Welcome back, Verons! It was so good to see you all this morning (even as we missed Brenda and Bekah). I'll be honest: when I woke up today I was not in the mood. But your smiling faces and serious engagement with the text reminded me of why teaching in the Vera seminar is my favorite part of my job. When I look at the syllabus brimming with creativity and critical thinking, I know I will miss some exciting weeks this spring. I wish you all the best of luck as you take the helm of the seminar and I look forward to hearing how we have some classroom legends in the making.
While there was much we didn't get to in our time discussing Grendel, it tends to lurk, rather like Grendel himself, around the margins of our subsequent conversations. Even today, we could see how Grendel's story was relevant to the effects of isolation, or to the stigma experienced by family members of criminals, or how a young "man" (?) eager to find himself might find his identity in violence, or how stories that are so attentive to some kinds of violence (it is a profound critique of war/war culture) can be rather blind to others (representation of women, for example).
I'd like at least to start off the blog by having you share something we did not get to at all: question #6. Taking either your topic for this semester or your agency, what might be a "Grendel" story? If Grendel asks us to question long-standing assumptions about the narrative of heroism (and its need for a monster), what/who would make you turn your topic on its head? What stories don't get told in the conversations surrounding your topic or within your agency? Are there things that just don't get questioned? Why might that be?
Feel free to respond briefly and then jump back in to continue the conversation with another comment later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Dear All,
It was great seeing you all today and hearing how you are growing and developing yourself (in the opposition to Grendel's mother:))))) in your internships.
I can not wait to read how you would apply Grendel's story on your work within the agencies. Unfortunately, I can not really associate my internship with any kind of ideas about heroism or the power of language. My job is reading and interpreting information, which is very interesting for me even though I do not seem to be excited about that all the time.
For me, the entire story in Grendel is about labeling. Labeling is what we are going to discuss in my class. I just want you to think about it not for the purpose of the class. We have to learn how to critically apprehend reality.
Today, people tend to put labels on anything. While discussing wether Grendel was a man or a monster, we were still attempting to put label on his character/personality. Both words are labels. People label everything today. I am getting used to the following scenario:
- Where are you from?
- I am Russian.
- Hm. You must be very stubborn and selfish.
(I am stubborn. However, Russians are not selfish at all).:)
It happens every day with everybody. Every one of us wants to be presented to the public in the nicest way possible. Some of us are constantly questioning themselves whether they do have accent or not (no matter what kind of accent: American/Different American/Russian/Latino). Others might be worried about fulfilling their gender roles. Why? Answer is easy. None wants to be labeled in one way or another. We do not like labels/stereotypes.
On the other hand, we always try to put labels on everything. Moving forward to the theme of my upcoming class, I would like to make a note that many people use this term "terrorism" using huuuuge assupmtions. Professor Waterston commented a lot on that in my paper.
What is actually terrorism? Presumably, terrorism is a violent act intended to create fear perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goals. Here is two examples of violent act, which were intended to create fear: Shooting in Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon Bombing. I believe that many of you will agree that both of this actions created fear, were violent, and were administrated for a particular purpose. There is a difference between them. One of them is being considered to be an act of terrorism and the other one was considered to be a crazy act of underdeveloped person under influence. Why labels are so different? In one case, we see an American guy who was depressed. In another story, we see two Muslims who were preparing these violent act of terrorism for the political purpose. It is important to know that during Boston bombings, three people were killed. In Sandy Hook, 27 people died. Here is the question: how just/unbiased are the labels? Should we ever consider labeling Grendel in one way or another? I do not think so. He was who he was. He killed people because it was his choice. It does not matter what has influenced his choice. He paid for it by his loneliness. Knowing the difference between right and wrong, everyone (even dog) is able to choose whether to take the risks or not.
I'm not sure I agree with Marina that it doesn't matter what influenced Grendel's choices, but I definitely think the novel explores the very real effects of labeling -- not only "monster," but "hero" and "queen," too. One of the nuances Gardner registers is that the labels can be appealing to those labeled. Of course, labels are more obviously boxes people are forced into ("terrorist"), but sometimes they are identities that give people a sense of themselves (not always in positive ways, in that Grendel found a kind of meaning in violence even as he was a poetic observer of the meaningless of violence, as well).
While I welcome you to weigh in on this, I also direct you to the original prompt about how you would apply the Grendel experiment to your own issue/agency. As Marina suggests, we'll get to tackle labels in her class in a few weeks.
Labels can be helpful. Yes. If Grendel were lucky, he might not be labeled as "monster", he might be labeled as "God". Unfortunately, he was not lucky. It is also very applicable to people:)
Marina, when you were discussing your job at Vera, I was thinking of the "Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's 1984. When thinking about question six, I found it very difficult trying to "Grendel"fy my week, which is based on Propaganda, War, and Patriotism. One very present literary work on this idea is this novel by George Orwell.
When first approaching the novel I thought it would be absolutely impossible to try and "Grendel"fy "big brother." How could a government, which is ever-watching, be redeemable? Thinking further, at the beginning of Grendel, I thought it was wholly unimaginable that my perception of Grendel as "monster" would change, and yet it had.
While I think it is difficult to justify the use of propaganda for any means, I think it is important to look at the reasoning behind its employment. For example, what if "Big Brother" was using propaganda out of fear of another war? The novel took place post World War II. Perhaps, "Big Brother" thought that a strict government such as the one found in 1984 would protect his people from violence and bloodshed. I believe that if readers were presented with the feelings and motivations of "Big Brother," there might be a different opinion of the novel, and maybe even an understanding of the reasoning behind the use of propaganda.
For Professor Reitz's question: I think there are many ways in which I could relate Grendel to my agency. However, one point of the novel that seems to be most present at my agency would be this idea of a "story behind the perpetrator."Monica said in class that "stories resist binaries" and I think this is something which my agency tries to do. It is very easy to label defendants as unsalvageable given extensive rapsheets and sometimes heinous crimes. CJA attempts to give a story to the judge to give him/her a deeper understanding of the person they are seeing. However, the amount of information given to the judge can also be detrimental to the defendant. There are very strict questions, which leaves very little room for the judge to actually find out who the defendant is. Here, we fall back into this binary. Labeling: the good vs. evil. While the report can help the defendant, it could also hurt his case because of the concise questions asked.
Here I see the message of the dragon. While we may try to change the cycle of violence and recidivism, will our actions (creating interviews to help defendants) change the destined outcome? Or will society create another way to demonize this underrepresented group???
Sorry to be cynical!
Lauren, I love how you get to the Dragon!
While some ideas are harder to "Grendel" than others, I think we would all agree that there are multiple sides to every story. Lauren, your discussion of the impact of WW2 on people's understanding of violence, government, safety reminded me of HUNGER GAMES. Anyone? I'm a huge fan, but part of what is so devastating about the third book is how she asks you to justify things (propaganda, violence) for one side and slowly makes you (a.k.a. Katniss) realize that you have come to accept what you cannot accept.
How about that Shaper? That "character" hasn't figured much in these discussions, but I think he/it is a most important figure in the story, past and present:
Marina: "My job is reading and interpreting information." Who or what shapes what is important to read. What informs your interpretation of information?
Lauren: "I found it very difficult trying to "Grendel"fy my week, which is [about] Propaganda, War, and Patriotism." What does the Shaper have to do with patriotism (Not to mention war, not to mention propaganda)?
Such an interesting discussion. I love it that you're asking about The Shaper Prof AW. It's great metaphor for the media arm of the government. The story we tell has such power! The link that Marina makes to Labeling Theory and Lauren to propaganda are excellent insights and foreshadowing for your classes. I find it odd that both students are saying so far that Grendel doesn't really apply directly to your agency. Even if you're not doing direct service the concept of a "Grendel" is the impetus for the entire criminal justice system. The construct of "criminal."
I was struck when I worked in juvenile justice how often jaws dropped when I said I worked in jails for youth. "That must be SO scary!" "How do you work with Those people?!" I encountered such genius working with youth. The voices, the humanity of the youth inspired every career choice since.
Think about how the people served by your agency are referred to. How do the staff and administration define the populations? What stories are told? What's the narrative about the people served? How do we perpetuate and challenge these narratives? How do these notions have long term effects?
Also dive into this hero construct. Non-profit agencies are notorious for having messianic complexes- being more concerned about "saving" people, enabling, rather than actually transforming conditions. Non-profits are also often the actual underdog heroes that are unique in advocating for the needs of people perceived as the Grendels. What role does "heroism" play in service provision at your agency? How does it play out in the culture of your agency?
Reading and analyzing information is not very easy. We all know that. I am assigned to go through enormous numbers of sources with completely different approaches to the issue. However, while writing my lit.reviews, my job is to compare and contrast different points of view. Basically, I do not feel any influence on what I have to read and what I do not have to read. However, I do learn how to think critically about this issues, which is usually not welcome in my work placement. Research is a very biased process. Even while people try to compare different points of views, it is still very biased. For example, the reason why Africana studies emerge is that white researchers were not able to represent the history of Africa, African culture, and everything related in a way that African people would accept. That is in my view is the main problem of research process. Every researcher is trying to explain in details why his/her opinion is the best, basically. That is why, it is so complicated to consider every point of view.
Shaper is the most interesting personality in the book, for me. This person might have no knowledge about anything. Even more, he might never compare different points of view while making conclusions. However, people listen to them. Why? Basically, he says what people love to hear. It is politics. The power of language may bring someone anywhere if you master in handling this power.
I feel that binaries are such a pervasive part of our lives that is hard to not think in terms of them. From filing out forms to visiting public restrooms, binaries are necessary, yet they can be very destructive to the lives of some (transgenders, criminals etc.) They’re convenient and give us the perception of neatness (either you’re this or that) and excuse us from confronting messy realities that conflict with our mostly dearly held beliefs. For instance, would recognizing the humanity in a monster like Grendel inadvertently force humans to recognize the monstrosity in themselves? The latter does not come naturally to us; we like to think we’re morally virtuous, so we tend to “other” people by demonizing them. For instance Zimmerman characterized Travyon Martin as being, "suspicious-looking", "up to no good" and "looked like he was on drugs." Darren Wilson too, described Michael Brown as monster with incredible strength. When the two black men, tried to protest their innocence and explain their side of the story, they were met with brutal force. This is very reminiscent of the two encounters that Grendel had with the humans.
Going back to Lauren’s cynicism about the fact that there will always be a way society demonizes certain groups, I feel that there needs to be mass education about people who cannot be neatly categorized into black or white boxes, those who dwell in the grey areas. The projects at Vera understand the need to change public opinion and their publications reflect that agenda. In Grendel, the Shaper creates a worldview that valorizes the humans and demonizes the monster. Vera’s publications strive to represent reality as objectively as possible (even though the agenda might be to improve the lives of the disadvantaged and neglected).
The “Grendel” of the Pathways Project would be the incarcerated individuals who are deemed by the public as undeserving of free college education. To some extent, Grendel is the way he is because he was not given a chance by the humans who don’t make the effort to learn his story or communicate with him in any meaningful way. In the same way, society in general perceives of the incarcerated as lacking any aspirations for a better life, so we continue to deprive them of resources that would allow them to do so. Based on the personal stories I have heard at my agency, education has the power to transform the identity of incarcerated folk from holders of criminal records to holders of college degrees. In a sense, Pathways acts as the Shaper for the incarcerated by giving them a new label to define themselves when they reenter society, one that leads to integration instead of isolation.
I am so glad the conversation turned to the issues of categorizing people into boxes and overgeneralizing them with labels. My topic is closely related to this issue. Latino/as have a certain image in the United States that results in the discrimination and ignorance of the public. The media portrays the Latino/a as vibrant, hot, curvy, dancer, happy. They are most of the time light skinned and long dark hair (Sofia Vergara anyone?). In the political debate, however, Latino/as are an issue. They are the immigrants invading the country and they are often portrayed as Native American looking or "Mexicans". In reality, Latino/as are as diverse as one can imagine. We are a spectrum of African descent, Native American descent, Spaniard, English, French, Euro Descent. Our cultures vary in garments, languages, foods, etc. This image, one can argue, is a result of the "Shaper" in the United States, the media. While Latino/as can be considered the "Grendel".
My topic focuses on the issues of race among Latino/as, a historical issue that has excluded and discriminated against Latino/as of African Descent and who after migrating to the United States experience an even more extensive sense of exclusion. I will be looking into the racial "boxes" and categorization in the U.S and how they create a feeling of exclusion among Latino/as.
I think the discussion I want to have is the "Grendel" aspect of it. We will be dis-constructing labels by analyzing how the Black/white racial categorizing excludes a growing number of people from properly identifying themselves.
I like how Gina mentioned Trayvon Martin because this is also the case with Latino/as who are targeted by immigration. In my agency, we do not closely deal with I.C.E injustices because we live in a pretty liberal state in regards to immigration. However, in states like Arizona, Latino/as are highly profiled as "illegal", but again race is a determining factor. Latino/as with blue eyes and blonde hair are not targeted, but rather the short man or woman with Native American features.
There is a Grendel to every story and in order to fix our broken immigration system, we must first educate the "Shaper" on who Grendel really is.
Marina, thank you for mentioning “labels” and “stereotypes.” I agree with you when you mentioned that “people tend to put labels.” We do this all the time. When people see an immigrant, an African American, or a person with tattoos we make assumptions about what type of people they are. Why do we get to so many conclusions with so little information? In my placement, I have met we many participants that are eager to get their lives back and to provide to their families but some of them feel frustrated because how difficult it is to get a job. How discouraging can be for a participant who just got out of jail to go to three different interviews in a week without being able to get a job. Just as in Grendel, participants at CEO try to either give meaning to their lives or change the meaning they were giving to their lives before.
One of the ways I could relate Grendel to CEO is in the many connections/interactions with different people/stakeholders (i.e. Job coaches, Live Skills Trainer, Business Management Account, Parole Officers, Supervisors at the worksites, and many more) that participants have. For instance, the live skills trainers may try to encourage participants to put all the effort possible to succeed in the program, they could also guarantee participants that they will gain control of their lives after completing the program. Although they could represent the Dragon, and advise the participants to “seek out gold and sit on it”, It will be the participants’ decision to follow the advice.
First of all! Yes Professor Waterston Yes! I agree completely. The Shaper is the most influential character in "Grendel". I think without the Shaper Grendel may have never felt the need to interact and mess with the humans. He is the driving point for the story!
I really had an issue trying to Grendelize my topic, not because it was hard to do but because I was uncomfortable with the concept. With my topic, the sexual rights of individuals with developmental disabilities, I truely believe the of perspective that really matters to the conversation is the perspective of the individuals whose rights are being oppressed! So I refused to Grendelize my topic. However, I decided to grendelize my fellowship. From the normal perspective, people with developmental disability are innocent and helpless. People believe that anything bad that they do is purely the result of their disability. In public opinion all people with disabilities are all the same vanilla personality and unlike other people it is not allowed to dislike a person with a developmental disability. But that is not true. People with disabilities are just like people without a disability, we ALL have our own personalities and opinions. Not everyone's personalities mesh. You still need treat everyone well whether they have have a disability or not, but you do not have to like everyone in real life. I have realized this doing my special project last semester. People with disabilities can be mean, pushy, entiltled, racist and horrible and it has nothing to d with their disability. Looking through this lens the story changes completely. Just so everyone knows Im exaggerating my experience, the individual i work with is not "horrible" and I dont hate her but she is not sweet, innocent or helpless. Her personality is not pleasant and it has nothing to do with her disability.
Danyeli. Am not sure what you mean by "educate" the Shaper. Don't you think the Shaper knows darn well what tales he is weaving? Is it about "educating" the Shaper or EXPOSING the Shaper, and the Shaper's tales for what they are: "just so stories."?????
Danyeli and Arturo- YES. Just yes.
To add to the idea of labeling I think it's a huge issue with juveniles. In simultaneously thinking about both my placement and my topic for seminar it's the same exact thing. We use label to categorize and organize people/places/things/subjects.
The students at CASES are labeled because of their involvement with the criminal justice system.
There's a set up where (mostly) black and brown men are criminalized and stereotyped as dangerous, bad, "thugs", street-smart, scary etc.. This is about race, class, gender, and presumed socioeconomic status among other things. What's bizarre is that if we didn't have these categories how would be organize the world? Can we really say that we'd be able to successfully act as social beings if we didn't have all this information to go off? I think I've referenced this video before but it never hurts to watch something twice. It's a Ted talk about prejudices by a social psychologist
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_can_prejudice_ever_be_a_good_thing
Grendel for me would be the young men and women (usually black and brown men) at CASES who are boxed and categorized based on a decision and an interaction with a institution that in some cases (if they do happen to be people of color) was not build to serve them justice. Grendel in this story was judged on ONE interaction with humans and was forever labeled... just like the students. These biases are all interconnected with my topic. We perpetuate these beliefs/prejudices. Poor Grendel was demonized and criminalized... sort of like black/brown kids.
We also have horrible binaries. These are a big part of the poison that fuels all these problematic beliefs. Stories resist those. There are no black and white. There is only grey.
Education... is the tool we can use to change the world. Once we deconstruct and unlearn all these problematic beliefs - maybe, then maybe, there can be justice.
In regards to my topic of “Police Brutality against the youth of colors”, one aspect of this topic that does not receive much attention is that of the political message behind the killing of most of these youth. Keeping Ferguson and New York in mind, I want us to turn our attention towards the ongoing protests against the current government in Kinshasa, DRC. Recently, Congolese youths most of them college student, protested against a bill that will revised the electoral process and grant the president the right to serve an additional third term to the 15 years that he has been in power. Since the protest began, 142 people have already been killed by the Police. In addition, the government has shut down the internet and banned access to any social media.
On this issue of police brutality, I see three factors that facilitate the victimization of young black men and avert our attention from questioning other aspects of the story. The first one being the representation or labeling of young black men as criminals by the media. The killing of Eric Gardner-the news started by saying that a black man who was selling looses. Why not say, a father of six who had once worked for the New York Department of Park and Recreation? And this was also the case for Michael brown- he robbed a grocery store. Why not say that he had just graduated from High School. Same case in the DRC, the government has claimed that those protesters are hooligans. Why not mention, that they are patriots who are fighting for the future of their nation. In Grendel, this was the perception that the Shaper help spread on Grendel’s identity among the Danes.
The second issue is the justification of the killing. The idea that we have been showed is that “Since they are criminals, therefore we have the right to kill them.” In the Grendel’s story, this is the position that the Shaper holds in the Danes society in regards to Grendel. He leads them to believe that Grendel is a monster that should be cast away from society. Similarly, the system that we live in today leads us to believe that these youths are evil and we should get rid off them from our society, either through killing or mass incarceration.
Another aspect of the story that does not get told is the political message behind most of these killings. In Kinshasa for instance, one way that the government has been able to maintain its oppressive system is through the use of terror. First by killing youths in public places such as universities and the massive arrest of those who dared to raise a whisper against the government. Similarly, in the U.S, when protests erupted over the killing of Eric Gardner and Michael Brown, those protesters were labeled as rioters and were massively arrested. These arrests served as a warning to the rest. Sending the message that, force will be used against those who oppose the system.
Freedom of expression is one fundamental right that is dear to every American citizen. In the 17th century, Founding fathers were not afraid to express their disagreement towards the oppressive system that England had imposed on the U.S. and yet they are remembered as heroes and celebrated as freedom fighters. The question now is, how are those protesters in New York and Ferguson are going to be remembered? Are they Heroes, as they followed the American traditions of fighting for ones right? Or, as troublemakers and rebels as the media portrays them today?
I truly enjoyed reading how each of you related Grendel to your seminar. I am upset that I was unable to make it to class due to the "blizzard". Anyways, reading Grendel and how closely relates to my seminar of Silence and Voice. Throughout the tale there is a recurring theme of isolation, disconnect and labeling (as mentioned previously)
At my agency many of the customers are misinterpreted. There is a lot of disconnect between the account managers and the customers. Many times the workers just know of the individuals file but not of the personal and societal struggles that the customer experiences on a daily bases. One prime example is that many of the customers are homeless and are court involved. When they are applying for jobs they are constantly labeled as "bad people". It would be interesting to learn more of the customers perspective and to understand how they feel. Like Grendel, there is a lot of judgement.
As always, interesting, passionate discussion. But I'm going to circle back and re-ask my question: what happens when the label becomes an identity? An action as much as a re-action?
I would also re-ask Professor Rose's question about the label "hero" and how this eagerly-embraced identity affects social justice work. We never address this directly in our discussion of the Sturz book, but I very much think Sutrz's pragmatism is in part an effective antidote to non-profit hero complexes.
I also can't help but ask, Is there anything Grendel could have done differently to create a positive relationship to the community? In the juvenile justice field, this is a therapeutic tool used with families after a crisis in order to create future stability. If you could go back in his story where could the shift have taken place to actually create the outcome he initially hoped for, to connect positively with the humans? What would you specifically change in the narrative?
I'm really bummed I couldn't make it to the class last week, seems like the conversation that was had would have helped me immensely in understanding why this book was assigned. I actually was closing in on the grendel as "big brother" thread while reading it but I shut myself down once I started comparing grendel to the US in the vietnam war ( a scenario in which the villages of Grendels time were the villages in vietnam and cambodia and the US was the senseless killer) because I thought I was going overboard in my anti-american government ideology.
I did feel immensely for Grendel as a character. He wanted so badly to not be alone, to be accepted by the townspeople or even his mother. I saw in him the same sort of social restrictions or expectations that limit the folks who form most of our client pools in our internships. but above all I felt sickened by the narrative of heroism that pervaded the story. At my placement I am surrounded by heroes. Case managers, social workers, directors etc who appear (appear is crucial because I cannot claim to know the truths of their heart by merely watching their interactions)to believe that they are heroes- the saviors of the clients without whom they would be doomed to misery and misfortune. The hero narrative in my internship has far greater negative consequences then it had in Grendel, but the ideology remains. My seminar will go in depth in an effort to tear down this ideology.
The Shaper is Media, it is advertising, news, music, movies, television series, political talking heads- we are tremendously "shaped" just as the townspeople were, by the stories we hear from the powers that be.
(Danyeli, yes. The shaper is social constructions, limitations, expectations)
It would be very interesting to read Brazilan writer Jose Saramago's Gospel According to Jesus Christ in conjunction with Grendel. It's about how "God" and "The Devil" "pimp" Jesus out to fulfill their agenda. I highly recommend it to our Verons interested in how religion is used as propaganda.
Post a Comment