Educational machinery

I’m working on a question I can’t possibly answer, not here, in this post, but I’m reading and thinking and making notes on the turn to Marx in the late 60s early 70s in communication theory. The question is: why the turn to Marx and not Nietzsche as in the 80s? Like I said, I don’t think I can answer it, but I don’t think an answer is the point of the exercise. The question interests me on a number of levels. It’s a question I’ll be working on for the rest of my days.

If you are thinking to change the world, you’ve got a friend in both Marx and Nietzsche. I’m writing this post to situate myself in the edublogger space. I’m sure I’ll be writing posts like this one with regularity. Situating myself in space will help articulate my position, but also speak to others with similar positions. At this point I can only state vaguely my desire to change education in Canada, to first articulate and then create a difference between what’s on offer (given) and what is possible. I know there are other writers/educators who want to experiment with educational possibilities and eventually I’ll find my way into that section of the edublogger community. As well, maybe at some point, I’ll get into the idea of pushing educational technology/machinery but for now a critique is needed.

And this is the purpose of this post: to initiate the critique and to situate this critique within the edublogger sphere. The critique’s object is not education, it is society and the process of socialization. This situating post, as vague as it is, is necessary to hold in mind the idea of education in the critique of society and socialization.

Writing Sample

For my application I was asked to submit a writing sample. There it is.

 

A couple comments:

1. As part of my application I submitted two articles as writing samples. They were from a community newspaper so showed no academic ability. It was suggested I submit academic writing. In the week and a half I had to research and prepare this as yet non-existent academic work, an idea (all I need is one idea) was a very elusive substance. An idea did come, and if you take the time to read the paper you might see it. The idea came late, but better late than far too late.

2. That idea has been growing and connecting with other ideas. I’ve been struck over and over again how writers tend to rework the same material. Many philosophers write the same book over and over again. I mention this because in the past few days since finishing this paper, in this flurry of ideas I was led to an idea of my youth. It’s as if I’ve been unconsciously working on the same problem for two decades.