December 29, 2005

The Pedagogical Role of Peers.

In the comment section of a recent post about an impending "Intra-Generational Conflict" one reader (IM) observes:

I call these trustfund babies the "rage against your allowance" generation.

VDH sees something similar, but afflicting the entire culture in "The Plague of Success:"

What explains this paradox of public disappointment over things that turn out better than anticipated? Why are we like children who damn their parents for not providing yet another new toy when the present one is neither paid for nor yet out of the wrapper?

To be fair though, the "younger generation" seems able to resist the flawed perspective presented by Google and Al Gore's Current TV or Jon Stewart's The Daily Show a lot better than one might expect. In fact, better than several preceding generations. Those earlier cohorts often seem to think The Daily Show is the zenith of western rational culture, and believe anything it ridicules is, by definition, ridiculous. For instance, in a recent episode Stewart thought it hilariously ironic to point out that the government of South Africa had become "more progressive than the US" because it had legalized same-sex marriage. I'm not sure that qualifies as ironic though, since South Africa has had an avowed Marxist as President in the recent past. (Mandela may have disavowed some of his earlier statements for the sake of convenience, but his deviation from doctrine was superficial.) So there's actually nothing very funny or ironic about the state of affairs Stewart spotlighted, which would be obvious to anyone with even a residue of critical faculties surviving the indoctrination.

Similarly, VDH thinks the problem is that we don't learn history with any degree of accuracy, so we don't have much perspective:

The past is either not taught enough, or presented wrongly as a therapeutic exercise to excise our purported sins.

Either way the result is the same: a historically ignorant populace who knows nothing about past American wars and their disappointments — and has absolutely no frame of reference to make sense of the present other than its own mercurial emotional state in any given news cycle.

But this generation ultimately must pay attention to their peers to a far greater extent than did those of us who failed to welcome home the Vietnam vets (or who exploited their homecoming for its political value). This generation has a political and cultural voice that can respond to Mother Sheehan's questions before she even asks, so the indoctrination cycle is broken by a persistent, critical, and usually fairly subdued interruption. The door may be opening rather than closing, on a more historically conscious future.

(Cross-posted to Demosophia)

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:38 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I'm flattered, or I would be if the intent was flattery. I should say rather that I'm honored, especially to be mentioned in the same breath as VDH.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 29, 2005 01:48 PM (0yYS2)

2 Since I have two kids who belong to this generation, I have been in a position to watch these kids. What I have found to be their major problem is a complete lack of maturity, which is mainly the fault of the parents. I'm 50/50 on my two kids, one has hit his stride, matured, and zoomed into orbit. The other is sitting on the launch pad. They also tend to lack motivation, and although they will exercise just for the sake of exertion, they hate to exercise if it involves any work. Status is more important than love to these kids, and status becomes an end in itself. A rather strange dichotomy.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 29, 2005 04:31 PM (rUyw4)

3 Beatings and starvation are excellent motivators JJ.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 29, 2005 05:06 PM (0yYS2)

4 Haha, IM, but a better one is taking their wheels and making them walk. The status thing sets in, and now you can get some behavior modification. In their early years, a hickory switch did the trick, and when told to go out back and cut a hickory, ah, their eyes said it all. Do I cut a little switch, or should I cut a good one and just get it over with? Most of the time they cut a good one and took the quick whipping instead of choosing to prolong it by cutting an inferior switch and having me reject it. Then they had to go back outside and cut a switch that satisfied me.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 29, 2005 07:04 PM (rUyw4)

5 Our mom made us cut our own switches, and if we brought a bad one back, she'd send us back until we got a good one, and the longer we screwed around, the worse it'd be.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 29, 2005 07:30 PM (0yYS2)

6 Agent Smith says that peers are good, unless they are bad. Agent Brown says that Smith thinks he is the boss. Agent Brown says that only faucets are peerless.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 29, 2005 10:06 PM (TP7SP)

7 I've recently dealt with some of this generation who were inappropriately designated as managers, and their concept of management is control. They're so afraid of looking ineffective (the status thing) that they'll virtually go to any lengths to maintain overt control of those in their charge, whether ethical or not. They've also learned the lessons of relativism and interpretive philosophy, so that any time you call them on something the response is: "Well, that's a matter of interpretation." i.e.: We had an agreement about workplace boundaries, which you violated. How is that a matter of "interpretation." You simply broke the agreement, and then denied it. They're also inclined to be superficially PC, as long as it serves their short term interests. They don't actually give a damn about descrimination, but they know they're supposed to, so there's a kind of ongoing war against white males (especially older white males) that they feel totally justified in promoting. Basically there aren't any principles behind this cohort of "brattish" managers. They just do what seems expedient, without even bothering to consider whether in furthers their long term goals or objectives. Control for the sake of control. They'd be robust little totalitarians given half a chance. And then there's the other side of that cohort, which has the potential to set the brats straight if we let them. It could get ugly though.

Posted by: Demosophist at December 30, 2005 02:16 PM (l9QJh)

8 It always kills me to see a 19 year old kid as a mangager at anything. At that age, they're not good for much until the military gets hold of them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 31, 2005 12:04 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
23kb generated in CPU 0.0221, elapsed 0.1473 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1345 seconds, 257 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.