Posted: August 13th, 2009 | Author: buchalak | Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »
It’s almost the end of a summer with the Northwest Institute for Social Change and I’m tired. I’m exhausted. I’m worn out and should be sleeping, but there’s a kindling flame within me. Why? What has this summer taught me beyond how to sit in the same room for five hours straight – listening to three different speakers discuss the moral and political consequences of social change in media? Or switching files from WAVs to MP3s in Audacity?
This summer has taught me to question. To question everything – from the very firm ground I stand on (“How do you know that the sidewalk truly exists?) to my previously deeply embedded ideals (“Why is it wrong to craft a story that leads people to a conclusion they couldn’t have reached themselves?).
I came to this program as an idealist. It was the Northwest Institute for Social Change. I interpreted “social change” as action. Action that would improve the Portland community and therefore make the world a better place. But through my eight weeks here I’ve learned something: ideals, idealism, and action can only get you so far. Without a clear intellectual foundation of your values, how will you ever know that what you’re fighting for is right? Without a game-plan and detailed organization – how will you ever solve society’s greatest issues?
Today, I turned in a video that I created with some of the most powerful, impassioned individuals I have ever met. I have never had to explain my perspective and point of view so articulately. I have never had my actions, opinions, or statements questioned so vigorously. And you know what? I also have never learned so much. I have never been so painfully aware of the weaknesses in my logic or the irrationality of my anger.
I thought this program killed my idealism. Instead, it grounded it in reality.
We – those who are impassioned for social justice and social change – can truly make a difference. The key is to acknowledging our own weaknesses. We must be willing to hear the sound of nails on chalkboard in school, feel the greasy counter-tops of our local pub, and smell the fumes of industrialization. We must acknowledge the dilapidated state of our government, the opinionated nature of our news media, and the fact that we are trapped within a capitalistic society.
Instead of giving up and hiding from what we perceive as corruption – let us seek to understand it and fathom it’s underlying structure. Instead of escaping to the purr of the television screen or the bright colors of Facebook, let us look at the dirty newspaper lying on our doorstep.
I know that the perfect world I envision may never be realized. And perhaps that is the most beautiful blessing I could ask for…to know that although what we yearn for may never exist, but the fact that we are striving to that place, the fact that we can use our minds not only to dream, but to systematically improve our surroundings…is wonderful.
Posted: July 29th, 2009 | Author: buchalak | Filed under: Summer 2009 | Tags: framing | No Comments »
On Monday we learned a harsh truth about today’s world of politics – framing. According to Robin, my fellow student, frames are “pre-existing cognitive structures that we use to make sense of incoming information.” Frames are those biases, those lingering traces of previous experiences that are invoked when someone uses certain phrases or images. Frames are what prevent us from actively taking in information or spur us to constantly consume more information to discover the “truth.” Even now, as you read this, your pre-existing frames are absorbing some words and ideas while others simply flow through your mind – falling back into the vacancy of space.
But to the point – why do we care about “frames” in social activism? Because we were told we should use them. Because all politicians use them. The conservatives. The liberals. The anarchists. The environmentalists. Every value-group that exists in our contemporary society.
Tony Iaccarino, the current Research and Policy Director for Portland’s City Club and former professor of American History at Reed College, gave us some examples of “framing” in our three hour seminar with him on Monday. His favorite example – George Bush’s use of “permission slip” during his fourth State of the Union Address on January 20th, 2004. The exact quote:
“From the beginning, America has sought international support for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”
In other words, our former president was stating that he would not like to discuss his invasion in Iraq with the United Nations and the United States shouldn’t have to explain its motives. By using the phrase “permission slip” Bush was invoking the previous experiences of many angry parents with over-regulated and bureaucratic school systems. That or he was hoping to remind the younger generation of those times they couldn’t go to the beach because their parents hadn’t signed a piece of paper. Bush, or rather Bush’s speech writer, was toying with American emotion. He was using the frame of a “permission slip” in order to invoke an emotional rather than logical response from the American people – plunging the U.S. into war, debt, and universal hatred.
Yet Bush is not alone. Our current President Obama has recently used the term “effective government” when referring to his administration. Why? Because “big government” conjurs up Orwell’s 1984, and “limited government” frightens those fighting for universal health care.
These are gross generalizations – partially used to prompt further discussion. Just how aware are we of the “frames” in our own lives? Politics aside – what pre-existing cognitive structures do we adhere to that prevent us from deciphering our official’s words?
Think about it.
