Guigon continues, in Chapter 5, to describe the ways in which our world and self views are influenced by “two deeply opposed conceptions of what life is all about” (78) and the ways in which these conflicting views have contributed to a kind of split modern personality and a series of binaries which we, consciously or unconsciously, use to understand ourselves and our relationship to the world. Guignon states that “most of us deal with the conflicting demands on us in the modern world by being instrumentalists in public and Romantics in private. That such an existence is polarized, that it breeds confusions when the private comes to be colonized by instrumentalist tendencies ––these are seen as inevitable problems of living in modern circumstances” (79-80). He goes on to say that what is of interest here is to consider the ways in which the “modern outlook is shaped by a distinctive set of binary oppositions that governs the way we sort things out in everyday life” (80). Use this chapter to explore (briefly) the implications of these opposing conceptions of selfhood and any examples you have from your own life, especially your service experience, this semester. But don’t stop there!
In the beginning of Chapter 6, Guignon sums up the concepts and ideas that he has presented thus far and then goes on to detail the post modern conception of the self which is really a non-self. Basically, the postmodern view, in this depiction, is an extension of the idea that society is a social construct–– now the individual is a product of that construct. Yet, while Guignon dismantles much of this view, he also shows how this “undoing” of the individual is also useful to countering the ways in which the ideals of individualism have gone astray in leading us to strive for an autonomy and “freedom” from worldly constraints which is neither possible or necessarily desirable. Guignon notes Richard Rorty who believed that a recognition of ourselves as socially conditioned was important for helping us to question and challenge that conditioning, even challenging what we think we believe or, as Rorty called it, our final vocabulary. For Rorty, it was important to be an “ironist”—doubting and questioning what we think we know, what may seem like the basis of our identity—for him this was the counter to fundamentalist thinking that has no room for doubt and is dangerous in a world filled with so many different worldviews.
Towards the end of the chapter, Guignon presents a “remedy” that puts the meaning back in a self and that helps us to think about the “unfinished” self that is the catalyst for Freire’s work.
To this end, Guignon introduces the concept of the dialogical self developed: by Mikhail Bakhtin. He tells us:
“The conclusion to draw from the dialogical nature of experience is that we experience the world through a “We’ before we experience it through an ‘I’…The dialogical conception of self has the advantage of making social interactions absolutely fundamental to our identity. It lets us see that being human is inextricably being part of a ‘We’” (121).
Can you illustrate ways in which your own identity has in any way been shifted/morphed/altered through any aspect of the interactions that you have had with others through service-learning?
In the reading, Guignon reflects on the differences between our ‘inner-selves’ and our ‘outer-selves’. Childhood has come to symbolize the only time in a person’s life when he or she is in-tune with their ‘inner-selves’ or that thing inside of each of us that is authentic. That thing that tells us what we need and what we truly desire out of life. As people age into adults, that sense of self and energy for all that life offers fade and they envelope themselves with a casing or an ‘outer-self’ that is made to withstand all of life’s harsh realities and daily stress. Getting older in today’s world means taking on certain responsibilities that society has deemed necessary. All the dreams and adventures of youth are consequently pushed aside to make room for reality. When I was small, I used to want to be an official chocolate taster at a candy store. As I grew up I soon learned that such a job would be hard to come by and not nearly as profitable as I would hope. People learn to be practical and how to be grim. I find it rather silly to take such lessons seriously when there is no shred of evidence suggesting that there is a point to life. If there’s no point and everyone eventually dies, then why can’t the point be to simply enjoy your time on Earth and have fun? Humans have made life difficult for themselves. There is an abundant amount of pressure to be successful and in the chaos of trying to attain it people often forget what is really important, what their inner-voice is crying out for. The youth that I tutor at MCCS are a prime example of the struggle that occurs in people as they make that transition from child to adult. Although, they may not have the best pasts, they are some of the few authentic people I know. They are not afraid to go against societal norms and speak their mind without hesitation. Because they have not followed society’s rules, they are deemed by some as ‘problems’. However, I see people attempting to be successful without losing sight of their past and who they are inside. I have been working on career projects with them. Some want to become beauticians, others policemen, and I worked with one student who wanted to be an artist. This particular student had researched the job description of an artist. He did not blink an eye upon learning that he should consider getting a degree in art or when he learned that the job might consist of a lousy pay and oftentimes, a second job would be needed. That is determination. He was fully aware of what was important to him and did not care if it would force him to live a life that many university students are striving to avoid by obtaining a degree. Seeing their passion and raw outlook on life makes me a better person. It brings me down from all the pressures society has placed on my shoulders and makes me want to also learn to appreciate the small advances in my life and be true to my dreams without hesitating.
ReplyDeleteGuigon presented two intrinsically different worldviews. The first is that “life is guided by procedural reason and a hard-headed attitude concerning reality.” (78) This idea is similar to Paulo Freire’s “instrumental reason.” If instrumental reason alone guided our lives, life would be industrial and procedural. Science would take precedence above all other education, especially the arts (visual arts, music, dance…). There would be no room for individualism and expression. Guigon also presented a contrasting world view. “What matters most… is getting in touch with who you really are and developing your talents…” (79) Life would have infinite liberty. Development of the individual would be central. The arts, and any other means of self-expression, would thrive. We should allow both viewpoints to influence our life. Procedural reason helps us get through the chores of everyday life. It helps us do what needs to be done so that we have time to cultivate our creativity and individualism.
ReplyDeleteI experience both viewpoints everyday. I have a very busy schedule, as most college students do. When I first started college, I procrastinated a lot. I did not work until I absolutely had to. Because of this tendency, I was always stressed and had little time to be free and to develop my interests outside of school. I recently learned instrumental reason, and have become a much more “free” person. The two ideas go hand in hand.
Guigon pointed out that an important way to learn more about yourself is to become more childlike. “…the child represents human nature in its purest, most essential form. Tutoring has helped me find my “inner child”. Being around the children helps me to be more free and happy. The stresses of everyday life sometimes makes me forget what inner peace and happiness is. I become an “…empty shell, drifting into monotony and grayness of the commonplace…” (86) Becoming childlike can help avoid this fate. Through tutoring, I have learned to become childlike; in this way, my own identity has been altered.
Guignon states that we are instrumentalist in public and romantics in private. Not knowing ourselves commonly leads to an idea that we are depressed with our lives, unable to fully enjoy life. Russell believes that the solution to this problem is to be actively involved in society. Living this instrumentalist life follows the idea that if we “get busy and do something, you will find that the rest will fall into place by itself” (78). I believe that this is true. When people get involved in community activities they seem to be more satisfied with life. I think this is because they are a part of society and help others. I can relate to this on a personal level. On days when I encounter people that I can help, even in the simplest ways, I am satisfied for a period of time afterwards because that simple gesture made me feel a slight purpose at the moment. It is for this sense of fulfillment, joy, and the socialization that I would receive that I enjoy activities such as service learning. While I am at the Needle Exchange I enjoy the feeling I get when I talk and listen to people who seem to need some sort of interaction. As Guignon continues, our romantic selves, where we get in touch with who we are, work to develop talents, and feel happy by creating our own identity. I agree with the concept that this is only our identity when we are alone. When we feel that we are not held back by societies standards we are able to act in ways that help us discover ourselves and what makes us happy. We are held by society’s standards when we are out in public. However, when we are children we are not held to society’s standards and are then able to be our romantic selves. The pure nature of a human that is present in a child provides a happier lifestyle because we are then able to appreciate simple pleasures. As we grow up these things no longer please us and soon we are searching for anything that will give us happiness. Guignon states that “the nature of grown-up life that we are forced to put on masks to play out little games in order to measure up to the demands of the world. But in gaining the world, we lose our souls” (86). Unfortunately, people are rarely able to live life enjoying the same simple pleasures that we did as a child.
ReplyDeleteLater, Guignon provides the idea that life is seen on a level of the “we” instead of the “I.” Our identity is largely shaped in this way, following the concept that we are on a group scale instead of a private one. Every time we encounter another our opinions are challenged or confirmed. Depending on the result our personality and identity are altered and morphed.
Great writing above and thoughtful bridging of textual concepts to service. . . My one note is that Guignon is not necessarily suggesting that we need to return to our childlike innocence in life or that the devisions that he discusses between inner and outer life is a requirement of adulthood. He is suggesting that we have learned to adapt in these ways due to the binary worldview that he describes. But we do have other choices and ways to see ourselves in relation to the world, that's for sure. The return to the inner child is not his "prescription"--it's an observation. An observation that resonates with us because of the Romantic belief in our inner nature.
ReplyDeleteGuignon writes, "We are all inclined to regard the forms of behavior required in business and professional affairs as in some sense 'artificial,' while we se the loving attention we give to our children and parents as 'natural.' Given this opposition, we tend to make a distinction between the masks or personae we wear in the social arena and the Real Me lying beneath the surface of everyday life" (80). I found this to be an interesting portrayal of the idea of binaries or opposites in our selves. I see this idea basically every day and would definitely say that I see myself doing it, especially when I am working. While at work, I behave a certain way, and around my friends I behave a different way. The person I am at work is not probably the most genuine version of myself, but I take on a set of accepted behaviors that are expected of someone working in customer service. I'm not sure that that is a bad thing. My service work isn't quite so formal, yet I still don't think that I am the same person as I am at my most relaxed state. Yet, I feel more open than I do at work, especially more willing to be affected by what is going on around me.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the idea of my identity being altered, I would say that definitely the way I view things has shifted. In one way, I think I just feel a deeper sense of gratitude and appreciation for people doing their jobs, even the most simple ones. It is so easy to forget how much the small things make a difference. I think the other big way that the service and this class is changing my identity is bringing my focus out from inside of myself. I tend to be very introspective and can be very immersed in my own world and thoughts. Being part of a community and seeing how what I bring to someplace impacts others and myself forces me to see the value and importance of learning through social interactions. I am generally so focused on learning something by myself or discovering things by spending time alone that this whole experienced has really opened my eyes up to a whole other realm of learning.
Guignon says that “in modern period the master of dichotomy governing all others is the opposition between inner and outer” (pg. 81). The “inner” is pure, original, who we really are, and the “outer” is the mask we put on for others. Many individuals who are older put on a mask, including myself. The inner, is our authenticity that we might not want to share with the world. The younger a child, the more pure they are. They express their true feelings and don’t worry about how others will perceive them. Guignon mentions that “What is characteristic of the inner self is that it is childlike, spontaneous; in touch with its own true feelings” (pg. 83). We, adults, need to reflect more on our childhood and bring out our true feelings. Individuals need to be spontaneous and live how they feel inside, instead of being reserved and miserable because of worrying how they will be judged. Sometimes we don’t express our true feelings because we are set certain expectations to meet, and if we don’t meet them, we are looked down upon. Guignon claims that “In gaining the world, we lose our souls” (pg.86). This happens often. We try to impress others that we don’t think about ourselves and how we can impress ourselves. I’m sure there are many people who get to the end of their life and realize they don’t know who they are or are not happy, because they didn’t accomplish what was burning inside of them.
ReplyDeleteIn service learning I see the students really expressing who they are. They are not shy of living the way they want to or saying what’s on their mind. Joanna mentions a quote from Guignon about getting in touch with who we are and developing our talents. I agree that being true to oneself is one of the most important things in life. We need to find our deepest desire and work on developing it so we can perhaps achieve our happiness. A reason why the MYC is great is that it provides a wide variety of activities that the students can choose from; this way they can develop a passion or talent that they possess and stay true to themselves.
While Guignon states that "Most of us deal with the conflicting demands on us in the modern world by being instrumentalists in public and Romantics in private ... most of us strive to realize both dimensions in our lives... We handle our day-to-day business in a professional, orderly way, but at the end of the day we look forward to returning to the affectionate embrace of loved ones and to engaging in our own creative activities" (79). I believe that these contrasting viewpoints, in a way, lead us to the more post-modern way of thinking. Although society has possibly limited our "true self/ves" from emerging, I believe that it is necessary to have a society, so that we can learn to co-exist with other authentic selves, even though they may clash with our own. Society, whether we like it or not, plays a huge factor in influencing who we are as individuals and cultural groups. What we take from what society has to offer us (to improve our self/ves, or become part of the instrumental "norm") is then what separates us from one another.
ReplyDeleteWhen people lose sight of the meaningfulness of life, there's a saying that suggests one to "get in touch with their inner-child." Guignon observes this as one of the ways for people to truly realize their authentic self/ves. The child within us, unfortunately, cannot last forever. As we grow and experience the various lessons that life has to offer us, we may lose sight of that innocence that once resonated within us. The upside of this, however, is that we also have the chance to discover "different levels of the self" (83), allowing us to realize that "maturity means accepting the good with the bad"(90).
In my service learning, I found that the exposure of my multiple selves was necessary to truly make a difference in what I was trying to make an impact on. Working in a business environment, I had to turn towards a more instrumental part of myself, in order to get myself, and Marin Link heard in a more business-oriented world setting. I don't think taking a professional approach constitutes me as being untrue to myself. It's a common way to get my ideas to be heard, like a common, universal language. Though it is my professionalism that allows me to present my work, it is my child-like eagerness that allows me to get the work done. The curiosity to know more as a child never truly dies within ourselves, it just becomes more complex in what we are curious to learn. I take pride in how my work can possibly impact society and the world, but at the same time, I find it personally rewarding to do something without jeopardizing who I think I am. I can ultimately " make up my own life story, in any way i like, constrained only by the limits of what is on the table in my culture and my own imagination"(116).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough not necessarily connected to service learning, I admire the connection drawn between binary opposition and being child-like. Guignon connect these two by stating "The inner/outer dichotomy has been interpreted in terms of the distinction between the child and the adult"(pg. 83). I remember a professor remarking that a child is as objective as possible. When child sees a overweight man, he doesn't censor himself for the sake of the overweight man, he might just call the man "fat" because that's how the child sees it. "Fat" has yet to carry a binary label at an early age.
ReplyDeleteThere is also a linguistic aspect to culture and society that cannot be denied. Guignon writes, citing Rorty's ideas, that words and ideas ultimately play a part in defining society (pg. 114). Having a pretty firm grasp of English, a decent understanding of Spanish, and very brief introductions into Chinese Mandarin and Arabic, I can see this play out in syntax and grammar. In Chinese it is very easy to make words plural. For the self, "wo" suffices. For the word 'we' "wo" becomes "wo-men." For him (or her); "ta". For them; "ta-men." Making words plural comes very easily in Chinese, and certain words defining status were part of the first lesson; "gui xing" honorable surname. "Gui" also doubles as an adjective for expensive, honorable, important. Makes sense as honor is held at a premium and considered a social currency in China. Of course formalities are common in every language, but I just find that Chinese makes it simple to change the word from singular to plural.
Also, Arabic, like Spanish, has gender connotations. In Arabic there is a pseudo-letter called the tar-marbuuta. This letter essentially dictates the feminine nature of a word. The sound it produces varies from an "ah" soft 'h' sound, to a 't' sound, to a 'ey' sound as a suffix. If it is not included in a word it is often implied that it is a masculine word. Of course, in Turkish (Essentially Arabic converted to Latin characters) has no mention of gender what so ever in its pronouns despite the commonalities between Arabic and Turkish(this was in large part due to the historical context at the time, but that's a discussion for an entirely different class). This brings to mind that brief mention Guignon makes to the view that masculinity was primary, and femininity was secondary.
Rorty's concept doesn't only play out in English; you can see traces of foreign languages influencing culture and vice-versa.
Sorry to take things off on a tangent via impromptu linguistics lesson, but it's just something I picked up.
-Daniel
Brittany Alfonso
ReplyDeleteA point in the chapter that stuck out to me concerned “The Death of Ivan Ilych” by Leo Tolstoy. The story of a man who had everything: a family, a fine home, a successful practice and a high esteemed position. However, at the end of his life, he looks back and realizes he hadn’t lived as he should’ve. He realized his life was not so joyous or pleasant. He remarked that the older he got, “there was still less that was good; and the further he went the less there was.” (85) Guignon explains this as “in gaining the world, we lose our souls.” (86) I see this repeatedly in people that I know, and it tends to be a clichéd plot in many storylines. It portrays people that gain everything that society convinces them that they need, but they aren’t happy. I know a family that barely has food to eat but participate in the liveliest and happiest dinner conversations as compared to a family with a feast but a quiet table. We are tricked to develop our lives to conform to society’s expectations. My cousin had the most miserable year in 2007 because she decided to attend college to pursue a more “acceptable, economical, and practical” career instead of pursuing her love for acting. She lost a bit of her soul, of herself, in this choice to conform to what society and the world was asking of her. I see this as a prime example of Guignon’s “gaining the world and losing our souls” explanation.
Considering my service-learning reflection, I don’t see myself as losing or gaining anything. My world is intact, my soul is intact. Mikhail Bakhtin notes that we change our identity through social interactions. At MCCS, I interact with teachers and students. I never feel questioned or challenged about my identity, I never felt the need to change. My real self or identity has remained the same throughout the service-learning experience. I feel like the same person coming in as the person coming out. I think this has a lot to do with service learning being a requirement as opposed to something voluntary and desired. It is, as described in chapter one, a role I have to play in society. I put the effort in, I put the time in, and I put the work in. This isn’t a role that I consider my “true self.” Guignon describes this as: “We handle our day-to-day business in a professional, orderly way, but at the end of the day we look forward to returning to the affectionate embrace of loved ones and engage in our own favorite creative activities.” (79) Service-learning is simply a task I must complete and a duty I must fill, but it doesn’t impact my life or affect my authentic self… or it hasn’t yet, at least.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBakhtin's view is not based on the Romantic ideal of the "fixed" inner, true self. In this view, every interaction/moment/experience in the world is part of the ongoing formation of self. So whether or not you believe yourself to be functioning authentically, from your own motivation, or from obligation--makes no difference. You ARE what you are in the world in those moments. You take space in the world. You interact with others and take space in their lives, just as they take space in yours. So the self is not necessarily this personal entity that we can keep out of the equation because we have not chosen the framework. Can we truly say that how others perceive us doesn't somehow contribute to who we are in any given moment? Why is our perception all that counts? Don't I have to take into consideration the impact that I have on others, even if the situation is not of my making? Complicated questions about selfhood arise when we question the Romantic view of the fixednes of that self.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 5, Guigon discusses two opposing conceptions of self-hood. He attributes the first to the success of the scientific revolution and the technological advances that have emerged as a result. This conception of self-hood focuses on a “life guided by procedural reason and a head-headed attitude concerning reality.” The second conception focuses on “getting in touch with who you really are, developing your talents, blossoming as a creative individual, forming intimate and emotionally fulfilling relationships, and along the way, discovering a spiritual dimension to existence.”
ReplyDeleteThe second conception deems the first conception to be mechanical and rather heartless, causing the individual to “move along in life unreflectively.” Nevertheless, people are able to balance these two opposing conceptions. They conduct “day-to-day business in a professional and orderly way, but at the end of the day, look forward to the affection of others.” We are living in both public and private forms of self.
To me, I see these two opposing conceptions as views that call on us to focus on the “world” or society we are living in, or to take on a more internally reflective mode of thinking. In regards to whether we can truly say how others perceive us doesn’t contribute to who we are at a given moment, I’d like to bring up another question. If others’ perceptions of who we are contribute to who we are at any given moment, then does that mean we are always going to be a product of the views and expectations that society has set for us?
Doing service learning at MCCS has confirmed my expectations of what tutoring at this school would be like. I expected the kids to expect me to view them as “bad kids that NEEDED help.” They ask me all the time, “Why are you even here?” as if they were implying that I was wasting my time, that this was nothing but a loss cause.
If we live our lives according to these opposing conceptions like Guigon notes, then these kids are living in both public and private forms of self. In front of their peers, some of them tend to act out and become disruptive. In front of their teachers, some of them are able to show their potential in their desire to complete classroom assignments. In front of me, well, I feel that sometimes I am able to see who they are in private. “What are you doing after school?” “Why are you even here at this school?” “You’re completing this worksheet so fast, do you even need my help?” These are a few questions I ask the kids I tutor.
Sometimes, I’m lucky and I see a glimpse of who I think is their “true selves.” Once, I was helping a student make a Venn diagram for an essay on whether or not curfews should be made legal for teenagers. He had chosen to argue that curfews were not a good idea at all, yet, towards the end, he surprised me. “Even though I don’t really agree with curfews, maybe, I guess… I can see why they’re a good idea. I mean, if there were curfews that were really enforced, then maybe my friend wouldn’t have gotten shot.” He had chosen to reflect, to really see the implications of the prompt. He wasn’t in front of his other peers, acting just like them and cussing out the teachers. No, he was in front of me, telling me his story--showing me a little snapshot of what it was to live his life.
To truly live as our authentic selves, we need to find the balance between these two opposing conceptions of self-hood. We need to live internally, to grow creatively. By doing this, we can develop a mind that can choose how the external factors of the world affect us. Yes, we are always going to be affected by our relationships to others and vice versa. However, it is how we let it affect us that gives us the control over our authentic self. This is how we regain the fluidity of that self. Maybe if my students realized that they can take control over how they allow other people’s opinions and actions affect them, then perhaps they would grasp a hold on whom they really are as individuals.
The differences that exist between the selves that our authentic beings are composed of, and the selves that our daily lives consist of is rather profound and disturbing given its foundation like nature. What I found most intriguing though was the difference that Guignon points out, in our public and private lives. Previously, I took it for granted that that distinction wasn’t in fact, the way things were meant to be. I assumed that it was right for every one to have a professional side that was business oriented and not emotional. Feelings and affection was for the private, home side of you. Of course I’ve experienced situations where the sides mixed and it didn’t feel horribly wrong, but they were always individual cases. More often than not, I would have agreed with the idea that the two worlds should be kept separate. Guignon, however, brought up the idea that “human beings live by extremes” (80). And I questioned this paradigm of private and public sectors for the first time.
ReplyDeleteGuignon continued with the idea that separation can’t be good, because it means basing authenticity off a single aspect of our selves. Until now, being authentic meant listening solely to your inner personality and that “our outer avowals can be called “authentic” only to the extent that they honestly and fully “express” the inner” (81).
This, to me, is just as criminally extreme for it limits our very multifaceted human nature into a single side. This cuts off elements of personality and depth that only lends itself to our development into authentic beings.
It is understood then, that living by extremes, no matter what the extreme may be, isn’t a healthy idea. I listened to a sermon last weekend where service was discussed with very strong language. It was called a “sacrifice”, and even sometimes, “a torturous obligation.” I was frankly appalled, given that, not only did my own service not come close to being “a torturous obligation”, but that, at one time I may have agreed with the speaker. This, is a prime example, of living by extremes. Now, I see service as a mutual relationship, where for all that I give, I get back. It’s not so much a physical exchange, dollar for hour kind of deal, but rather an experience as a whole. There is no force, or sense of duty, despite the class requirement. By staying moderate, I believe that there is no taking advantage of either party, and no sort of extreme to taint the experience.
Guignon begins by saying, "What I want to note here is that our modern outlook is shaped by a distinctive set of binary oppositions that governs the way we sort things out in everyday life" (80). Our way of looking at our self, in what we do or how we act, is influenced by these two opposing conceptions. An example that Guignon provides is the opposition by which we distinguish the meaning of artificial and natural through our persona. In a business environment we tend to act more artificial because it requires us to act in professional behavior. On the other hand when we are at home of with our loved ones we act a different way. We act in a more loving way, and we care less on how we say things and even dress.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in my major as a business woman, I have to dress professionally and speak in a more a sophisticated way. I am not allowed to dress with jeans, which is how I like to dress, and I cannot informal. Guignon exemplifies this idea when he says, "We tend to make a distinction the masks or personae we wear in the social arena and the Real ME lying beneath the surface of everyday life" (80). Sometimes we act in public a different way than we would act at home or with people we feel comfortable being around. When we act differently due to our situation, means that we are not being ourselves. In other words this means that we are not showing our inner self, the things we like, the way we speak, and our real persona.
Guignon defines this as most of us "Being instrumentalists in Public and Romantics in Private" (79). We all need to have an equal balance between our romantic and our instrumentalist self. This will allow us to coexist in our society in a more efficient and more peaceful way. In my service learning I realized that by being my self, my romantic self, and acting in a well mannered way, my instrumental self, I accomplished my goal of befriending the students I tutor. By being their friend I interact at a more personal level and it is easier for me to tutor them in a way they understand. I learned their strengths and weaknesses and as a result I figured out a way to teach them the material in an effective way.
Guigon goes into great depth discussing the concept of "binary oppositions," mainly, the "inner- versus outer-self," saying that people are naturally inclined to be "instrumentalists in public and Romantics in private." Simply speaking, people put on a facade, the outer self, when in public, whereas in private they can truly be their inner selves.
ReplyDeleteIn my own life this holds very true. As a dancer, I am perpetually putting on a show, whether it be for an audience, my teachers, my peers, etc. Every move or action, even in the class room, is preconcieved and calculated to fit a particular mold, and while I want to be my "inner self," it is hard to escape putting up this wall when someone is constantly looking down your neck pin pointing and picking out all the things you are doing wrong. There are many issues with this, one in particular Guigon points out when he says, "Behind this vision of the ideal life trajectory is the assumption that deep within the innermost sanctum of the true self there are resources of insight and truth that are inaccessible to the outer self." (p. 82) This idea led me to question, how is one supposed to access this deep inner knowledge of "insight and truth" while being able to work in more of the "outer self" when in society? Is it impossible to access this truth when one is not being "authentic?" In my life this is a very important thing for me to grasp. If I am authentic while dancing instead of emulating who someone wants me to be will I be closer to truth? Guigon's ideas stress that this would be a logical assumption to make.
In my service learning, I do not feel as though I put on a persona to work. It is a more comfortable environment where I feel as though I am part of a community that I do not need to "put on a show" for. Through my service, I have found a deeper sense of gratitude. Being in the environment where I am doing more "mundane" activities, I have gained SO much appreciation for the people who do that work on a daily basis. I recognize that while it doesn't feel immediately "fulfilling" in the way that other things may, it is a small thing that plays a huge role in the overall picture.
Upon reading the conflicting worldviews presented in chapters 5 and 6, I have become confused as to where my personal perspective falls on the spectrum of pre-modern, modern, and post-modern thought. Charles Guignon’s observations of how these thought systems have become so deeply rooted in our social and personal interaction has revealed to me how I am a product of these ways of thought. I have realized that I both hold modern philosophy and the Romantic backlash against this assumption to both be true. I agree with the concept that “the traditional tripartite constellation-- ‘man-nature-God’ is displaced by the modern anthropocentric picture of humans as being independent of both nature and God,” as well as “how the valorized binary oppositions that initially provided the scaffolding for the modern idea of authenticity have been de-stabilized and upset by the revisionary trends of the past century or so” (Guignon 107). Through these concepts, Guignon reaches the conclusion that “it is no longer possible to assume that getting in touch with and expressing what lies within will ensure that you are living a good, fulfilling and meaningful life” (Guignon 107). It is at this conclusion that that the conflict lies in my own personal ideas of authenticity. I find that I cannot let go of this thought that is so engrained in the way modern society thinks. Therefore, I have realized that I hold many conflicting thought systems to be true because they appear justified through logic or through my personal experience. This conflict must often occurs, as Guignon suggests and as Sarah discussed in her post, between the interactions within the private and public realms. I appreciate that Guignon is presenting the many diverse and contrasting philosophies that shape modern thought to provide the reader with a full understanding of the topic of authenticity. By going on this journey of exploration with Guignon I am able to see that there is a finish line even through all the murky thoughts and uncertainty that I have encountered. Though through the process of encountering this uncertainty and confusion with these conflicting thought systems, I have found it difficult to find how to offer my authentic self to my service-learning work with the students at the MYC.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what Guignon is saying in this chapter. He explains that being that being a successful adult is all about balancing one’s private life with one’s personal life. “Most of us deal with the conflicting demands made on us in the modern world by being instrumentalists in public and romantics in private (Guignon 79).” He continues by explaining that we are only our true selves in private around family and friends, but in public we must put up a false personality. “I tend to suppose that, although in public I have to put on an act, in private I can be myself (Guignon 81). I completely agree with this statement. In my short adult life I have had to deal with this issue first hand. Even today, I still want to express a childlike carefree attitude thought my daily life but I have found that it is better to suppress these urges. The people around me are not as accepting of these types of behaviors; so they judge and label. It is only when I am in private with my close friends and family that I feel completely comfortable to act myself and this is when I am truly happy and having the most fun. I feel that it is when I am care free that I am reminded of the simpler times when I was a child and had zero worries. I understand that I am an adult and that there are situations when I must act like an adult but other times I just like to have fun. This point leads me to talk about another interesting point in Guignon’s book. He explains that one’s true self is that of a child. “What is characteristic of the inner self is that it is childlike, spontaneous, in touch with its own true feelings, and capable of an intuitive understanding of what things are all about (Guignon 83).”
ReplyDeleteAfter reading these couple chapters, I realized that these ideas relate too many of the students that I tutor at county community. I don’t believe that these students are unintelligent in anyway. I believe that these students have a problem making the transition from childhood to adulthood. I don’t think they realize that there some times when one can be a child and other times when one must be an adult. I feel that they don’t realize that their child like behavior can get them in adult kind of trouble. Since I have been tutoring, I have been attempting to show these young adults that education is one area when they must become more adult like and that it will pay off big time in the long run.