Analysis of the Article : “Neurodiversity: The Future of Special Education”

This post is an analysis of an education article titled “Neurodiversity: The Future of Special Education”. You can find a link to the original article here. The following is a thoughtful response that I wrote for a small audience and I thought I would share it here.

Special Education is a topic that is near and dear to my heart as I know several individuals and families that depend on its services to educate their children. While laws require that schools offer and fund these services to students, how they are offered and performed can vary greatly in schools; even schools in the same district can have widely varied programs available. Some schools may even choose to flout the laws requiring special education and parents are forced to start lawsuits to achieve any services as all. One thing that seems consistent in schools over the country is how special education and those students who need it are viewed: students with disabilities are seen as having problems and weaknesses and those who need special education are not as intelligent or as able as ‘normal’ students. These viewpoints with their emphasis on disability, dysfunction, and other negative connotations that go hand in hand with them can cause resignation and a negative outlook in students and families for their future prospects. Thomas Armstrong brings a fresh perspective on special education and how the perspectives and viewpoints of teachers and schools can and should change to facilitate better learning, the development of programs that support a ‘whole person’ growth, and to develop positive perspectives and momentum both in scholarship and individual growth.

In his article titled “Neurodiversity: The Future of Special Education”, Armstrong states that the ways special education programs are currently developed and understood by its practitioners needs to change in several key ways. He suggests that schools and educators recognize the neurodiversity of students as a positive trait to be honored and respected just as with other human diversity traits such as race, gender identity, religion, etc. While current programs for exceptional education tends to emphasize a student’s deficits and strengths, he believes that a new approach should be developed that emphasizes the students’ strengths (such as what currently happens for gifted or talented students.) Some formal assessments to help determine a students’ strengths are the VIA Character Strengths, Virtues, Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Assessments, and the Baron-Welsh Art Scale. Informal assessments that are currently available for educators to utilize for additional information on learning strengths is the Neurodiversity Strengths Checklist, “strength chats” as devised by Epstein (2008), and motivational interviewing. This emphasis on positive talents should then be used to build on the students’ strengths and minimize their weakest areas by utilizing workarounds to help students manage both academic and nonacademic challenges without allowing their disability to hinder them. According to Armstrong, this approach is very different than current special education services where students are taught how to live with their disability instead of working to overcome it.

Another key component of Armstrong’s suggested neurodiversity acceptance is that all students in classrooms need to be taught about the intrinsic worth of human variation and neurological diversity. By educating all students on how the human brain works, how environment shapes brain structure and function, and that all students have a capacity for learning, the expectations of everyone involved in the special education system would change. Some research studies suggest that when teachers expect positive outcomes from their students, academic results usually improve. Also, inclusion would be more effective as learning diversified students would be viewed more as assets in the classroom rather than a difficulty or burden. As a side benefit, if students are taught to respect and embrace neurodiversity, students who learn or act differently are more likely be accepted by their peer groups and less likely to be marginalized or bullied. If implemented, the author’s recommendations have a significant potential to change the way special education is understood and provided to students as well as positive implications for both individual and community development.

This article has several strengths. The author discussed traditional methods of special education and compares and contrasts these methods with his recommendations. He includes research that supports his conclusions and also addresses some of the challenges that would need to be overcome to implement them. He suggests assessments that are currently available to educators to help determine student strengths so that they can be used to facilitate a learner in knowledge attainment. He states that educators who start to utilize these methods will have positive feelings for the children they teach who have learning weaknesses and that these positive feelings will translate into strength manipulation to help students recognize and work to overcome the learning areas in which they are weak. Armstrong’s work can be used for students that have been shunted into special education to help create IEPs that truly look at the student as a whole person and not just a list of ‘things to check off.’

One weakness that the article has is the author’s use of polarity language. He uses language to discuss his thesis and special education in ways that is inherently divisive. His recommendations are littered with language that radiates positivity: growth mindset, nuance, creating, thrive, transformation, assets, etc. However, the language used to describe the current system is very different: deficit, disorder, dysfunction, negative connotations, insular, remediation, burdens, etc. I do not disagree necessarily with his word choices as they do allow him to discuss his research with readers and work to motivate educators into implementing his stated program. However, I worry that the language used may turn off some of the very people that are needed to implement the changes suggested. Another weakness is that the author doesn’t address funding needs to implement his changes. Armstrong acknowledges that both educators and parents may fear the process of funding special education for children if disabilities are viewed more positively- it is the use of terms such as disability and dysfunction that make that funding currently available. If his recommendations are put into normal usage, would the funding dry up? I think that it is quite understandable to worry about this aspect as, even with protections for funding that are required by law, these regulations are still held in contempt by some schools and school districts. Armstrong suggests a way to protect current funding under the system by continuing to use the traditional methods of determining disability and dysfunction that will open the door to special education services. Educators would then try to discard the ‘disability mindset’ after initial diagnosis and use the recommendations stated above to motivate and teach their students. However, Armstrong does not suggest how to get the funding to utilize his recommendations in the classroom. He recognizes the financial problems that are conceivable if special education funding becomes restricted, but he doesn’t offer any ideas as to how to use that funding for development of similar programing in schools. At one point in the article, Armstrong gives suggestions for educators to utilize his research; schools in specified districts working together to integrate his research, promoting school wide ‘fairs’ for students on neurodiversity, and hiring a neurodiversity coordinator to help monitor the changes put into place. Where is the funding for these extra services going to be found? Will it take away services that are already in place for students? Will funding for a coordination for a school district make funding dry up for special education teachers in different schools in the district? It is really hard to know and the author has not addressed that at all.

As stated above, I would really like to understand how this research can be funded and put into common usage. As a mother of a child with a few learning disorders, I see a potential benefit for using Armstrong’s research for changing the way that school deal with and teach individuals with disabilities. As neurotypical students also have many different ways of learning, it seems correct to believe that all students may need some help for success in the classroom. As such, it seems reasonable that educators who recognize the differences between a “disability paradigm” and a “diversity paradigm” would be able to quickly modify the ways that they provide services to their students. I would like to have a better understanding of how best to help ‘change perspectives’, both in educators and parents to see a more positive yet realistic outcome for their children. I would also like to know exactly how accessible the student strengths assessments are to educators and whether there are fees or other hurdles to ease of use. As the most clear cut assessment mentioned- the Neurodiversity Strengths checklist- was developed by the author, I would want to understand what financial benefits he might enjoy from this product. (This could also be seen as another weakness in the article as it might be more of a sales pitch depending on what benefits the author stands to gain.) Also, Armstrong mentioned some ways of modifying lessons to help students with learning differences achieve better results from their students. However, every modification he mentioned suggests to me that the students he is thinking of would have two specific traits; at least normal intelligence as defined by current special education assessments and their education would be provided by a decently funded educational system. I would be curious to see what modifications that he would recommended for individuals of less than normal intelligence scores (forms of mental retardation) or for individuals who attend schools with significant funding issues that can’t afford to purchase specialized software, virtual reality applications, etc. I could not tell if Armstrong had studied the ramifications of working with students who display significant physical, mental, or learning challenges when developing his views and conducting his research as this information was not mentioned. I would really like to know how his theories work and can be used across the whole spectrum of students and not just a majority.

I can see several ways that Armstrong’s research can be used in practical settings in schools. For schools districts and educators that are able to see their students from the perspective of student strengths over weakness, teaching and inclusion could become more specific for each student- even in larger classes. Currently, inclusion of special education students in mainstream classrooms can make teachers feel overwhelmed and they can view these students as a distraction or encumbrance to themselves and the others students. Any perspective that helps teachers to see the good in the children they teach and give them a desire to help all students perform at their best regardless of ability is an essential part of true classroom inclusion. As Armstrong mentioned in this article, when teachers view particular students negatively, other students may develop the same attitude towards those students. This can lead to bullying, ostracizing, and other negative consequences towards special education students which can create an unsafe school situation for all participants.

One way that this research can be applied is to provide a more specific emphasis in equality in the school environment. By helping students to learn with the strengths that they have, it should create an environment that doesn’t stratify as easily among financial and perceived intellectual lines. I suspect there will always be some form of social class functionality in a school- there will always be a student who is always last to be picked for team sports for example- but helping to minimize those aspects in classrooms by creating more equal opportunities for learning should be very helpful for helping students to prepare for their future. Teachers who are able to take the time to understand both the weaknesses and strengths of the children that they teach can take that knowledge into the mainstream classroom to create an inclusive learning environment that holds realistic and high standards for all student participants. These actions as performed by teachers conform to the recommended guidelines in the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards; specifically, Standard #2 titled Learning Differences.

I also think that teachers that encourage students to utilize learning by tapping into their strengths are teachers that affected students will work harder to achieve for. At the beginning of this class, almost all learners mentioned a specific teacher that made a difference in their lives and all of those teachers had one thing in common. That commonality was that each student felt the teacher’s sincere desire and support for the student’s educational growth . When each of us feel cared for and developed a strong bond with that teacher, we worked harder and achieved more because our success was no longer just for us, but also to cement the relationship that had been previously created between teacher and pupil. Not all teachers feel inspired or have any desire to develop that kind of deep relationship with their students, but all anecdotal evidence provided in class suggests that teachers who create positive circles of communications and a unique relationship with each student do create significant knowledge growth and more positive outlooks for these students. I suspect that teachers who are willing and desire to create these tight bonds with students will also desire to provide the student what they need to succeed. If so, that extra time or service will not feel so strongly like a burden to be endured, but a challenge to overcome; a slight difference in viewpoint, but one ripe with better outcomes.

I found myself very interested in Amstrong’s research and I am happy that my library search brought it to light. I thought the article well written and provided many opportunities for thought and opportunities for more research. I can think of several ways that this information could be utilized in a classroom and I hope that these particular recommendations are incorporated into the traditional special education programs that are currently functioning in schools locally and across the country. I would be interested in seeing how these techniques work in the typical classroom and within the resources currently available to rural schools. I look forward to more research to suggest whether this program is optimal for most students.

Any thoughts on both the articles and it's topic? An experience that you wish to share? I'm eager to hear if anyone has first hand experiences with this program and it's implementation....

"Ms. Amerikkka" by Aceyalone : Lyrics and Critique

Today's song is titled “Ms. Amerikkka” and was produced and released by Edwin M Hayes, Jr better known by his stage name Aceyalone. This song is off of his album titled “Love and Hate” and it is extremely hard to find and listen to without purchasing the song or album. Every link to it I can find on the internet with few exceptions has either been removed or banned... censorship much? ; ) The lyrics are challenging as they personify and critique the United States of America... and the critique is devastating. Here is the one link that I could find to share the song and the lyrics are below.



Ms. Amerikkka

all right
yo, this song came about one time when
I- I was- I was on a plane back, going back to Los Angeles
coming from somewhere else
and I sat next to this lady and she was telling me something
I don't remember it verbatim,
but I do remember some of the things she said
it was like this-

Life as we know it is about to change
I smell it within the air
the weather is getting strange
drugged up, sedated and
numb from the pain
the sickness in America has spread to her brain
she is no longer fit to make good decisions
she is completely blind and void of any vision
she parties hard and she keeps her conscious mind imprisoned
therefore she's headed for the ultimate collision
she can no longer hide the scars on her face
the innocence now gone is hard to replace
she has no shame, no remorse or any grace
she embraces the devil and she hates over race
Ms. America, the beautiful the free
fallen within the cracks, I wish that you could see
she buried her misery, within society
it's obvious, you have no regard for me

Chorus:
caught up in the belly of America
lost, in the stomach of America
broken down, in the bowels of America
sinking, in the garbage of America
stuffed, in the brain of America
suffering, in the body of America
lying, in the wicked spirit of America
dying, in the old soul of America

Ms. America, you've been a very bad girl
you nearly disgraced humanity in the eyes of the world
vanity has took you over, you're not deserving
the mirror image of your reflection is quite disturbing
she makes so many promises she couldn't keep
she neglected to mother her young, so they don't sleep
they scream out for justice, and then they weep
when out to blame Ms. America, that's what you reap
the audacity of your inventions to rule us all
the tragedy of your intentions to fool us all
you should have gave into nature and to the law
it's only a matter of time before you fall
the things you should of worked out in your first colony
victim of your own advice and your psychology
you've destroyed all morale and the ecology
I'm sorry, but I don't accept your apology

Chorus

Homeless America, so much attraction
has yet to take ability for her actions
we work around within the system and make adaptations
you can let freedom ring, within your faction
how can people still be hungry, when there's a surplus?
suffering within your home, you've made them worthless
damn near police the state, you make us nervous
even though some conform and join your service
you're presidency's the biggest joke, but we're the laugh
always smell the gun smoke, on your behalf
I think I should send a telegraph to your staff
America you're down and dirty, you need a bath
so tell your secret agents, don't be paranoid
this wasn't taught by Socrates or Sigmund Freud
this is simply gods work, you can't avoid
ever nation ever built has been destroyed

caught up in the belly of America
lost, in the stomach of America
broken down, in the bowels of America
sinking, in the garbage of America
stuffed, in the brain of America
suffering, in the body of America
trying, in the good ol' spirit of America
dying, in the old soul of America


Are you still with me... or did I lose you? I suspect some of my readers will not make it this far. Here are my thoughts on this piece of rap and verbal art.....

One of my first thoughts was shock when I tried to watch the video on Youtube and other sites and got the rejection message "can't be viewed in this county." It is a bit of a strange irony that we (the USA) as a nation chastise and bully other nations into accepting free speech that is critical of the government/ ruling party, but maybe we too as a society (or just the powerful class) also silence are critics when they get too close to the mark.) As I read the lyrics and listened to the words, I could see the images of people in my communities and on television; the lines of families at my local food bank, the homeless shelters filled to capacity, the bitter cold keeping the couches of good friends full as well, the individuals who lack health insurance who struggle on without treatment, those whose mental health is tottering and broken who can not get help until they are incarcerated for long periods of time... and then are forgotten when they are released until they begin to struggle again and are forcibly returned... I saw so much and I felt sadness, hopelessness, exhaustion, and anger.

All of my life I have been told how great this country is. From lessons at church where teachers praise me and others for being the most valiant spirits in our pre-existence to be born at this time and in this country- the country that God the Father fore-ordained to be the place of true Christian gospel restoration. From my parents whose patriotism is strong - sometimes extreme- and would express how lucky I was at every opportunity to be an American. To teachers who taught me how some countries do not let girls go to school and might even be forcibly mutilated or murdered for doing things I took for granted like reading. I grew up believing I lived in the best country in the world and that God willed it to be so; in fact, God actively keeps America the top country in the world. It was only as a young adult that I started to see things and hear things that I struggled to reconcile with these past teachings. Experience has certainly changed and nuanced how I see the United States now - both in a larger sense and in the small communities I try to volunteer in. In these lyrics I heard some of the pain I have felt and witnessed from the humanity around me. The title itself tells two stories to me. It feels a bit arrogant for citizens of the Unites States to be called "Americans" while any other citizen of another country on both American continents are monikered differently. Someone from Canada or Mexico, Chili or Columbia is just as "American" as we are yet each of us if asked what are nationality was would state "American" like each of us is part of the cherry on the top of the sundae. I do it as well, but when I hear myself say it I find I feel a discord in my head and I have wondered if one of the reasons people in other countries stereotype us as arrogant, etc... is our attitude which is reflected in what we call ourselves and how we behave. The second lesson I see is that the title expresses some of the failings of how those in power and how our culture treat minorities. America is not a land for the faint hearted female, the financially poor, nor for individuals of color or disability because, whether by intention or design, society tends to isolate, restrict, stress and even cannibalize them. The title expresses to me the hidden and not so hidden racism in our society and in our hearts and the double edged view of how important women are, but only when they conform to specific gender and cultural roles. After all, the United States is usually portrayed by an old white elderly kind "Uncle Sam"... anyone else can be seen as falling short of this ideal.

The line that really stuck in my head out of the whole song was actually almost the whole third verse because as America is being described as female, she is being lectured on her lack of tradition femininity. For instance, the word disgraced isn't a word usually used for the male gender. She is described as vain, not deserving, a neglecting mother who lets her children cry and scream and weep... and does nothing so her compassion is lacking as well. She is blaming, audacious, and tragic... the destroyer and the victim. I really cannot think of any time I have ever seen or heard "Uncle Sam" described in this way and it feels like this song expresses the true fight of women in this country- our services and talents are accepted and incorporated by the men in our lives yet all failures are prescribed to the females involved while men can whip the flung mud off more quickly and easily. It almost feels like the author of the song who has clearly seen and felt the sting of racism doesn't recognize his own biases and discrimination towards women. I know this sounds a little angry and funnily enough I am not angry as I write this- just a little resigned.

What are your thoughts and feelings on this song?

Thoughts on the Documentary... "She's Beautiful When She's Angry"

I am so sorry that I could not find a link for this documentary about the women's right's movement in the 1960's - I did find a link for the trailer here. So I encourage you to find it either by renting it or purchasing it (You can always donate it to your local library it you do not want to keep it and it looks inexpensive to buy. Otherwise, here are some quotes from different people during the documentary that called to me and I have written some thoughts on them and the film. So here we go! :)

To start, I have a love/hate relationship with the emotion of anger. In many instances, even righteous /appropriate anger can be damaging and harmful for all parties involved. In my life, I have rarely been around anger that ends up being useful. Yet I also realize that some of the most meaningful changes in culture and society for all of us have happened because someone - usually several someones- became angry and work together to fight for change. I thought about anger and how so many women used it to make societal changes that have given me more choices/ opportunities in my life.

"To feel that you can have a power in a group to do something that you think needs to be done that you could never do on your own. I think it's what I'd been looking for my whole life" - Vivian Rothstein

I think that this may also be what I have been looking for as well. I want to help people and create positive change in my community but I feel like I am so insufficient on my own and I haven't really found a group to join that inspires the passion in my soul. So maybe I haven't looked hard enough... or maybe I am unclear about what my passion is? A good question...

"How would your life have been different if you had been a boy?... Everything was up for questioning..."

In many ways, I think my life would be similar if I have been a boy but there would be some pretty significant differences. My mother suffers from severe mental illness and hates women/girls/females so I would have had an upbringing more like my male siblings. I would have been much less likely to be severely punished for infractions, had more opportunities and encouragement in areas of interest and would also have been at the top of the list for extra's or wants. As a girl, I was forced to quit playing soccer in 5th grade and the emphasis in my life became focused on preparing for motherhood and homemaking as my only acceptable future choice. College was not only discouraged for me, but when my grandparents left me and my sister a college fund in their will, my parents removed the money and it was used for extras for the family, fun for my brothers and elective surgery for my mother. If I had been a boy I would have had a college fund and leeway as to my degree and could expect to get married and have a partner that would be supportive of what I needed and stay home with the kids. However, I do not think that much of my inner personality would be very different so I think I would still be the neurotic, silly goofball that I am now... I would however, still be playing soccer- I loved doing that! : )

"Problems that you felt were happening to you and you alone were probably your fault, but if its happening to other people then it's a social problem and not just a personal problem."

A really profound quote. What a neat way to think of and understand how much of 'you' is in the problem and how much is culture/society around you. I have spent some time in my life blaming myself for things that upon time and reflection can not honestly be laid at my door. (That said, I am responsible for many wrongs that are clearly mine and I still struggle with many of them.) This quote is the simpliest I have found to really focus and critically pick apart a situation or behavior to determine what aspects of it are caused by you or what is happening based on what you are or society norms, conventions or expectations.

"I was as good as they were and I am not who I sleep with" - Rita Mae Brown

I laughed out loud when I saw Rita Mae Brown in the film - talk about an interdisciplinary cross! I lived in Las Vegas for 13 years before I moved to Maine and I got to go to two different book signings for her books that she 'co-authors' with a cat called "Sneaky Pie" Brown. I love mystery stories- my favorite kind of fun fiction- and I adore cats and she has written at least 20 stories with Sneaky Pie. So I did a double take when I heard her voice and looked up and saw her laughing and chatting. Not only was her quote spot on - after all, no one should be labeled by our lovers - but I found myself laughing because she clearly has a background I knew nothing about and that seems awesome! I realized that I have always judged her on these mystery novels and understanding more of her personal history and struggle gives me a more nuanced few of her that reading her cozy cat novels never gave me. It was wonderful to see her in a totally different context.

The video also mentioned that this country almost had a national child care bill until Richard Nixon vetoed it. I felt quite a few emotions from hearing this. The first was disbelief that we could have come so close to something so wonderful and it yet it was easily scrapped and gone. I watch parents with disabled children who desperately need in-home help and they can't get it and when they can its not consistent as the workers do a hard job for so little pay. I know single mothers who pay a ton for child care so that they can work and so they stay stressed and poor and exhausted. I can't even imagine how much of a different country we would live in if we simply had that one thing.

Another interesting things was the discussion on involuntary sterilization and how it intersects with class and race. This is not a new subject - I wrote a paper on that subject a few semesters ago which you can read here, here and here. I did so much research for that paper and nothing I read about any of it mentioned Puerto Rico and forced sterilization/ eugenics at all in any of the books I used for resources. So I listened and thought about it and realized that as Puerto Rico is considered a territory where its residents do not have full constitutional rights, even these resources that are trying to show how class, racism and gender have hurt 'Americans' seem to have not noticed some of these "Americans" were left out... almost like the minorities in our territories have even less status than the minorities inland. A painful and disgusting acknowledgment.

The last thing about the video that really stuck out for me was a quote by Shirley Chisholm. I recognized her as the first African American women in Congress. Something I heard that she said before was that she had faced more discrimination "as a women than she had by being black". In this documentary she was quoted as saying "Racism and anti-feminism are two of the prime traditions of this country." I would suggest that racism and anti feminism are two of the prime traditions of almost every culture in the world.




Thoughts....

photos: https://loftcinema.com/film/shes-beautiful-when-shes-angry/, http://craftknife.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html, http://www.orderofbooks.com/authors/rita-mae-brown/, http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/how-are-you-celebrating-shirley-chisholm-day/?_r=0,

A Nativity Metaphor

One of the things that I love about Christmas time is the varied opportunities to set up nativity scenes with my Bug. He has loved them since he was less than a year old and with fascination would reach towards the animals until one was handed to him. At this point in my life I have three incomplete sets of nativity pieces that with much laughter and smiles are carefully set up next to each other. Every year, the different pieces end up moving around the room as Joseph may be dragged off by a cat or Bug's service dog may casually pick one up when we are not looking and chew it to bits... or they even move when we use the pieces to recreate stories. These stories can be the birth of Christ as told in the Gospel of Luke or can become as varied as the barn scene in "The Last Battle" by C.S. Lewis. Sometimes, we just play farm and feed and tend to the animals that come with these nativity sets- always cows and sheep, but sometimes donkeys, horses, and even camels. Over the years I have worked pretty hard to make sure that my son understands that the nativity story with the animals is a tradition and is fun, but is very much not what the scriptures describe the events of the birth of Christ to be. The nativity tradition, while beautiful and fun, is not scriptural and in some ways seems to take away from the importance and the struggle of the event itself that we Christians celebrate - the birth of our Savior.

This year after Thanksgiving, I happily brought out the nativity sets for setting up. As usual, Bug and I sat down and placed them in the places we wanted. We added real hay and shavings to one of the stables and it always feels wonderful to sit back and look at the different groups. The sets are quite easy to tell apart as one is a Fisher Price plastic set, a hand carved wood set and a paper mache set that was hand painted for me by the young women of my branch a few years ago. I noticed this year that as the pieces began to be moved and scattered around the house, my son clearly had a very different image in his mind as he put them back and by the time that Christmas Day arrived, I had a very different nativity scene to view. So at a terribly early hour of the morning, while everyone else opened presents, I found my eyes and my thoughts drawn back towards the nativity scene in front of me. What I saw was three small smiling babies in the center of a large group which was then surrounded by animals and then the people. In some ways it looked a bit like how I feel about the sun.... the edges are easily seen but looking at the center is too bright, too hard.... too much. After the required present opening and fun, I chatted with Bug about the nativity and some of the same things that I saw as I looked down were emotions and ideas that he had been trying in a small way to suggest. Here are our thoughts:

1. How people picture the Savior can vary greatly on their perspective. His race, skin color, culture, facial expressions, etc... are things that are developed created by each of us and our religious culture. While every single person may see the Savior, his life, and his commandments differently, for those who celebrate his birth and life, we tend to see him as the center of our heart- the nucleus of our living soul. This is where Jesus Christ should be - in our minds and hearts, our thoughts and hopes. In essence, he should be our center and our life should revolve around him and our relationship with him.

2. The animals were set around him as a protection. Animals are pure and live the lives that they have been set to lead on this earth. They are here to live, to teach us, to sometimes feed us and to help us to recognize the divine all around us. As such, most animals will likely recognize the Christ in the flesh before we human beings shall and as each creature recognizes its spiritual heart, they will surround him in joy and protect him from harm.

3. People are on the outside of the circle as we are frail, easily distracted and of skewed perspectives. When we look at pictures of Christ with his mother and images that celebrate his birth, for many the joy is in the rest of the image behind the holy child... the cow in the next stall, the sheep standing next to a shepherd, the donkey tied up nearby. When we perform the nativity story in plays, each of the actors in the nativity are likely to play their character to the hilt and in most traditional nativities, they are more animals than people. So the majority of the action comes from the animals as well as the majority of the space taken up. As I discovered to my cost last year, telling a friend that having animals in a Nativity scene isn't scriptural can seriously get you gossiped and talked about even when the comment was mentioned in a closed door, private meeting. I was really surprised at how offended someone could get over the idea that Christ wasn't surrounded from his first earthly breath with joyous, happy livestock crowding in toward the manger for a better look. As Bug told me, "We see what we want to see, animals see what is there."

I look back a week later on this experience and find myself pretty pleased and tearful. I am grateful for an amazing and thoughtful child who is kind and empathetic and good-hearted. I am grateful that even with some of his learning challenges, Bug is aware of how to live a good life and is able to understand many human frailties and stumbling blocks. He also seems to understand where the Savior should be in our lives... in our hearts, the focus.... the center of our being. This is a Christmas gift I will never forget and always be grateful for. Tomorrow, my son will be 14 years old. I look forward to celebrating his birthday with him and eating cake. I am thankful for the gifts he has given me... especially these thoughts. Love you Bug. :)

Fear and Loathing… for “Four Friends”

So after missing a week of class, I arrived last week feeling shaky and tired but, with a drink and tissues in hand and a computer, pen and paper in front of me, I settled down ready for another provocative evening of film and thought. I cannot say that isn't what I got.... ;)

I cannot say that I liked the film “Four Friends” and I dearly wish that I could. At least I wish I could say something definitive about it.... whether I hated it or loved it or something. Instead I feel this mass of emotions that hours later I cannot seem to dispel. I feel twisted up and almost suffocated by the waves of them that flow over my thoughts and are buffeted by the winds of memory, hopes, dreams, and regret. Hours after I arrived home I found myself awake, restless and sweating... feeling the darkness close in as my eyes stared into the nothingness. Every attempt that I made to clear my mind was insufficient and only seemed to throw the distractions into sharper relief... causing even more agitation and restlessness in my heart. So, here I am, trying to empty the swirl of thought vomit in my brain onto the page in the hopes of some relief, some small amount of weariness to be allowed to enter my brain and slow it down enough for the oblivion of sleep to take over and allow the darkness to pull me into the deep. I was vaguely horrified by my reaction and to stay sitting and not to leave... to not walk out of the film and to go home... well, that was a serious amount of work. I am still not sure how I accomplished it.

Within the first few seconds of watching Georgia almost literally waltzed onto the screen, I felt feelings of deep loathing and disgust. She appeared to be a character/ person with traits that I dislike intensely. I felt she had self-confidence bordered on arrogance and an immaturity that frustrated me. I saw her as vain, overly flirtatious, manipulative and even a little benign. And as I watched I was torn between my feelings of dislike and a growing amount of dismay as I started to realize that I didn't like her not only for the 'legitimate' reasons, but I think I also didn't like her because I saw some 'parts' of her that I felt were mirror images of some of the things that I hate in myself. And so, as I sat there loathing her, I realized how much I really loath myself. How I want to be pretty and I'm not. How I want to be liked and to be wanted by the people that really matter to me... and I am not. And how I would love to be able to enjoy things more... and I can't. And I could see her confusion and her hopes and her dreams written all over every aspect of her being... and I could feel my confusion in my youth. I could feel the dreams that I had to be loved and to have a wonderful normal family and to be me... to be cared for as myself even though I am eccentric and I have too much energy and I speak without thinking and I also think a bit too much of myself. I worry about whether I am accomplishing enough and what other people think and all sorts of stuff! So watching Georgia and her behavior was a bit like watching a distorted image of myself and things I wished I was brave to do or feel comfortable doing... and feeling jealous. And feeling angry because I want so much and I can't have it whether I'm good or bad or anything. It's like nothing I do that's right and nice gives me anything positive at all... except the comfort I feel from doing it. And then I feel scared because I think that I am running from life too and I'm not sure that I feel like I want to find it but I don’t want to feel like I've wasted it either. In essence, Georgia is a spitfire... and I am conflicted about them.

Danilo was a very interesting mix of a person and I found myself drawn to him even as I was repulsed by Georgia. I thought I could feel his fear of her and any relationship with her but also his extreme hope and love towards the America that he saw and wanted to exist. He wants a better life than his father has and is frustrated that his father seems so unhappy and doesn't want to better things. As he says, “There is college...” and his father states, “Not for you. In America we work.” His father also says “I'm tired and I have to go to work – that is America.” I heard that line and I can't even express how often I have felt that way. I think I have just thought the ending slightly differently... In my mind, I think “I'm tired and I have to go to work – what else can I do. I'm an adult and I must eat or die.” This is a very different viewpoint than the romantic and fairly extreme viewpoint that Danilo carries in his heart. Danilo is also a bit too honest and speaks his mind and his heart to his detriment. His mouth is both a blessing and a curse as it brings him happiness and a lot of pain. His every word holds so much meaning – when he looked at his father and said ' Dada” … you could hear the hope and joy and 'feel' what that meant to him. That one word became a complex tapestry of images and emotion as we look at his young face.

His friend David was an interesting mix as well. He is overweight and seems to understand life a little more - “between chromosomes and tradition, what else can I do.” He is easy... easy going, easy to lead, easy to love, easy to leave.... easy to forget. And he seems to know this about himself. So he is quick to laugh and think good thoughts of others and worry... sometimes too much... most of the time not much. And Tom.... well, I didn't feel anything much about him at all. I do not feel like until the end of the film he fleshed out much as a character at all. He didn't seem like anything more than a colored shell until he came back from fighting in Vietnam. The funny thing is that I do not feel like he changed that much... but he did in the sense that he seemed more grounded and his character felt more real. I am not sure that I ever really liked him... but I didn't dislike him either. He just seemed like a decent boring guy by the end... isn't that how most of us turn out as adults. :)

And so the movie finally ended. I could still hear the scream of the saddened and distraught mother... who is no longer a mother... and the wife... who is no longer a wife... just a woman. “I don't really know what to do with that word.” Sadly, I am almost in the same situation and I do not know what to do either. I can still feel her loss and her grief and confusion and I can claim those emotions as my own. I hope that someday I will not understand her grief as well as I do now. And I hope I am not offensive if I admit that I never, ever want to watch this movie again. I want to let the images and emotions fade so that I can continue to heal from my past. I want to forget.

Social and Political Consequences of the French Revolution

The act that we call the French Revolution was truly a world changing event with both social and political consequences. Attempting to determine whether the revolution was political with social consequences or vice versa can be difficult depending on what you study and whose viewpoint you look at. I really feel from my studies this semester that the French Revolution was a revolution that had both social and political consequences, but wasn't necessarily a political revolution or a social revolution either. There are a few reasons that I believe this to be the case which I will carefully outline. Looking back at the revolution and the changes that it inspired and propelled forward, we can see how some of the changes were quite revolutionary and how many changes were in some ways not really a change at all.

The revolution changed France in some ways politically and in some ways kept a bit of the status quo... just under different labels. Early supporters of the revolution did use an excuse that was political in nature for the revolt: that excuse was that power was monopolized in the form of a king and a corrupt and despotic system of government. This really appears to have been either an excuse or an incorrect perception as the reality of the governmental system was not that clean cut. Centuries before the revolution, the poor and disabled had been taken care of by the Catholic church. Many local governmental functions and education of those born to the upper and middle classes was also usually paid for by the church. In the years preceding the revolution, many of those jobs began to be taken on by the French monarchy instead of the church. This brought not only extra expenses, but with the ever growing and expanding populations... even more people who would need relief in emergencies such as famine. The government already had huge money issues due to costly rivalries with other countries (which included funding the American bid for Independence against England) and the monarch's inability to budget the governmental finances appropriately. The royal government had really developed a centralized administrative system that in theory was more streamlined than any other European countries, but in practice it was not smooth and didn't take into account laws from the smaller areas which might not agree with the 'national' laws. Before the Revolution, the monarchy had absolute control over the use of the military, development and implementation of law, and the collection and spending of public money.

With the coming Revolution, the monarchy was gradually removed from power. The National Assembly in 1791 set up a new regime which was a constitutional monarchy- this lasted only ten months. The next governing group was the National Convention whose members were called Jacobins, but that particular group splintered into other groups of like minded individuals that formed their own 'political parties'- the Montagnards and Girondins and also the San-culottes. The king and his family were imprisoned and then in late 1792 King Louis XVI was convicted of treason and executed early in the new year. The new government was now fully run by the National Convention... which was controlled by its largest and most powerful faction called the Montagnards... which was lead by Maximilian Robespierre. The country was then ruled by this man and a 'committee' that Robespierre and the Convention developed to attempt to stop the counter revolution... because by this time not everyone was satisfied with the path that the government was starting to tread. This group, known as the Committee of Public Safety, was charged with setting up revolutionary courts and executing criminals and anyone deemed treasonous or disloyal to the French state and/or the Revolution. This began the Reign of Terror and around 40,000 people were put to death by the guillotine- this included governmental leaders from the convention that didn't agree with Robespierre, women, and simple dissatisfied citizens. By 1794, the policy of 'Terror' had alienated so many people and Convention members that their leader, Maximilian Robespierre, was convicted of treason and, after a failed suicide attempt, he was put to death in July 1974.

The government was then run by the Convention which put down more uprisings with the help of the Army, tried to end the country's war with Spain and Prussia, produced a new constitution and developed a form of leadership called The Directory-it was a five man executive governing council. A two house-legislative assembly was developed and democratic elections were set up, however, the National Convention set up some rules in the new system to favor themselves and rioting began again. The government was ideological divided between members who wanted to bring the monarchy back and those who wanted even more democracy.
When The Directory realized that royalist supporters were becoming the majority in the government, they turned to a general named Napoleon Bonaparte for help. After elections, Bonaparte with the help of another general and large forces of soldiers, helped to take over the government. In this forced takeover, two members of the Dictators were removed, most of the election results were annulled, and power fell literally into the hands of a few members of the National Convention. This led to a fairly ineffective dictatorship until 1799 when a few members of the Convention chose Napoleon Bonaparte to be their leader- when a large amount of Convention members resisted, Bonaparte used the army to effectively take over and become the dictator of France.

So politically, many things didn't really change if you look at the situation with a wide angled lens. The Revolution threw out the absolute monarchy and executed their king... and then accepted Robespierre as almost a one man leader. Robespierre, known as 'the Incorruptible', was eventually thrown out and executed... so that power was transferred to a group of five called the Directory. When the five members of the Directory couldn't agree on public policy, Napoleon Bonaparte was brought in and two members were thrown out. Then, after some time and more infighting, Napoleon Bonaparte effectively took over and became a one man leader- by 1804, he was named hereditary emperor. No matter who was in charge, the government tended to be in many ways reactionary and would perform actions that were some of the people's biggest complaints under the governmental system before the Revolution; arrest warrants of any one without meaningful trials, government appointed and not
democratically elected leaders, special privileges to small percentage of the population, etc... So, while some things changed politically in France, many things remained close to the original status quo... only changing slightly as time moved forward and the society and government was stabilized.

French Society changed a bit in its social structure and culture with in the revolution. Before the revolution, every citizen from the poorest peasant to the wealthiest noble believed that they had rights and privileges that should be defended and this view was strengthened with the behavior and beliefs of the members of parlements... behavior that was unable to be controlled by the monarch due to the permanent circumstances of the parlement judges. Some of these thoughts came from ideas that became popular during the Enlightenment- a period of time where ideas on tradition, science, human reason and ability as well as religion changed and shifted in the minds of many. (And Paris was said to be the 'heart' of the Enlightenment movement.) Education became more important and more and more people were educated, literate and able to better participate in the world and politics around them. In short, most enlightenment thought was based on differing ideas of freedom and liberty... and was fairly secular in nature. French society had social divisions based on class as well as special privileges that came with belonging to different groups; the clergy and nobility enjoyed exemption from most taxes and many positions in the government were reserved for those of noble birth... or those who were wealthy enough to purchase a title.

With the beginning of the revolution, many changes to French society were attempted. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was discussed and written by the National Assembly. This document was an attempt to write out the hoped for rules for the new government; they included man's natural rights to their liberty, personal property, security, equal treatment under the law, etc... All of these ideas were revolutionary for their time. The privileges of special groups, such as the nobles or the clergy, which had been hereditary and traditional, were attacked and changed under reform. The laws of property ownership were changed and idea of private property was more respected and protected by law from extra fees and eminent property rights. Women, who had been excluded from politics in pre-revolution days, became open participators in political groups and societal change in the beginning of the revolution. Voting rights were given to all citizens by the Declaration. Divorce and marriage became state institutions and were no longer governed fully by the Catholic Church. Numerous constitutions were written to protect people and property from the government by guaranteeing rights, elections, etc... The Declaration also included the right of Freedom of Speech which was supposed to help end censorship and fear in oral and written expression.

However, many of the above mentioned changes were not necessarily constant or unchanging in themselves. While the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen declared man's natural rights to many things, the document was vague enough that its interpretation was actually quite limiting over time. The word 'man' in the document was usually interpreted to not include women and any gender minorities (Africans and Jews). This interpretation was so consistent that it caused on female writer to 'rewrite' the declaration and title it The Declaration of the Rights of Woman. Women were later excluded from much participation in politics by government bans on the ways they participated. Voting rights quickly became exclusive and limited to the small majority of property owners- Robespierre was quoted as saying “Can the law be termed an expression of general will when the greater number of those for whom it is made can have no hand in its making?” The National Convention and The Directory would openly violate the constitutional protections many times over their rule. Robespierre and the beginning of the Terror would put a large damper on all rights to free speech or expression... unless you were willing to die for your words.

So the revolution started with the dissatisfaction of the nobles which caused the King to call the Estates General into session, but then the revolution left the hands of the aristocracy and titled elite and the leading roles in events were handled by the bourgeoisie and the lower classes. With the dissatisfaction of the Third Estate and the King with the Estates General, the general dissatisfaction became a bit of class warfare and distrust. The appearance of the monarchy siding with the noble classes made the break between the groups even more hostile. Add a famine, rising bread costs and riots began to break out. Then the Bastille was rioted and captured by members of the third estate and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was completed. A constitutional monarchy was set up, abolished and then governmental rule by the National Convention and the 'Committee for Public Safety'- or, in actuality, rule by Maximilian Robespierre. After his 'overthrow', governmental power was held in the hands of five men who were known as the Directory and the National Convention, but in a short period of time we see power moving again to one man in the form of Napoleon Bonaparte. France had gone through many attempts at political and society change, but few were immediately lasting. Most social and political change really took time-such as decades- to really cement themselves into the culture, mindset, and behavior of the people of France. Some of these 'revolutionary' changes appear to have only really been possible to thrive in an environment that was not 'revolutionary'- i.e. an environment that was stable and relatively constant. The only thing constant about the politics and the society of the French Revolution was its inconsistency, reactionary manner, and fear. The National Assembly, National Convention, the several Constitutions... all of these were born in crisis and finding the way out of crisis seemed nearly impossible. Only with the coming of some forms of governmental stability did France have the lasting change that it had wished for early on causing the French Revolution.

French Revolutionaries and Analysis on Minority Rights

After reading and studying the 'Declaration of Man' last week, I really wanted to try and figure out what the people who wrote the document meant by it. For instance, it seems obvious through language that the word man means all men, but it did not. So here are some thoughts on the research that I did and what I think the thoughts of the revolutionaries might have been.

To start, I will admit that I am not really sure about what the revolutionaries thoughts about rights for free Negroes in the Caribbean colonies and non-Christian groups within France. What does seem clear is that if you lived in the French Caribbean colonies, you tended to lean more towards an appreciation of slavery an if you lived in the country of France, then you tended to feel that slavery was not totally positive- I make this statement based on the idea that after an uprising in Saint-Domingue in 1791, the Assembly in May of that year passed a decree that gave full citizenship rights to all free nonwhite males born to free parents in a French Colony. This concession is clearly limited and didn't apply to any nonwhite male slaves not to non white who were free but had parents who were considered slaves, but this concession was considered unacceptable to the French (white) citizens of the colonies and they lobbied hard to have the decree annulled. (It appears that they would have been successful if not for the great slave rebellion in September 1791 that occurred again in Saint-Domingue and lead to the eventual abolition of slavery in 1794 and the colony's independence from France several years later.) The writer Montesquieu wrote in “The Spirit of Laws” many things suggesting that slavery is an affront to natural law, he also wrote that in some situations it can be justified- one quote states '… It is hard to believe that God, who is such a wise Being, should place a soul, especially a good soul in such a black ugly body.....The Negroes prefer a glass necklace to that gold which polite nations so highly value. Can there be a greater proof of their want of common sense? It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures are men because, allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christian.' I will admit that I read the document three times and I think that I still do not understand what the writer meant, but it does appear to me that these statements give a justification of exploitation and slavery based on skin color, looks, and assumptions. Any thoughts from classmates who actually understood what Montesquieu meant are certainly welcome as I won't pretend that I did. :)

What does seem clear is that as enlightened as many of these revolutionaries were, they still had to deal with their own traditions and prejudices, the biases of others, and it is unreasonable to expect that they could literally change the world in a matter of weeks in regards to all the prejudices and class biases that existed at that time. What they did accomplish was pretty extraordinary in itself. Until the revolution, it appears that religious belief was an important characteristic that helped determine your citizenship; i.e., if you were Catholic you were a citizen and if you were anything else you were not. The revolution started the change in this by granting limited citizenship rights to all French Protestants in 1787- two years before the writing of 'The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen'. It is a little telling that it took an additional four years to grant the majority of French Jews citizenship rights in September of 1791... especially as I realized that the some of the nonwhite males of the French colonies were given citizenship rights four months previously. Another requirement for citizenship was that you had to be male, so this certainly left women out. :) I believe that another requirement was that you had to be born in France- so immigrants would never have any way of becoming a citizen. Any way you look at the process of trying to open up opportunity and rights to a majority that had not had then, it was not an easy process.

I suspect one reason that these particular groups were not naturally included and were considered separately is simply because in almost all aspects of life they were already looked at separately. Other groups such as the poor while separate,... in many ways looked like their group. Many white men were poor, etc... Non whites and Jews looked different, had different cultures, even different religions, making these groups seem more suspect and not immediately brought to the forefront. So these groups had to be considered separately when their plight or need for rights was brought to the attention of the Assembly. Otherwise, they hadn't been considered due to the tradition biases and prejudices of the revolutionaries in power. The one exception appears to be white protestants- their break with the traditional religion was not a hindrance and in fact seemed to be an asset in light of the anti-Catholic Enlightenment atmosphere of the time.

What are your thoughts? How do you think that our country which had the same difficulties as France has overcome them? Do you think that we have overcome them....?

'The Revised Nun Files' - Questions for my Oral History Interview

Well I am getting ready for my overnight trip for my interview. I am headed to the Canada border so it will be fun and all sorts of things. I am hoping to meet a few new online friends and classmates and even meet my favorite teacher. With the feedback I got from friends and other classmates as well as my esteemed professor, here are the new questions. :)

List of questions shared by both the ‘new’ and the ‘experienced’

1. Tell me a little about yourself. (Where were you born? How many siblings did you have? What did your parents do for a living?)

2. What was your religion growing up? What church, if any, did you attend?
Did you attend a Catholic school when you were growing up and how did that influence you?

3. How were religious holidays (Christmas, etc.) celebrated in your family? Did your family have special traditions?

4. What stood out to you about the church as a child? Did you sing in the choir or do any other church activities?

5. What role did the church play in your life as a child? What role in your community did the church play?

6. Do you remember your confirmation as a child? What can you remember about it?

7. What do you remember your father telling you about religion? Your mother?

8. At what age did you decide you wanted to become a Nun? Did you always have a sense that you would become a nun/sister or did the notion come as a surprise to you?

9. Were your family/friends surprised that you became a nun/sister or did they tell you they knew or could tell this is what you would be? Has anyone else in your family become a nun, a priest or a monk?

10. Did anyone try to dissuade you from becoming a Nun?

11. Who was most supportive of your vocation? Who was the least supportive and why?

12.What was the process like of becoming a nun? What things needed to be accomplished?

13. How did you choose your order and what order are you affiliated with?

14. Have you ever lived in a convent and what was that experience like?

15. What particular spiritual practice is most important to you in your walk with the Lord and why?

16. Can you describe for me what your typical day looks like in your vocation?
Can you describe what a typical year looks like in your vocation? Is there such a thing?

17. What delights/surprises you about being a nun/sister?

18. What has been your most rewarding experience in religious life?

19. Have you ever experienced something that made you re-evaluate your vocation? How did you overcome that experience?

20. Some people think that the vow of poverty is one of the most difficult vows… what do you think about that? Do you have an experience wherein you really felt the weight of this particular vow?

21. How is the ‘church’ today different from what it was like when you were a child? (if this question is pertinent)

22. Is the church asking or getting enough of women’s religious views on Church related issues. Do you think there needs to be a change?

23. What one piece of advice would you give to someone considering a vocation as a nun/sister that you wish someone would have told you when you were first considering the vocation?

24. Have you ever been to the Vatican? What was that experience like?

Questions for the more experienced nun

1. How is being a nun/sister for you today different/the same from being a nun/sister in the past?

2. How has your order had to change in the last 50 years to keep the viability of your mission alive in the Church?

3. How have your views on your vocation changed through your experience?

4. Can you discuss the hierarchy of the church here in Maine? How has it changed over time?

5. The church has gone through numerous changes over the past few decades - for instance, it was not until 1983 that girls were allowed to be altar servers, before it was only altar boys.  Also, at one point, only men were allowed to be Eucharistic Ministers, but now women can play that role.  What do you think of these changes?
Do you agree or disagree… and how have they affected your practice?

6. There is a thought among some church members that nuns and priests should be allowed to marry… what are your thoughts on this touchy issue?

7. There seems to be fewer priests and nuns than there were compared to 20+ years ago? Do you agree with the generalization… and how does this change your job? Does it make it more difficult… and how? Also, are you able to give me figures on how many nuns and priests service Aroostook County/ Maine now… as opposed to when you first started?


I am getting pretty excited about this and the idea of a little travel sounds excellent! So we shall see how things go! :)