Watching Frontline's interview with/expose on Michelle Rhee, the former DC schools chancellor, education reformer, and "educator," helped me to see just how lucky I am to work with and research actual educators. Unlike them, Rhee did not study education in college, nor does she have any advanced degree in education. She was spawned by Teach for America, given the very brief training that organization provides, and then taught in the "worst" school in Baltimore. As is typical of TFA graduates, she spent only three years in the classroom, but used the experience to leverage something better for herself -- an educational consulting firm/Michelle Rhee professional networking organization. Which led to her job as chancellor. How 'bout them apples.
In the interview, Rhee refers to the 2nd grade students she taught, briefly, in Baltimore as "my kids," a sentiment that any actual educator who has spent some time in the field knows is usually a new teacher's mask for insecurity. She also became infamous for a classroom episode where she, in a straight up act of aggression, killed and ate an annoying bee in front of her class of seven-year-olds. She could not, after all, swat and swallow the annoying and unruly students in this urban elementary school.
Rhee presents herself as being compelling because she is a lonely warrior in a fight for student success. Of course the only thing compelling about this is that Rhee repeats the mantra so often you start to think she is simply hypnotizing herself into believing her motivations are good. Or worse -- that she is trying, perhaps, to wrestle some deep anger into a positive sales slogan. Because again, its not like she could kill and eat those pesky "urban" kids.
But the thing I found most fascinating about her self-presentation is how removed it was from the actual experience of being an educator, particularly in an urban school. Setting aside what one thinks the core function of a school is for a moment, one thing most urban educators do share is the experience of having to be many selves in many situations to many people. And this is done in a manner entirely unlike the self-shifting one has to engage in in a corporate setting. This is done in a work environment where the actors are relatively powerless and not rewarded well, and where the subjects they have to respond to are not present by choice and range in age, developmental level, skills, etc.
And yet there these teachers are, morphing themselves on any given day into social workers, disciplinarians, narcs, protectors, legal counsel, sex educators, emergency workers, advisers and guides, resource managers, stand-in parents, what have you. The strength it takes to be that flexible and responsive is not easy to comprehend, and is not generally respected by leaders like Rhee who pin their personal success on having a very fixed self-identity.
The Rhee interview also made me think of another interview, one with a surviving first-grade teacher from Sandy Hook, who struggled after the fact with the professionalism of her decision to tell all the children she had hidden in the closet that she loved them all so much. She said, in the interview, that she knew this was maybe a violation of some kind, in terms of keeping a professional distance as an educator, but at that moment of total fear she could only think of this: if I were a six-year-old and very afraid, what would I want most to hear? And, she thought, what if the last words these children ever heard in their lives were whatever words I spoke? So she just told them, repeatedly, that she loved each one of them.
Aside from the amazing compassion and awareness she displayed (and the remarkable control of her own fear in that moment) what I appreciated about this teacher's story was that it conveyed so powerfully exactly what good educators can do. They can allow themselves to be in others, without risk to their own identities or their integrity.
That this teacher was concerned about how this ability would be perceived by those who assess the the profession in the manner that Rhee obviously does speaks to the patriarchal nature of education reform initiatives, on the one hand, and to the limited nature of how "reformers" like Rhee think about the self. It is likely this is something Rhee found out in her brief and contentious tenure as the leader of an urban school district -- that equating a static, immovable self with strength is both limiting and destructive.
When I watched Piers Morgan's recent interview with right-wing conspiracy theorist and gun fan Alex Jones, I could not help but think the same thing. Jones and his ilk speak of the traumatic consequences that will befall us all if we don't stick to "who we are," a static and unchanging notion of self that must be defended at all costs, against all imagined tyrants. I could not help but listen to his rant as a projection of his visceral fear of self-flexibility, as if his very sense of self was under threat, so much so that near the end of the interview his fear compelled him to mock the British accent "identifier" of Piers Morgan.
I really saw Jones' self-presentation in the same light at Rhee's. Both seem to be fighting for the definition of self to be inviolate, and both seem to make a living by aggressively projecting this need onto everyone around them.
Plus, I think Alex Jones would have happily swatted and swallowed Morgan if he had had the chance.
January 10, 2013
January 2, 2013
There and Back Again
Sure, it was probably not the best idea to see Django Unchained just before spending a few days with
some gun fans in the south, but you can't really plan for everything, I
suppose.
Circumstance, not choice, brought us together. On this trip I encountered a collection
of what I can only describe as southern style misanthropes. One of the group brought his
revolver with him; one was a prepper and a gun collector. Another had relocated
from LA after the Rodney King riots because he apparently feared that
"they" would infiltrate his neighborhood, and now he lives in a big
house set back in the woods, where he can see you coming. And there was another, one who
knows in their bones that there are no good people, anywhere, and you just have
to keep to your kind, and to yourself.
Across town on this same weekend the Frist museum had two
exhibitions up -- one on German Expressionism, and the other a retrospective of
the work of Carrie Mae Weems. Both exhibitions were wonderfully done, but the Weems
retrospective was also brain-changing, and deeply emotional. And aaaahhhh, the
cognitive dissonance. Just writing the last three paragraphs recalled to me the
almost paralyzing headache I had during this visit. Because this was real, not
technicolor; I really had dinner with a racist prepper, and then the next
morning cried in front of a brilliant artist's work about our collective
history of race and pain. And meanwhile, on honky tonk row, the stage was going
up for CNN's New Year's Eve celebration. Things just go on.
Regarding the actual movie, I don't think I am giving much
away by noting that Quentin Tarantino's character accidentally blows himself to
bits with dynamite near the end of the film, because that's what shit-stupid
racist white men have always done when they are given a choice to make some
coin. They blow themselves up. (See also: Republican party circa December
2012.)
In contrast, Jamie Foxx's Django survives intact every horror
imaginable, and then blows the holy motherfucking crap out of a plantation,
after simultaneously saving the love of his life from slavery and killing
almost everyone there first. Except for the venal Uncle Tom character, whom
Django leaves alive so he can get blown into a lot of tiny bits. In
Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, the whole German high command and
their acolytes and lovers get blown to tiny bits too. It’s fantastic! The kind
of gorgeous, outrageous, mythical vengeance, against the most vile of humans,
that you can only dream about. Or, if you are a mythical hero like Django, the
kind of gorgeous, outrageous vengeance you can actually extract on a
grotesquerie of southern racist whites in a fantastic Tarantino piece.
Grappling with hatred, fear, destruction, the unfulfilled desire
for vengeance: these are the things you work out in art. These are all present in
Weems's unflinching photographs. And in Tarantino's
over-the-top films. And one can even connect a line from these two back to the
way the Expressionist movement dealt with emotion and interpersonal violence
visually. But grappling with all this requires what can seem a strange and visceral
combination -- a deep respect for a visual imagination which can be repellent,
dark, and messy, combined with an unbreakable commitment to not actually hurt
others in the expression of that imagination.
And this is not, as Tarantino shows through his depiction of gun lovers in the south in this film, a commitment that
those gun lovers of the southern United States whom I just spent some time with will likely ever make.Or have ever made.Which is just
one more reason why the gun lovers of the United States having collections of
AR-15's at home should give us all pause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)