks can talk, but all the statistics seem to prove otherwise. Reality proves otherwise. We are only taking false, superficial steps towards true equality. Mr. I Love Black People doesn’t really think affirmative action is a good idea, though, it’s making it unfairly more difficult for white kids to get in. What about the standards of acceptance, sir? What about SAT prep and AP classes being available in white, upperclass schools far more readily and frequently? Is that unfair? What about setting up an educational system that praises the removal of the music building to make way for a laboratory? Does that unfairly make school more difficult for creative, artistic students? Affirmative action isn’t new and it isn’t gone. It’s been here for a while and running rampant, we just talk about it differently. We just advantage a different group with it.
Sue Roesser has developed a way for women to achieve success and find enjoyment in engineering (Loftus, 2003, Prism Magazine). She innovated. Why aren’t schools like this popping up everywhere? Why isn’t she as appreciated as much as she should be?
What does it say about us as people, as a people, that we are more interested in the progress of things than of our fellow humans?

3 comments:

  1. Man Tanner you are on fire! I just have to tell you I loved the passion for equality that you expressed in this writing. And I agree with you that it is crucial for us to deconstruct the values that are actually expressed in our society and re-examine what we claim to stand for as Americans. And how fascinating is it that we claim freedom and equality and exalt people such as MLK but data regarding the small percentage of blacks represented in engineering or in higher education directly contradict this claim of equality.
    However I think that we must be cautious of overcompensate for the lack of inequality by disregarding technology and its role in society completely. It's true our constitution isn't "based on laptops, robots and the pursuit for the next thing." However it is also true that science and technology has become very tightly intertwined with society. Kranzberg discuses their into connectivity when he says, "Society include all sorts of human activities, thoughts, values, and hopes and our social environment extends from our immediate family to our neighbors, our country, and nowadays, largely as a result of the applications of science and technology, to the whole world" (Science, Society and Technology It's as Simple as XYZ!)
    That's why examples such as in the Sue Rosser piece are so revolutionary because we see technology and science being taught in a way that tangibly and practically handles this inequality that we face in the U.S. But I loved you thoughts on this!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great job on your response! This really starts off with a bang and your analysis of Einstein and MLK being equal in genius is innovative and insightful. Though it does seem as though you have two different, and somewhat unrelated, rants going on here.

    The first part of your response considers the the true definition of what it means to be genius and how our society views and respects genius. The stance that progress in science and technology is the only progress that requires genius is superficial. There truly are many different levels and types of genius in the world. We can look at Ray Charles or Rembrant as examples of genius that were often beyond their own cultural limits. Expanding the bounds and limits of cultural norms takes a type of genius that cannot be learned in a classroom. The solutions to those problems cannot be devised by equation or algorithm. Maybe one reason why we praise people who are genius in science and technology is because they are naturally anti-social. If we think about scientists tinkering away in their little labs, the dominant image is one of a nerd. Maybe giving them the label of genius is the way that we show our appreciation for what they do.

    The second half of your response was quite a rant on inequality and I must say could be construed as coming from a predefined position. I am not entirely sure how the two came together or than that MLK was black and therefore his genius was not as respected because of this and that whites who develop technological innovations are praised because they are the only ones doing it. The reason they are the only ones they are doing it is because of a system that keeps them able to succeed easier than their black counterparts.

    While some might be true, I wonder if the reason for this is not oppression of races, but the existing structure of money which was set up by whites. Whites were the ones that set up the economy and financial structure of the nation. We were the original rich race and oppressed other races to get that way. I think the perpetuation of this, even after a half-century of civil rights reforms, comes from the fact that whites still have the most money, not because of oppression. I grew up in a very poor neighborhood and had no extra opportunities that were not provided any other race. Poor is not defined by race. It will take more generations for wealth to be redistributed to all races and therefore give them all equal access to opportunity. A quick solution to speeding this up is to vote for more tax increases to increase social and educational programs. Not for black or white, just for people who need it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I appreciate the comments from both of you!
    Jackie- I totally agree, technology and society are super intertwined and I could have acknowledged that better. Like i said, i appreciate the advancements that technology has made and how they have so improved the quality of life for all of us.
    Anthony- You raise a lot of valid points. Yes, it was sort of a rant, my fingers could hardly keep up with what i was thinking! And yes, I did come from a predetermined position, but I did so consciously. I wanted to present my argument in that regard-- that social progress shouldn't just be viewed in equal regard, but in a superior regard to technological progress. I do have to disagree that they aren't connected however. The connection is through the theme that I was trying to articulate, the theme that we should shift our paradigm of praise towards progress from technological to social. That doesn't mean neglecting technological innovation (I don't think social progress is currently neglected either) but that we should focus more on the people than the machines. Yes, the technology greatly benefits the people and I appreciate that, but as Dr. Lehr presented in one of her slides today, most of our technology is inteneded for the top 10% economically of the world, and basically ignores the rest of the 90%. Technological progress is great, but without social progess, i think that it is almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Not irrelevant, but secondary i should say.
    Now to the other part of your response. I wasn't trying to make this a racial discussion as much as it came out to be, or as much as it could be interpreted. I don't think Einstein is revered more just because he's white but because he was a scientist, not a social activist. Great point about painters and the "nerd" aspect of labeling people as genius. I totally agree with you, also, that oppression is not solely determined by race but also in large part due to classism. Absolutely. We must recognize, however, that being a person of color also compounds the oppression faced from being of a person of lower socio-economic status. Sexism also plays a role. That is why it's more difficult for black women than black men to "overcome oppression". The difficulties are also present for white women. Class is a bigtime factor in providing opportunities. The most important thing for us to understand is the intersectionality of individuals and of oppression. Individuals are more than one characteristic, not just race, or class, or gender, or religion, or sexual preference, etc., but EVERYTHING. Similarly, the system of oppression presents obstacles for many different types of people. The biggest difficulties are for the ones that are subject to many of those oppressive factors. Each factor is not always equal, and doesn't always have the same effect depending on the circumstances, but intersectionality is very important to remember. Also, people of color are extraordinarily over-represented in the socio-econmic status department, so race does play a factor in classism too.
    I whole-heartedly agree with you that a great way to counteract these difficulties is by raising taxes for the upper classes. Especially the uber-rich. The over-indulgence of many people in this country is disappointing to say the least. I think that you would agree with me in supporting affirmative action to help battle against oppression. The connotation of affirmative action almost always involves race, but i think it's important that the other determinants of oppression, like class, don't go overlooked. AA actions should be directed towards benefiting all people who face unjust systematic obstacles. Direct the money and benefits to poverty stricken areas, for people of color, for women, for homosexuals, etc. Thank you for your comments, for real, I really appreciated the feedback.

    ReplyDelete