The first thing that strikes the reader about this book is that this is a graduate thesis or dissertation in sociology. That being the case, Edward Dutton uses plenty of academic terminology and attempts to cultivate an objective stance. But he’s clearly engaged in a sociological project, unlike Samuel Schuman in Seeing the Light. I would say that Dutton is less sympathetic to Christian and religiously-based collegiate life than Schuman seems to be. But he is looking at different things.
Dutton is interested in the subculture of evangelical Christian groups at European universities; he looks specifically at Oxford, Aberdeen University, Durham University, and universities in Holland, the U.S., and the Caribbean.
The gist of his question is this: he had been exposed to and participated in the activities of an evangelical student group at his university (Durham), and wondered why these groups seemed much more active (as he saw it) at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, than at the other colleges his friends had gone to. His hypothesis is that there is something different at the three universities above that encourages the development of “fundamentalist” [his term] evangelical Christian groups. The analysis is going to depend on a number of somewhat arcane terms: “leveling” rituals, liminal experiences, rites of passage, communitas, contestation. Some definitions might help here: leveling rituals bring people of various backgrounds together in a single experience, or set of experiences, during which the differences of these backgrounds (especially in terms of social status) are broken down. “Liminal” (in psychological terms) has to do with threshold or intermediate experiences. “Communitas” is a “feeling of togetherness and bonding in which social distinctions break down, often brought on by a rite of passage” (6). Rites of passage end up being rituals designed to bring people through a liminal phase in their lives. The other possibility in a rite of passage is contestation, in which participants in an experience create new boundaries, which the experience of “communitas” attempts to break down.
The most interesting part of Dutton’s book is his description of the evangelical groups he studied at Durham and Oxford. He doesn’t really have enough information about U.S. and Caribbean universities to make any firm conclusions, since he relies on others’ research for it. For the rites of passage he has experienced, he describes well the things that evangelical student groups do, concluding that the more intellectually and socially demanding the environment, the more students gravitate to groups that will re-establish some kind of structure for their lives. Other students are also attracted to religious groups, he theorizes, because of the innate stress of this “liminal” experience and rite of passage that college is perceived to be.
If you want the most efficient way to read this book, the chapters to focus on would be 1, 2, 4 (because of the research he cites on American Christian colleges), and 8, his short conclusion. In addition, his bibliography shows some interesting titles that might be worth pursuing.
The interesting thing is that this research doesn’t “go anywhere.” Dutton doesn’t do any more than note that this type of thing happens in situations that constitute rites of passage. One might theorize (if one were an evangelist) that this study suggests the specific receptivity of campus students, away from home for the first time, to making significant changes in their behavior and worldview, simply because of the nature of the experience. Whether one would see that as good or bad would depend on the nature of one’s own commitments.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Musings—COLA Humanities and Social Sciences Majors
As Director of Academic Excellence for the College of Liberal Arts (COLA), I have the chance to collect statistics on the number of students in our majors on campus and on line. My own field of study is English Language and Literature, and I also head up the Humanities Department. Though we talk about COLA as the “foundational” college of the university, we don’t often think of ourselves as a “liberal arts university” the way we used to. We don’t actively promote, for example, our undergraduate programs in English Literature, History, or Communications, though courses from these majors are part of our General Education and College of Education programs (as emphases).
So, imagine my surprise when I found out that in the early Spring Term of this year, we had 244 Communications majors, 167 English majors, 155 Interdisciplinary Studies majors, and 125 History majors. And this is just listed majors, not including College of Education students who are taking these subjects as emphases within their Education majors. Most of these Humanities majors are online students. These numbers are growing, all without a coordinated program of promotion for any of these majors; in fact, these majors are sometimes thought of as less important because they don’t lead to a specific job immediately upon graduation.
It’s clear though, that many students know what most employers tell us: traditional liberal arts majors are in demand, because they teach students how to think, how to read and interpret texts, and how to express themselves. Added to that, liberal arts majors are often more motivated learners, because they’re concentrating on something that they love for its own sake, rather than just for the sake of getting a diploma. Because a student of (say) literature or history interprets many kinds of writing (including writing by authors who are sometimes trying to lie to the reader), and because a student has to make arguments (both verbal and in writing) about what is being said, a liberal arts major is prepared for the kinds of reading and writing that are a part of higher-status professions like law, and upper business management (by the way, the higher one progresses in an organization, the more one has to write and communicate in other ways).
The interesting thing is that Canyon is a national leader in online liberal arts offerings; we are one of the relatively few universities across the country to support a range of liberal arts majors delivered entirely online. Students value that, and other major universities are now developing online humanities programs. We are working to keep our lead.
So, imagine my surprise when I found out that in the early Spring Term of this year, we had 244 Communications majors, 167 English majors, 155 Interdisciplinary Studies majors, and 125 History majors. And this is just listed majors, not including College of Education students who are taking these subjects as emphases within their Education majors. Most of these Humanities majors are online students. These numbers are growing, all without a coordinated program of promotion for any of these majors; in fact, these majors are sometimes thought of as less important because they don’t lead to a specific job immediately upon graduation.
It’s clear though, that many students know what most employers tell us: traditional liberal arts majors are in demand, because they teach students how to think, how to read and interpret texts, and how to express themselves. Added to that, liberal arts majors are often more motivated learners, because they’re concentrating on something that they love for its own sake, rather than just for the sake of getting a diploma. Because a student of (say) literature or history interprets many kinds of writing (including writing by authors who are sometimes trying to lie to the reader), and because a student has to make arguments (both verbal and in writing) about what is being said, a liberal arts major is prepared for the kinds of reading and writing that are a part of higher-status professions like law, and upper business management (by the way, the higher one progresses in an organization, the more one has to write and communicate in other ways).
The interesting thing is that Canyon is a national leader in online liberal arts offerings; we are one of the relatively few universities across the country to support a range of liberal arts majors delivered entirely online. Students value that, and other major universities are now developing online humanities programs. We are working to keep our lead.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Silent Sundays, Redux
Great Silent Sunday today--we did a kind of serendipitous trip out to South Mountain Park with Bill Bubnis and Heather Bateman. When we got there, Sally and Brian McGuire were there too. Instead of going out to the San Juan ramada first, we just climbed the hill. I've been to the South Mountain intersection before, but this time we went up to the antennas.
By "we," I mean Heather, Brian and me. Bill had an allergy attack halfway up the hill, Chris was walking the dog, and Sally took a look at a study site for work. Those last few inclines from the intersection to the antennas were pretty steep. But the view was so worth it. Also, one is "humbled" by all the actual hard-core riders up there, doing intervals several times up the incline that you barely survived climbing.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
An open letter to the pusillanimous executives in charge of “South Park”:
As a Christian, I am often offended by Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s “South Park.” However, I am also a scholar of literature and an advocate of traditional American freedoms. Your craven decision to edit the second half of the South Park “universal offense” episode has prompted me to boycott your channel, and to call on others to do the same.
Yes, I’m often offended by the show, just as the British were offended by Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” and the Los Angeles funeral industry was offended by Evelyn Waugh’s The Loved One. That’s the point of satire—to skewer sensibilities. That’s what makes it different from simple abuse: it has a serious point, often expressed indirectly. Though in my opinion, “South Park” does contain gratuitous abuse and salaciousness (as do John Dryden’s satiric poems, and Swift’s as well), they often incisively zero in on the stupidities and contradictions of almost every religious and political opinion. No one has gotten a free pass . . . until recently.
I almost took a similar action after the “Respectful Depiction of Mohammed” episode, but that was close enough in time to other Muslim atrocities perpetrated on the outspoken and the innocent that I let it pass. But this shows that you, the producers of the show, are more concerned with salaciousness and the promoting of gratuitous offense than you are with actual satire. So, if Muslims get a pass, then I’m offended that you let other depictions of revered religious figures pass without comment or action. And by the way, Muslims should be offended as well—this action implies that their religion is too intolerant to participate in the often-messy free speech that is the practice of satire in America.
As a Christian, I wrestle with the fact that I do, in fact, view material that could be offensive to others, or morally detrimental to me. I justify that with the sense that at least satire makes valid points aimed at getting people to objectively look at their own behavioral contradictions. But now, I can’t be sure that any of your satirists, from Jon Stewart to Stephen Colbert, to Matt and Trey, are really allowed to make points that they otherwise might make. I question their objectivity and freedom to speak.
So, while I will sorely miss “The Daily Show” and the “Colbert Report,” along with new “South Park” episodes, it’s worth it to me; I’ll have to get by on “My Name is Earl” reruns and “The Simpsons.” Just a quick and clichéd reminder—“Freedom isn’t Free.” Aren’t you guys even half as good as Google? They put their money where their mouth is. It’s clear that Matt and Trey were willing to take the physical risk; you might at least risk some monetary loss.
Sincerely,
James Helfers
As a Christian, I am often offended by Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s “South Park.” However, I am also a scholar of literature and an advocate of traditional American freedoms. Your craven decision to edit the second half of the South Park “universal offense” episode has prompted me to boycott your channel, and to call on others to do the same.
Yes, I’m often offended by the show, just as the British were offended by Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” and the Los Angeles funeral industry was offended by Evelyn Waugh’s The Loved One. That’s the point of satire—to skewer sensibilities. That’s what makes it different from simple abuse: it has a serious point, often expressed indirectly. Though in my opinion, “South Park” does contain gratuitous abuse and salaciousness (as do John Dryden’s satiric poems, and Swift’s as well), they often incisively zero in on the stupidities and contradictions of almost every religious and political opinion. No one has gotten a free pass . . . until recently.
I almost took a similar action after the “Respectful Depiction of Mohammed” episode, but that was close enough in time to other Muslim atrocities perpetrated on the outspoken and the innocent that I let it pass. But this shows that you, the producers of the show, are more concerned with salaciousness and the promoting of gratuitous offense than you are with actual satire. So, if Muslims get a pass, then I’m offended that you let other depictions of revered religious figures pass without comment or action. And by the way, Muslims should be offended as well—this action implies that their religion is too intolerant to participate in the often-messy free speech that is the practice of satire in America.
As a Christian, I wrestle with the fact that I do, in fact, view material that could be offensive to others, or morally detrimental to me. I justify that with the sense that at least satire makes valid points aimed at getting people to objectively look at their own behavioral contradictions. But now, I can’t be sure that any of your satirists, from Jon Stewart to Stephen Colbert, to Matt and Trey, are really allowed to make points that they otherwise might make. I question their objectivity and freedom to speak.
So, while I will sorely miss “The Daily Show” and the “Colbert Report,” along with new “South Park” episodes, it’s worth it to me; I’ll have to get by on “My Name is Earl” reruns and “The Simpsons.” Just a quick and clichéd reminder—“Freedom isn’t Free.” Aren’t you guys even half as good as Google? They put their money where their mouth is. It’s clear that Matt and Trey were willing to take the physical risk; you might at least risk some monetary loss.
Sincerely,
James Helfers
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Christian Worldview and Christian Perspectives
It has been a while since I've posted; three months, in fact. Much water under the bridge, but also much work that continues.
Here are some notes on the next phase of worldview training here at school. It will be important for instructors here to understand, if not accept, the basic history and priorities of Christianity, so that they can respect historically held and tested Christian perspectives. What follows is the beginning of a list of learning topics for the next possible phase of faculty training, realizing that the ultimate goal is to provide teaching and a curriculum that operates from a Christian perspective.
Christianity sees as central the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Alister McGrath explains the significance of Christ in three points:
"1. Jesus tells us and shows us what God is like.
2. Jesus makes a new relationship with God possible.
3. Jesus himself lives out a God-focused life, which Christians are encouraged to imitate" (4-5).
It does seem that these three points encapsulate a distinctively Christian point of view on the person of Christ. This fleshes out the Power Point element in the original presentation to faculty.
Of the various points that McGrath makes about the person of Jesus, the most germane to a Christian worldview seem to be the importance of his teaching, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. Probably each of these should be unpacked, and the importance of the meaning of the crucifixion and resurrection further explained.
Here are some notes on the next phase of worldview training here at school. It will be important for instructors here to understand, if not accept, the basic history and priorities of Christianity, so that they can respect historically held and tested Christian perspectives. What follows is the beginning of a list of learning topics for the next possible phase of faculty training, realizing that the ultimate goal is to provide teaching and a curriculum that operates from a Christian perspective.
Christianity sees as central the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Alister McGrath explains the significance of Christ in three points:
"1. Jesus tells us and shows us what God is like.
2. Jesus makes a new relationship with God possible.
3. Jesus himself lives out a God-focused life, which Christians are encouraged to imitate" (4-5).
It does seem that these three points encapsulate a distinctively Christian point of view on the person of Christ. This fleshes out the Power Point element in the original presentation to faculty.
Of the various points that McGrath makes about the person of Jesus, the most germane to a Christian worldview seem to be the importance of his teaching, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. Probably each of these should be unpacked, and the importance of the meaning of the crucifixion and resurrection further explained.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The SNL University of Westfield Online sketch
Unfortunately, Blogger can't load the link (or I can't figure out how to load it) that will take you to the Saturday Night Live "University of Westfield Online" sketch of two weeks ago. It's a thinly veiled reference to a university that you may recognize.
The fake advertisement says or implies a number of things about online education: that one can get one's degree in one's pajamas, that employers are not keen to hire graduates of an online college, that what one "learns" there is how to cover up one's education, and that it only takes four months to graduate.
As friends of mine have pointed out, none of these statements is necessarily true. But that's not the point, any more than CNN fact-checking SNL's sketch about President Obama's lack of accomplishment is relevant. It's not the truth of the statements, but the perception that they represent that should interest us, and that we should listen to.
Basically, why people laugh is because they tend to believe that 1) online education is easier, 2) online education is less rigorous, and 3) that because of these two things, online education doesn't take as long. If one believes (as I do) that online education can be as rigorous and interesting as campus education, then one should ask where these perceptions have come from.
The university being parodied now has hundreds of thousands of graduates, many from online programs. How many of them are talking about the quality (or lack of it) of their education? Intel has discontinued financial aid for MBA students from this university--why is that? Now it's not as though the players and writers of SNL are actually academics; some of them probably haven't even gone to much, if any, college. They may be the voice of the East Coast, but they are in touch with the urban culture there. Maybe they're like Gary Trudeau, a social liberal but educational conservative, who for years has decried what he sees as slipping standards at Yale (parodied in Doonesbury as Walden College).
It might just be the case that it's the real-life experience of online college students, and the experience of their employers, that's giving the material here. As in any educational situation, it's all in the execution, not in the medium. If those of us in online education do it right, then these satires will go away (or at least change their form).
The fake advertisement says or implies a number of things about online education: that one can get one's degree in one's pajamas, that employers are not keen to hire graduates of an online college, that what one "learns" there is how to cover up one's education, and that it only takes four months to graduate.
As friends of mine have pointed out, none of these statements is necessarily true. But that's not the point, any more than CNN fact-checking SNL's sketch about President Obama's lack of accomplishment is relevant. It's not the truth of the statements, but the perception that they represent that should interest us, and that we should listen to.
Basically, why people laugh is because they tend to believe that 1) online education is easier, 2) online education is less rigorous, and 3) that because of these two things, online education doesn't take as long. If one believes (as I do) that online education can be as rigorous and interesting as campus education, then one should ask where these perceptions have come from.
The university being parodied now has hundreds of thousands of graduates, many from online programs. How many of them are talking about the quality (or lack of it) of their education? Intel has discontinued financial aid for MBA students from this university--why is that? Now it's not as though the players and writers of SNL are actually academics; some of them probably haven't even gone to much, if any, college. They may be the voice of the East Coast, but they are in touch with the urban culture there. Maybe they're like Gary Trudeau, a social liberal but educational conservative, who for years has decried what he sees as slipping standards at Yale (parodied in Doonesbury as Walden College).
It might just be the case that it's the real-life experience of online college students, and the experience of their employers, that's giving the material here. As in any educational situation, it's all in the execution, not in the medium. If those of us in online education do it right, then these satires will go away (or at least change their form).
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Ken Burns, on The National Parks, America's Best Idea
Chris and I got hooked a couple of weeks ago on the Ken Burns multi-day special The National Parks, America's Best Idea. The photography was stunning, and since we're both national park fanatics, the early episodes were (to me) very interesting. I believe that I missed the last night or two.
It's interesting that some things never change: America in the late nineteenth century was as acquisitive and ecologically unaware as most people in America are today. Arizona and its rapacious water and development industry was, if anything, worse in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Grand Canyon almost didn't become a national park because of some developer/miner from Arizona who became a senator. I don't remember his name, but that's OK, because he doesn't actually deserve mention. What an exemplar of a type that still exists in this state--someone who thinks that all we need is more water and development, that the landscape means little, except the view.
Anyhow, it's also interesting that Niagra Falls was used through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as the poster child for how private development and tourist exploitation can wreck scenes of superb natural interest and beauty. The watchword seemed to be "don't turn Yosemite or Yellowstone into Niagra Falls." It was this attitude on the part of the public that was certainly a catalyst for the development of the national parks.
It was also a lesson in the way that individuals can move the national conversation and will in such a way that good things happen. Of course, John Muir was that spokesperson for Yosemite and Yellowstone, and interestingly, became the patron saint of most of the early national parks. Also, the first National Park Service director, whose name I can't now recall, used his advertising and promotional sense to popularize the parks to the nation at the critical time.
Finally, the early twentieth century also saw the birth of use-conservation as well as the classic Sierra Club environmental movement. Gifford Pinchot, the force behind the National Forest system, had a different, multi-use, idea, that probably saved much more acreage of wilderness than the National Park system did. So, are the National Forests America's second best idea?
It's interesting that some things never change: America in the late nineteenth century was as acquisitive and ecologically unaware as most people in America are today. Arizona and its rapacious water and development industry was, if anything, worse in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Grand Canyon almost didn't become a national park because of some developer/miner from Arizona who became a senator. I don't remember his name, but that's OK, because he doesn't actually deserve mention. What an exemplar of a type that still exists in this state--someone who thinks that all we need is more water and development, that the landscape means little, except the view.
Anyhow, it's also interesting that Niagra Falls was used through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as the poster child for how private development and tourist exploitation can wreck scenes of superb natural interest and beauty. The watchword seemed to be "don't turn Yosemite or Yellowstone into Niagra Falls." It was this attitude on the part of the public that was certainly a catalyst for the development of the national parks.
It was also a lesson in the way that individuals can move the national conversation and will in such a way that good things happen. Of course, John Muir was that spokesperson for Yosemite and Yellowstone, and interestingly, became the patron saint of most of the early national parks. Also, the first National Park Service director, whose name I can't now recall, used his advertising and promotional sense to popularize the parks to the nation at the critical time.
Finally, the early twentieth century also saw the birth of use-conservation as well as the classic Sierra Club environmental movement. Gifford Pinchot, the force behind the National Forest system, had a different, multi-use, idea, that probably saved much more acreage of wilderness than the National Park system did. So, are the National Forests America's second best idea?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)