Three Cheers for Education

            The most innovative thinkers are labeled as “stupid” or “lazy” simply because their standards don’t meet the requirements that public schools create through demanding grades and rejection of creative minds. Public schools isolate free thinkers from their peers, and prevent others from thinking innovatively as well. Postman’s narrative of Consumership and Economic Utility are the culprits for the lack of critical thinkers in the public school system.

The main idea of the god of Consumership is for the public educational system to create some type of tangible item for students to think of as a goal; the only way to achieve this goal is to follow an endless list of rules and memorize key terms that, odds are, the students will never see again. Postman describes the god of consumership’s intentions as, "Whoever dies with the most toys, wins." (Postman 33). Teaching these students to live at least the first thirteen years of their lives as academic robots for the sake of having something that proves their dominance to others causes the students to eventually stop living up to their initial life goals, subsequently following the long, bland path that their educators laid out in front of them.

The god of Consumership is closely related to the god of Economic Utility. Postman states, “[the god of Economic Utility] postulates that you are what you do for a living,” (Postman 33). One thing that the public school systems tend to put into these adolescences’ heads is the idea that a person cannot be happy without financial success.  A three year old does not want to become a doctor in order to learn how to repair the fibula; they want to live up to the successful standards they are presented with throughout their lives.

The public educational system inhibits students from learning for the sake of gaining knowledge, and instead implants the idea that financial success is the equivalent of happiness.

Works Cited

Postman, Neil. The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New

York: Knopf, 1995. Print.

Frankenchild

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein gives us a clear example as to why knowledge shouldn’t be forced upon children. For those who have read Frankenstein, you know that the creature Victor Frankenstein creates has many child-like qualities; for that reason, the creature should be viewed as a child throughout this post. As the first of his species, the creature doesn’t know right from wrong, especially because Victor didn’t teach him anything. The creature then ventures out and learns on his own.  

According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s philosophy, "[a child] is first an animal, then a savage, then a solitary like Crusoe, and only at adolescence is he a human being in the full sense of the world.”(Boyd 153.) Throughout the novel, the creature hits every point of Rousseau’s idea of development, if only he lived to reach the final stage. For instance, after being created, the creature acts upon his instincts and murders Victor’s brother. The next stage mentioned in the philosophy is solitude. Rejected by Victor, the creature lives in the woods, secluded from society. There he learns survival and social skills, as well as linguistics.

“Rousseau also believed that the child should be allowed to remain in its ‘naturally’ innocent state as long as possible.”(Gaarder, 312.) Mary Shelley exemplifies the consequences of a child that does not remain in said state for an appropriate amount of time. Even after developing some type of understanding of the world, the creature continues his killing spree by murdering both Victor’s best friend and his wife.

Rousseau explains the journey of adolescence, and concludes that a child that moves on too quickly into adulthood can cause catastrophe. Mary Shelley proves his points even further throughout the novel. After studying Rousseau’s works, the reader should have a clear understanding of how his beliefs correspond with the creature when reading Frankenstein.

Works Cited

Boyd, William. The Educational Theory of Jean Jacques Rousseau. New York: Russell & Russell, 1963. Questia School. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

Gaarder, Jostein. Sophie's World: A Novel about the History of Philosophy. New York: , Straus and Giroux, 1994. Print.

Bill of Wrongs

On the day of May 2^nd, 2011, many were cheering at the news of someone’s death, and I struggled for a long time to understand why the end of another person’s life would be considered a celebration. At the age of thirteen, I didn’t have a full understanding of who Osama Bin Laden actually was; All I understood was what other people labeled him as: a terrorist. In no way was killing around three thousand people acceptable, but the happiness I saw on the day of Bin Laden’s death stuck with me since.

            Nine days after the events of 9/11, George W. Bush, with a respectful and calming tone, reassured American citizens by explaining actions that were to take place in order to protect them from future mishaps with Al Qaeda, with statements such as, “on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support.”(Bush). After establishing a bond with trust with his listeners, Bush goes on to make demands for Taliban- “Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities.”(Bush).  The transition from welcoming to assertive insured the death of Osama Bin Laden ten years later.

On the other hand, Noam Chomsky considers the hypocrisy of America’s choices by using a harsh, yet informative tone. Looking at the situation from a different standpoint, he states, “It might be instructive to ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos had landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic (after proper burial rites, of course).”(Chomsky). By putting himself in a similar situation that the people of Pakistan were in, Chomsky proves to the reader, with a satirical tone, the irony of the situation.

Noam expands upon the irony by comparing Pakistan’s Law with our Constitution. “[Pakistan’s Law] requires a colonial inquest on violent death, and international human rights law insists that the ‘right to life’ mandates an inquiry whenever violent death occurs from government or police action.”(Chomsky.) Chomsky establishes the peaceful system used by the Pakistani to contradict our actions during Operation Geronimo. “The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.”(law.cornell.edu). In other words, according to our Bill of Rights, Osama should have had the opportunity to go through a trial like anyone else.

Chomsky and Bush share neither the same tone, nor the same approach to Operation Geronimo. By considering the impact Al Qaeda had on the United States, Bush’s purpose is to protect his citizens; Chomsky, on the other hand, criticizes decisions made in the past that are considered counterproductive in the Bill of Rights.

Works Cited

Bush, George W. "President George W. Bush's Address to Congress and the Nation on Terrorism." 20 Sept. 2001. Speech.

Chomsky, Noam. "Looking Back on 9/11 a Decade Later." (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

"Sixth Amendment." Sixth Amendment. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2015.

Sorry Mr. Postman

Why are capitalism and social media to blame when the topic of language comes to mind? The answer is simple: capitalism depends on communication, and during times like this, communication depends on technology. What depends on all of these factors though, is language. Language, defined by the Webster dictionary, is “any means of conveying or communicating ideas.” (dictionary.reference.com). It wouldn’t be ignorant for one to say that language is devolving, but they would be sorely mistaken. Is language itself devolving, or is it the way we use language? Are people actually afraid that using harmless phrases such as “ttyl” at their leisure are going to cause the phrase itself lose its meaning? Will the phrase itself be disregarded as a whole, which will inevitably cause us to become mumbling robots, losing all means of communication as a whole? The obvious answer, is no (but that would be kind of cool).

From ads on twitter to discussing global marketing, capitalism and communication depend on each other and have evolved thanks to the presence of one another. According to Colin Sparks, “Web content is shaped by the dominance of business with the result that “it is the discourse of business that dominates cyberspace” (Sparks). Language is the backbone to the uproar of social media in the 21^st century in the presence of capitalism in America.

While I believe language isn’t devolving as a whole, I do believe that in grammatical terms, it should be taken seriously- especially in educational settings. Saying things like “i luv jj howard her bookz r supr rad xD” for satirical purposes in your AP language class is one thing, but allowing students to write on their tests using “text-speak” as opposed to proper English is another. Schools in New Zealand have lowered the standards of language by using shortcuts as opposed to writing out words and sentences, “ New Zealand's Qualifications Authority said Friday that it still strongly discourages students from using anything other than full English, but that credit will be given if the answer "clearly shows the required understanding," even if it contains text-speak.” (USAtoday.com). Writing with abbreviations instead of the actual word itself isn’t only ridiculous, but counterproductive.

The purpose of abbreviations, in my personal opinion, is to allow us to portray our thoughts conveniently, which sometimes results in using “lol” a little too much. In language itself though, abbreviations have a purpose. When referring to a village consisting of four houses, the author of Language in Thought and Action states, “Since this is much too complicated to say each time, an abbreviation must be invented. So we choose the noise, house. Out of such needs do our words come- they are a form of shorthand. The invention of a new abstraction is a great step forward, since it makes discussion possible,” (Hayakawa). I think one would be entitled to think that what Hayakawa was trying to say is that abbreviations simply make discussion possible.

Although people can point fingers at social media for the devolving of language, the conditions we live in today have put language to good use. From global marketing to labeling in order to avoid repeating ourselves, language should get all of the recognition for successes of the 21st century.

Works Cited

Calabrese, Andrew, and Colin Sparks. Toward a Political Economy of Culture: Capitalism and Communication in the Twenty-first Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. Print.

Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 27 Aug. 2015.

Hayakawa, S. I. Language in Thought and Action. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964. Print.

"Officials: Students Can Use 'text Speak' on Tests - USATODAY.com." Officials: Students Can Use 'text Speak' on Tests - USATODAY.com. N.p., 13 Nov. 2006. Web. 27 Aug. 2015.