Seems like lately I am reading a lot of (mostly justified) outrage on facebook: the senate, fracking, Rob Ford etc. It's so easy to despair, with the constant stream of bad news.
Yet I also feel an undercurrent of small positive changes is taking place in how people relate to each other and the planet. If you are sad about the state of the world, try reading the introduction to this book. It's a great perspective that holds the two in balance.
Yesterday, I listened to an audiobook about how to be more effective at work (hint: no meetings!) and one the things that jumped out at me was the author's statement about culture. He said:
You can't create a culture. Culture is formed from repeated behaviour.
He then went on to give the example that if you're taught to share when you're a kid, you grow up with a culture of sharing. Which made me think: what kind of culture do I live in, and what kinds of cultures do I reinforce every day with my actions?
I was talking to a gentleman last weekend at Music NB about how difficult it has been for Saint John to support a live music venue. He remarked that he didn't feel anglo culture was as "collegial" as Acadian culture, and I would tend to agree with that.
Part of what Tracy and I are trying to do with our business is to create a cultural space where people can be creative, and where ideas out of the mainstream can take root. In practice, this is a very difficult task, one I will be puzzling over for a while to come.
One of the biggest questions I am dealing with right now is how to get people to work together, how to make it practical and natural for people to support each other and build a resilient community. There is loads of potential, and I think these questions are on the minds of many people. The journey continues.
Saturday, November 02, 2013
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Is the Internet really a game changer?
I realize the irony of putting this topic out for discussion online, but that's kinda the point of this one.
I've spent three of the past six weekends at various provincial AGM's - for ArtsLink NB, the Union of NB Municipalities, and Music NB weekend. At home, normally I'm on the organizational side of events, so it's been interesting to be a fly-on-the-wall at these meetings.
A few observations:
1. It's increasingly important to speak both English and French or at least have a decent working knowledge of both official languages. Especially in the cultural sector, because the Acadian community is so organized and we in Anglo NB have much to learn from them.
2. The biggest challenges to our successes in NB - regardless of industry - are geography and communication. It's extremely difficult to keep people in the loop, even with today's social networks and communication technology, in a province where people are so spread out.
Add to that the fact that most people go about their day-to-day routines trying to block out excess information in our media-saturated environment, and the result is that people who have common economic or organizational interests are frequently isolated from each other.
3. On the other hand, finding information is easier than ever, for people who go looking. This means that challenging official narratives and information - shale gas being an important case in point - is being done more frequently.
At these events, I am often the only person from rural western New Brunswick. Sometimes I find people from the cities have a tendency to explain things to me that I am already aware of, because I read it online. I read a lot online, mostly because I am too endlessly fascinated by how the world works to quit.
Sometimes I would like to tell these people that "we have the same Internet in Woodstock."
This leads me to wonder: is the internet really a game changer? ie. Will having access to lots of information really help people in rural areas and small towns be more self-sufficient, better citizens, and create thriving centers of cultural and economic innovation?
Or is it the old maxim "it's not what you know, it's who you know" still true?
I have to admit, I feel like meeting two or three good new contacts accomplishes a lot more than being alone in a room, reading a screen.
I can see how people want to share information and work together, and the internet does facilitate those kinds of collaborations. However, I don't think it can ever replace the social ties and weak social capital that come from random encounters with colleagues (I met someone I'd been trying to meet in an elevator at one of the conferences - finally) or being in the same room when a major announcement is made.
Does the internet help us build communities based on common interests? Or does it just isolate us more?
I've spent three of the past six weekends at various provincial AGM's - for ArtsLink NB, the Union of NB Municipalities, and Music NB weekend. At home, normally I'm on the organizational side of events, so it's been interesting to be a fly-on-the-wall at these meetings.
A few observations:
1. It's increasingly important to speak both English and French or at least have a decent working knowledge of both official languages. Especially in the cultural sector, because the Acadian community is so organized and we in Anglo NB have much to learn from them.
2. The biggest challenges to our successes in NB - regardless of industry - are geography and communication. It's extremely difficult to keep people in the loop, even with today's social networks and communication technology, in a province where people are so spread out.
Add to that the fact that most people go about their day-to-day routines trying to block out excess information in our media-saturated environment, and the result is that people who have common economic or organizational interests are frequently isolated from each other.
3. On the other hand, finding information is easier than ever, for people who go looking. This means that challenging official narratives and information - shale gas being an important case in point - is being done more frequently.
At these events, I am often the only person from rural western New Brunswick. Sometimes I find people from the cities have a tendency to explain things to me that I am already aware of, because I read it online. I read a lot online, mostly because I am too endlessly fascinated by how the world works to quit.
Sometimes I would like to tell these people that "we have the same Internet in Woodstock."
This leads me to wonder: is the internet really a game changer? ie. Will having access to lots of information really help people in rural areas and small towns be more self-sufficient, better citizens, and create thriving centers of cultural and economic innovation?
Or is it the old maxim "it's not what you know, it's who you know" still true?
I have to admit, I feel like meeting two or three good new contacts accomplishes a lot more than being alone in a room, reading a screen.
I can see how people want to share information and work together, and the internet does facilitate those kinds of collaborations. However, I don't think it can ever replace the social ties and weak social capital that come from random encounters with colleagues (I met someone I'd been trying to meet in an elevator at one of the conferences - finally) or being in the same room when a major announcement is made.
Does the internet help us build communities based on common interests? Or does it just isolate us more?
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Problem solvers wanted
We all have problems. Sometimes, big problems. And in my short 18 months on the Woodstock Town Council, I have noticed that we hear from people mostly when they have a problem.
Being an elected representative is pretty interesting, but you start to grow a thick skin, because you become a bit of a magnet for angry people.
I can identify with the 'angry person' camp, but now that I have a small role to play in local decision-making, I see how raw anger is really only the first stage in solving a problem.
It's a natural way for people to get motivated to speak up that something is wrong, but being angry on its own does very little to correct the situation and often serves to demoralize the other people involved.
Today I spent about five hours in various meetings related to how to improve Woodstock's downtown. It was very heartening, despite the challenges that exist. I find it really heartening to be in an environment where local people can speak frankly about problems that they see, with the goal of moving towards collective action and possible solutions. If local people don't take responsibility for solving local problems, do we really think that higher levels of government can do a better job? I have my doubts.
I wish our society had better methods of collective problem solving, and that we could value the process of getting together to improve things for the common good. We should encourage our young people to learn and practice good problem-solving skills.
It's not easy, solving real-life problems. Most of the time, solutions can't simply be purchased, they have to be tailored to fit the particular local circumstances at hand. This requires creativity, compromise, putting aside one's biases and learning to listen to other viewpoints.
The five hours I spent today are a fraction of the real time it's going to take to make a significant impact on the issues in downtown Woodstock. But it's a reminder that change occurs when real people have a shared interest and are willing to set aside their differences and work together on something that matters to them.
Too often we forget that, and take our metaphorical toys and "go home" because we do not feel able to be part of a constructive proccess. It's tempting to say screw it, but in the end, we all lose. Anything worth having, is worth speaking up for, and is worth solving a few problems along the way.
Being an elected representative is pretty interesting, but you start to grow a thick skin, because you become a bit of a magnet for angry people.
I can identify with the 'angry person' camp, but now that I have a small role to play in local decision-making, I see how raw anger is really only the first stage in solving a problem.
It's a natural way for people to get motivated to speak up that something is wrong, but being angry on its own does very little to correct the situation and often serves to demoralize the other people involved.
Today I spent about five hours in various meetings related to how to improve Woodstock's downtown. It was very heartening, despite the challenges that exist. I find it really heartening to be in an environment where local people can speak frankly about problems that they see, with the goal of moving towards collective action and possible solutions. If local people don't take responsibility for solving local problems, do we really think that higher levels of government can do a better job? I have my doubts.
I wish our society had better methods of collective problem solving, and that we could value the process of getting together to improve things for the common good. We should encourage our young people to learn and practice good problem-solving skills.
It's not easy, solving real-life problems. Most of the time, solutions can't simply be purchased, they have to be tailored to fit the particular local circumstances at hand. This requires creativity, compromise, putting aside one's biases and learning to listen to other viewpoints.
The five hours I spent today are a fraction of the real time it's going to take to make a significant impact on the issues in downtown Woodstock. But it's a reminder that change occurs when real people have a shared interest and are willing to set aside their differences and work together on something that matters to them.
Too often we forget that, and take our metaphorical toys and "go home" because we do not feel able to be part of a constructive proccess. It's tempting to say screw it, but in the end, we all lose. Anything worth having, is worth speaking up for, and is worth solving a few problems along the way.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Thirty-something and seeking change
Lots on my mind lately, not much time to digest those thoughts...so many tasks at hand.
But lately I am feeling a bit out of touch with the currents of change, which for some strange reason are very important to me.
I would really like to figure out a way to get the next generation of young people involved with cultural change in my community. I can think of loads of things they might be interested in : starting a community radio station, contributing to the Dooryard Arts Festival music lineup, organizing a Freeschool event, the list goes on....the potential is limitless and I'm sure these energetic twentysomethings will have loads of other great ideas too.
I don't want to get stuck in a rut and always think the same thoughts and talk to the same people...
But lately I am feeling a bit out of touch with the currents of change, which for some strange reason are very important to me.
I would really like to figure out a way to get the next generation of young people involved with cultural change in my community. I can think of loads of things they might be interested in : starting a community radio station, contributing to the Dooryard Arts Festival music lineup, organizing a Freeschool event, the list goes on....the potential is limitless and I'm sure these energetic twentysomethings will have loads of other great ideas too.
I don't want to get stuck in a rut and always think the same thoughts and talk to the same people...
Friday, June 07, 2013
Losing Our Voices
We teach a lot of people to sing.
Which is to say, we attempt to assist a lot of people who claim to want to sing.
We give advice. We cajole and reassure. We demonstrate, and encourage, and smile, and give feedback in an attempt for our students to attain some knowledge about what they are doing (physically) and why they sound the way they do.
It's a very difficult task, for a couple of reasons.
First, the voice is the most personal of instruments. You can't see it, you can't tune it artificially, and you can't trade it in for a newer, or older, or more expensive, or more 'vintage' voice. You play the vocal cards you're dealt, friends, and sometimes that can be tough. If you want to change your voice, you have to do the work. The long, complicated, frustrating, joyful and oftentimes lonely work.
Second, our society, in my opinion, does not value authentic voices, and by that I mean "voices that are not contrived to sound a particular way that the performer assumes the listener will like". We all have unique bodies. Therefore we all have unique voices, because our voices are embodied. We are afraid to stand apart from the herd, or to sound differently.
We now live in an era where women in popular music sing in a similar range to men - Carrie Underwood - and men rarely sing down in their lower registers - no more Johnny Cash. Sopranos (with the notable exception of Alison Kraus) and basses are a thing of the past.
Third, as a consequence of #1 and #2, people are so hesitant to sing. They do not trust their bodies, and they do not trust their voices. They are afraid to be heard, and to take the physical and emotional risks it entails to make a sound and have someone hear it.
It is heartbreaking.
We regularly see parents seeking music instruction for their children. These people are lovely people whose intentions are heartfelt. But they won't sing with their own kids, so their children never learn to vocalise in a manner that resembles singing, because the parents are too afraid.
I often wonder if there is a connection between this lack of singing and the larger public ambivalence we see - very few people will speak up when 'the powers that be' overstep their bounds, and people seem incredibly reluctant to add their voices to the public discourse on many issues.
It brings to mind sayings involving singing and birds. The first is from a novel by Farley Mowat, which I have not read, and yet, somehow I seemed to know. Apparently this novel is a fictionalized account of the Italian campaign to liberate Italy from facism during WWII:
"I was staring down a vertiginous tunnel where all was black and bloody and the great wind of ultimate desolation howled and hungered. I was alone....relentlessly alone in a world I never knew....and no birds sang."
Lately I have been waking in the early morning hours, hearing the birds, and falling back asleep again. Many composers (notably Mozart and Messiaen) were student of birdsong. The second quote was often found at the bottom of one of my professor's emails during university. This particular professor was eminently practical, and understood the beauty of choral music: the whole is more than the sum of its parts
"Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." Henry VanDyke
Which is to say, we attempt to assist a lot of people who claim to want to sing.
We give advice. We cajole and reassure. We demonstrate, and encourage, and smile, and give feedback in an attempt for our students to attain some knowledge about what they are doing (physically) and why they sound the way they do.
It's a very difficult task, for a couple of reasons.
First, the voice is the most personal of instruments. You can't see it, you can't tune it artificially, and you can't trade it in for a newer, or older, or more expensive, or more 'vintage' voice. You play the vocal cards you're dealt, friends, and sometimes that can be tough. If you want to change your voice, you have to do the work. The long, complicated, frustrating, joyful and oftentimes lonely work.
Second, our society, in my opinion, does not value authentic voices, and by that I mean "voices that are not contrived to sound a particular way that the performer assumes the listener will like". We all have unique bodies. Therefore we all have unique voices, because our voices are embodied. We are afraid to stand apart from the herd, or to sound differently.
We now live in an era where women in popular music sing in a similar range to men - Carrie Underwood - and men rarely sing down in their lower registers - no more Johnny Cash. Sopranos (with the notable exception of Alison Kraus) and basses are a thing of the past.
Third, as a consequence of #1 and #2, people are so hesitant to sing. They do not trust their bodies, and they do not trust their voices. They are afraid to be heard, and to take the physical and emotional risks it entails to make a sound and have someone hear it.
It is heartbreaking.
We regularly see parents seeking music instruction for their children. These people are lovely people whose intentions are heartfelt. But they won't sing with their own kids, so their children never learn to vocalise in a manner that resembles singing, because the parents are too afraid.
I often wonder if there is a connection between this lack of singing and the larger public ambivalence we see - very few people will speak up when 'the powers that be' overstep their bounds, and people seem incredibly reluctant to add their voices to the public discourse on many issues.
It brings to mind sayings involving singing and birds. The first is from a novel by Farley Mowat, which I have not read, and yet, somehow I seemed to know. Apparently this novel is a fictionalized account of the Italian campaign to liberate Italy from facism during WWII:
"I was staring down a vertiginous tunnel where all was black and bloody and the great wind of ultimate desolation howled and hungered. I was alone....relentlessly alone in a world I never knew....and no birds sang."
Lately I have been waking in the early morning hours, hearing the birds, and falling back asleep again. Many composers (notably Mozart and Messiaen) were student of birdsong. The second quote was often found at the bottom of one of my professor's emails during university. This particular professor was eminently practical, and understood the beauty of choral music: the whole is more than the sum of its parts
"Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." Henry VanDyke
Friday, March 29, 2013
More on college
Here's an update - an encouraging look at what happened when the kids mentioned below received a substantial amount of information about colleges, prices and application procedures.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
I think I can
Some friends have been asking if my blog is dead... and just when I thought I had nothing more to say, I read this very interesting study. It says that low-income students who are high achievers don't typically even apply to top US colleges.
So what? No big surprise there, for a number of reasons: college is substantially more expensive at these institutions, and students from low-income families are often needed at home to help out, whether financially, or to care for other family members. Or, these students do not even know anyone who has ever attended a selective elite college.
But, surprisingly, the study, which involved every high school student who took the SAT last year, also found that when these students do attend top colleges:
high-achieving, low-income students tend to thrive there, the paper found. Based on the most recent data, 89 percent of such students at selective colleges had graduated or were on pace to do so, compared with only 50 percent of top low-income students at nonselective colleges.
I find this galvanizing, for several reasons. First, because I believe the education system tends to be biased towards people coming from middle class and wealthy families. I don't believe this is necessarily intentional, but is the result of teachers coming from these backgrounds, and the overall design of the system (curriculum, testing, etc.).
As John Mighton puts it in his fabulous book "The Myth of Ability," our society has largely accepted the notion that intelligence is an innate gift, not something that comes through good teaching and individual practice. This bias, along with children from low-income families being less "ready" for school in the early years, we sometimes mistakenly accept the conclusion wealthier families have "smarter" children.
However, when we acknowledge that all children are equally intelligent and that a child's economic class should not be a limiting factor in their education, we can see the low-income, high achieving students who are encouraged to apply to top universities excel in that environment. The role of parents, teachers, community mentors and guidance counsellors is clear: encourage these young people to aim high. They can do it.
Another interesting facet of this study: the vast majority of these students (nearly 70%) are white.
Affirmative action in the the US is currently defined by race, and indeed, this ought to be a component of the criteria. But in an era where social inequality is rapidly increasing, kids from poor white families are not able to access the same educational (and thus, financial) advantages as their wealthier counterparts. I am not minimizing the need for affirmative action based on race, but at the same time, the social barriers faced by working class white families are intense, and perhaps it's time for "affirmative action" to be reformulated as a combination of known barriers, race and class included.
If you are interested in this topic, I would also recommend reading Richard Sennett's excellent book "The Hidden Injuries of Class," which takes a great account-based look at working class families, their educational decisions, and why they tend to, as noted in the Times article "stay local" instead of embracing upward mobility and leaving their families behind.
It is refreshing to see a study that takes a look at a very under-studied group of students: high achievers from low-income families. It reminds us that all humans are capable of achieving a meaningful education, but that the choice to take advantage of that opportunity depends in large part on whether we are encouraged to do so by our peers and by our elders.
So what? No big surprise there, for a number of reasons: college is substantially more expensive at these institutions, and students from low-income families are often needed at home to help out, whether financially, or to care for other family members. Or, these students do not even know anyone who has ever attended a selective elite college.
But, surprisingly, the study, which involved every high school student who took the SAT last year, also found that when these students do attend top colleges:
high-achieving, low-income students tend to thrive there, the paper found. Based on the most recent data, 89 percent of such students at selective colleges had graduated or were on pace to do so, compared with only 50 percent of top low-income students at nonselective colleges.
I find this galvanizing, for several reasons. First, because I believe the education system tends to be biased towards people coming from middle class and wealthy families. I don't believe this is necessarily intentional, but is the result of teachers coming from these backgrounds, and the overall design of the system (curriculum, testing, etc.).
As John Mighton puts it in his fabulous book "The Myth of Ability," our society has largely accepted the notion that intelligence is an innate gift, not something that comes through good teaching and individual practice. This bias, along with children from low-income families being less "ready" for school in the early years, we sometimes mistakenly accept the conclusion wealthier families have "smarter" children.
However, when we acknowledge that all children are equally intelligent and that a child's economic class should not be a limiting factor in their education, we can see the low-income, high achieving students who are encouraged to apply to top universities excel in that environment. The role of parents, teachers, community mentors and guidance counsellors is clear: encourage these young people to aim high. They can do it.
Another interesting facet of this study: the vast majority of these students (nearly 70%) are white.
Affirmative action in the the US is currently defined by race, and indeed, this ought to be a component of the criteria. But in an era where social inequality is rapidly increasing, kids from poor white families are not able to access the same educational (and thus, financial) advantages as their wealthier counterparts. I am not minimizing the need for affirmative action based on race, but at the same time, the social barriers faced by working class white families are intense, and perhaps it's time for "affirmative action" to be reformulated as a combination of known barriers, race and class included.
If you are interested in this topic, I would also recommend reading Richard Sennett's excellent book "The Hidden Injuries of Class," which takes a great account-based look at working class families, their educational decisions, and why they tend to, as noted in the Times article "stay local" instead of embracing upward mobility and leaving their families behind.
It is refreshing to see a study that takes a look at a very under-studied group of students: high achievers from low-income families. It reminds us that all humans are capable of achieving a meaningful education, but that the choice to take advantage of that opportunity depends in large part on whether we are encouraged to do so by our peers and by our elders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)