Swimming with the Fishes

We've had Witches, Sorcerers, and Vampires. Why not add Gangsters to the mix?
Bartholomae, pictured left, took quite a bit of heat last night.  I was among those eager to criticize - attempting to draw a crude metaphor between Bartholomae, Writing departments all across the country, and the Corleone family of Godfather fame.  I want to apologize to Bartholomae.  Not because I have had a change of heart, but who wants to be compared to Fredo Corleone?  I imagine a scenario where Bartholomae was sitting in on our class, or was sent a videogram of our discussion and I sent him an apology via a music gram. It was Michael Jackson's "Smooth Criminal", but instead of singing "Annie, are you okay?"  The lyrics were changed to "Davy, are you okay?"

Aside from our haranguing of Bartholomae, there was something else that bothered me about last night's discussion. A point I was trying to make was not getting across. There is something I want to put to rest. Not like Luca Brasi swims with the fishes kind of rest. Just something I didn't manage to make clear last night that I wanted to give it a second shot - and the puns just keep on coming! 

A Sicilian message

I am not anti-intellectual.  And I do think we very much need subject matter experts (in all fields, in all disciplines).  Some of my comments - specifically those directed at academics - were said in a heat of passion whose fire was started by  Rose.  I am sure that most academics publish articles and books, not because they have to in order to achieve tenure or promotion, but because they have a deep desire to contribute to the body of knowledge (that doesn't mean that there aren't those who publish for less noble purposes).  But aren't we missing a big picture irony?  We will decry language pointed at privilege as arrogant and as exclusive not inclusive.  However, we do so safely within the walls of the Academy where the only ones likely to hear some of the good things we have to say will be other academics.  If the goal is to change the frame and make a difference in education, then these messages should also be accessible to those outside the Ivory Towers.  By excluding the general population, we are applying a Regean-esque trickle down economics of knowledge.  And while we are waiting for change to take root good kids are being left behind.  And the problem is more serious than we thought. 

In his essay, Rose goes to great lengths to explain why the current frame for Writing is in place.  He does this by tracing the history of the word remedial.  This frame, whose roots are burried deep within the fertile grounds of scientific knowledge, has a staying power that will take a hurculean effort to uproot, and Cognitive Science explains why:
I mentioned elsewhere that all frames and metaphor are tied to emotion. I gave the example of the white and black knights.  What I failed to mention was some of the more sciency explanations as to how a frame takes root in the mind.  When we make an emotional connection to an image (like light and darkness) a neural pathway is created between receptors in the brain.  The more this image is reaffirmed the stronger this pathway becomes - one could almost say it becomes hardwired.  Beliefs are established on these hardwired frames.  We typically believe our beliefs to be moral, and therefore correct.  So, if I made an emotional connection to the value of science, and this image has been reaffirmed in our collective psyche for the past nine decades - as Rose was suggesting - then, you can begin to appreciate the magnitude of the situation.  The trickle down approach is not likely to succeed.  Mass media needs to be bombarded with a different frame for people to consider.  Until that happens, Ken Robinson's dream of shifting the paradigm is not likely to be realized anytime soon.