This St. Louis Today article coves the rollback of Prop B that passed the Missouri Senate on Friday, subverting the will of the voters of the state, and once again putting the economic considerations of agribusiness ahead of the well-being of animals: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c424620b-4208-5f34-81e5-4ed018ceca8e.html
(btw, I am used to WordPress's much easier interface. if anyone knows how to insert links in Blogger, please let me know)
What is interesting about the article is the way it portrays the opposition to the bill as voicing "barely a whimper of dissent." This, when I know from emails I have gotten from various organizations that there were repeated citizen protests at the capitol throughout the process, both for the House and Senate versions of this bill. Perhaps the article is only talking about the senators themselves, but the silencing of the many, many (majority, in fact) who supported Prop
B, and are opposed to its obviation by this ill-conceived measure is noticeable. When this is coupled with the article's portrayal of a supporter of the bill with his dog on a bed in his office, giving the bill a "two paws up," it is, truth be told, infuriating!
So here is my "arguing differently" question: what happens to the passion when we are trying to be understanding of the opposition? I have found the tactics of big agribusiness to be odious throughout the Prop B campaign, and now they have succeeded in getting their supporters (who constitute a majority of our representatives in Jefferson City, even though the areas they represent do not constitute a majority of our state's population) to do what they could not accomplish last fall. In the midst of all this, mistreated animals seem to be left out of the equation. I am not sure I am prepared to be understanding of the message or tactics of big agribusiness here!
Much to ponder...
Monday, March 14, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Project Nim and my project
This past weekend I was privileged to attend some of the films showing at the True/False film festival here in Columbia. Among them was Project Nim, reviewed here (http://www.movieline.com/2011/01/project-nim-opens-sundance-proves-life-stranger-than-fiction.php). Unlike at Sundance (as mentioned in the review), we gave a standing ovation, particularly when we saw Nim's best caretaker/rescuer was there at the screening.
Project Nim tells the story of Nim Chimsky, a chimpanzee taken from his mother and raised by humans as part of a communication experiment in the 1970s. He learns sign language, and does indeed communicate with the humans working with him. But their own foibles, including an inability to foresee that their primate charge would soon be too physically strong for them to handle, leads to tragedy, as Nim is passed off to an increasingly grim set of prisons/laboratories. It was a stark commentary on the callous instrumentality with which humans can treat animals, at the same time that it was a fascinating look at the thought processes and emotions of one of our closest evolutionary relatives.
Maxwell asks how I will propose to speak with the voice of the animals (or ecosystem) in my semester project, and it is a good question! The proponents of biosemiotics, particularly those interested in inter-species communication, have been struggling with this issue for some time. We need to be careful of the tendency to anthropomorphize, but we also need to be aware that the traditional idea of a clear dividing line between human and animal is simply not tenable. The goal, I believe, is to see how the animal(s) can speak with their own voices, which may look very different from the way humans communicate.
I admit that I was always fascinated with animals like Nim (anyone else remember Koko the gorilla, who was also taught sign language?), but that this movie made me realize that, as fascinating as such a communication study might be, it is at far too great a cost to the animal(s). We in the U.S. currently still imprison 1200-1500 primates for experimentation, while the E.U. has outlawed such a practice. It needs to stop here too!!!
Maybe my project can contribute in some way to that cause, as I look at the way the voice of animals was portrayed in the Proposition B fight here in Missouri. But after this weekend, I wonder if the best way to contribute is to tell stories truthfully and powerfully by becoming a documentary filmmaker!
Project Nim tells the story of Nim Chimsky, a chimpanzee taken from his mother and raised by humans as part of a communication experiment in the 1970s. He learns sign language, and does indeed communicate with the humans working with him. But their own foibles, including an inability to foresee that their primate charge would soon be too physically strong for them to handle, leads to tragedy, as Nim is passed off to an increasingly grim set of prisons/laboratories. It was a stark commentary on the callous instrumentality with which humans can treat animals, at the same time that it was a fascinating look at the thought processes and emotions of one of our closest evolutionary relatives.
Maxwell asks how I will propose to speak with the voice of the animals (or ecosystem) in my semester project, and it is a good question! The proponents of biosemiotics, particularly those interested in inter-species communication, have been struggling with this issue for some time. We need to be careful of the tendency to anthropomorphize, but we also need to be aware that the traditional idea of a clear dividing line between human and animal is simply not tenable. The goal, I believe, is to see how the animal(s) can speak with their own voices, which may look very different from the way humans communicate.
I admit that I was always fascinated with animals like Nim (anyone else remember Koko the gorilla, who was also taught sign language?), but that this movie made me realize that, as fascinating as such a communication study might be, it is at far too great a cost to the animal(s). We in the U.S. currently still imprison 1200-1500 primates for experimentation, while the E.U. has outlawed such a practice. It needs to stop here too!!!
Maybe my project can contribute in some way to that cause, as I look at the way the voice of animals was portrayed in the Proposition B fight here in Missouri. But after this weekend, I wonder if the best way to contribute is to tell stories truthfully and powerfully by becoming a documentary filmmaker!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Directions for my semester project
First, a prologue: the other day a former T.A. of the writing intensive course (Comm 3050) that I am T.A.-ing this semester told me that he was surprised that the Comm Dept would have a second-year PhD student T.A. for that class because it is so work-intensive. He felt that it should only be students who are done with coursework who would be teaching a class that takes so much time. His words affirmed for me what I have been feeling this semester, which is that I seem to be a teacher first and student second. I feel constantly behind the 8-ball in my own classes, and regret that I don't currently have the mental space to be blogging all the time or daydreaming about what I might be doing for my project in English 8040.
That being said, there are a few directions that I would like to explore.
1) Part of the process of training to be a pastor is learning to listen with an open heart and mind. I was trained in Rogerian reflective listening as part of my pastoral care & counseling work, and have done some personal study of spiritual direction (I love the concept of "holy listening"). I have also had wonderful models of holy listening in mentors who have been a part of my journey. I will never forget Gordon Lathrop, my liturgy professor and chaplain at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, who likened the process of receiving and caring for people's deepest concerns to an image of carefully carrying a precious, beautiful bowl filled with milk.
It seems to me that there is something that a spiritual perspective on listening could contribute to the process of "arguing differently." If we are hoping to speak the truth in love and hear the other person's truth, so that we might come to some sort of mutual understanding, rather than just fight it out, then listening is crucial.
Heaven knows we haven't done it very well all the time in the church! One has only to witness the fights over glbt issues to see that. But the ideal is there, and dealing in ideals is often my modus operandi (just call me Platonic).
So one thought would be to do a combination of a theoretical/theological paper on the contributions of spiritual listening to the process of argumentation PLUS a curriculum for a seminary class that would explore the connections. Since I see one possible future trajectory for me being a seminary professor, that would be a useful combination. Another take on that would be to make it more pan-religious, as if I were going to teach in a department of religion at a university.
Another thought would be to make it a longer, strictly theoretical paper, aimed at the Journal of Communication and Religion, looking at the connections and discontinuities between spiritual listening and persuasive rhetoric. There is the whole history of Christian "apologetics," but truthfully studying that doesn't interest me in the least, as it tends to be the province of a particular form of fundamentalism (here are the rational reasons why my religion is better. yuck).
2) On a completely different note, I have a strong interest in environmental protection and animal rights, and have been interested for some time in developing an approach to political communication that honors what I call "the organic polis." How can we see animal and ecosystem "voices" as equally valid and honored participants in our political debates? Can "arguing differently" include those voices? Again, I would be interested in developing a theoretical paper as well as a syllabus around this set of questions.
That being said, there are a few directions that I would like to explore.
1) Part of the process of training to be a pastor is learning to listen with an open heart and mind. I was trained in Rogerian reflective listening as part of my pastoral care & counseling work, and have done some personal study of spiritual direction (I love the concept of "holy listening"). I have also had wonderful models of holy listening in mentors who have been a part of my journey. I will never forget Gordon Lathrop, my liturgy professor and chaplain at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, who likened the process of receiving and caring for people's deepest concerns to an image of carefully carrying a precious, beautiful bowl filled with milk.
It seems to me that there is something that a spiritual perspective on listening could contribute to the process of "arguing differently." If we are hoping to speak the truth in love and hear the other person's truth, so that we might come to some sort of mutual understanding, rather than just fight it out, then listening is crucial.
Heaven knows we haven't done it very well all the time in the church! One has only to witness the fights over glbt issues to see that. But the ideal is there, and dealing in ideals is often my modus operandi (just call me Platonic).
So one thought would be to do a combination of a theoretical/theological paper on the contributions of spiritual listening to the process of argumentation PLUS a curriculum for a seminary class that would explore the connections. Since I see one possible future trajectory for me being a seminary professor, that would be a useful combination. Another take on that would be to make it more pan-religious, as if I were going to teach in a department of religion at a university.
Another thought would be to make it a longer, strictly theoretical paper, aimed at the Journal of Communication and Religion, looking at the connections and discontinuities between spiritual listening and persuasive rhetoric. There is the whole history of Christian "apologetics," but truthfully studying that doesn't interest me in the least, as it tends to be the province of a particular form of fundamentalism (here are the rational reasons why my religion is better. yuck).
2) On a completely different note, I have a strong interest in environmental protection and animal rights, and have been interested for some time in developing an approach to political communication that honors what I call "the organic polis." How can we see animal and ecosystem "voices" as equally valid and honored participants in our political debates? Can "arguing differently" include those voices? Again, I would be interested in developing a theoretical paper as well as a syllabus around this set of questions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)