When I was in high school I was lucky enough to have Mr. Sheldon Oberman, who many Winnipegers knew as Obie, as my English teacher. We did many cool things, and Obie played a big part in “turning me onto English,” and I carry much of what I learned from him to my classroom today.
In grade 12 English, very early in the year, Obie introduced the “Ideas Project” we would be working on. These were said to be year-long studies, which would culminate in a major (2 hour) presentation at the end of the year. The Ideas Project topics were very broad and complex, and ranged in everything from architecture to existentialism to Freud. My topic was Picasso and it sparked a life-long interest in art, which once again I bring to my classroom as an art teacher. Among the many choices included was Marshall McLuhan, which happened to be covered by my best friend.
Of course, at the time I was a 17 year old kid, and while I was more interested in English and Obie’s classes than some of my other studies, I can’t say that I worked as hard as perhaps Obie would have liked. Most of the work was done in March and April, as we graduated in early May, and while I did learn a lot about Picasso and art (for which I am truly grateful) all I got out of the other ideas and topics presented was a basic overview, a taste of what they had to offer. Perhaps that was Obie’s point all along.
So when I came to this course, and discovered we would be delving into the life and thoughts of Marshall McLuhan my curiosity was piqued. All I remembered from grade 12 was that he was Canadian and he said, “The Medium is the Message.” But over the years, especially since I have started teaching, I have come to truly appreciate the work that Obie did as a teacher, and so I figured that if he had brought the topic forward there must be something to it. As it happens I was right, and much like Obie himself, Marshall McLuhan was a pretty right-on dude, a bit of a freak (and I mean that in the kindest way), with some way out-there thoughts.
As I was watching the documentary I was quite fascinated by Marshall McLuhan, his life and the many ideas presented. I was left with the overall feeling that he was quite a cool guy and it must have been frustrating to be him in the time he was living. There were many ideas that I am certain went over my head, but there was a lot there that I could relate to, and that resonated with me.
As his ideas were laid out, I was also struck by how the majority of his work seemed to exist on a spiritual plane and connect to the greater philosophies of life and living; the cycles of nature are part in parcel with his laws or rules of media. Life and nature are a cycle of birth, change, growth, death and rebirth, as are his laws.
Many references were made to his religious life and faith as a Catholic and his study of the bible, however little was said about what this truly meant to him. I would have liked to hear this, as many of the ideas he presented resonated with my own spiritual knowledge and life philosophies.
Early in the documentary he related everything in the world as an extension of our selves as individuals; the media as the extension of human experience. The car is the extension of our legs, the pen of our arms, and language and ideas the extension of our minds. I understood his concern to be in how we use these tools in the world around us; what kind of creation does each of us choose to relate and reflect in the world around us? In essence, “what kind of people do we want to be?” This is a question I ask myself, and pose to my 8th graders, all of the time; in many ways to me it is the essence of living, and my responsibility as an individual, and especially a teacher of impressionable 13 year olds, is not lost on me. McLuhan stated somewhere that “our language is a way of understanding the universe,” and it is also how we communicate these understandings with others. Though it may sound strange, it kind of makes sense to me that he suffered a stroke after so much of his language (ideas and understandings) were lost on the world around him.
It is also pretty cool, and ironic, what a forward thinker McLuhan was in relation to time and technology, yet, at the same time, these very ideas link closely with very old schools of thought. He coined phrases like “global village,” and described a system that strongly resembles the internet today, and he couldn’t have known possibly known how right he would be. He noted how quickly time was moving, and that with technology the world was speeding up, as he said, “The more you get the faster you go.” I don’t think he could have possibly imagined how instantaneous the transmission of information would actually become.
However, at the same time, he also recognized the difficulties human nature has simply being in the present moment. This is the foundation of yoga and meditation practices which have existed in Eastern tradition and philosophies for thousands of years, and are still practiced today. McLuhan commented on the human perception of time, and how our present society is a reflection of the past, as it is “Impossible for man to look at the present because it’s terrifying.” Again this makes me question what McLuhan really believed on a spiritual level, as my meditation practice helps me to live and accept the present as it is today.
Though McLuhan seemed to focus a lot of his attention on the “what,” the media and the technology, I think what he was really interested in was the “who,” and the “why” in human nature. As he said his intention was to probe for understanding and what he was trying to figure out, and share as he did, were old questions that go back and back and back to the beginning of time.
I think what he figured out, though not perfect and not always comprehensible (at least by me), were some pretty cool ideas. Along with the concept of living in the present the most striking concepts I took with me, and will continue to ponder, are, “Too much of anything will always bring the opposite of what you are getting,” and “The trick is to recognize the pattern before it is complete.”
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I too was struck by the irony in McLuhan's suffering a stroke. His frustration in losing the ability to communicate his thoughts must have been horrible to endure.
I never had the good fortune to study under Obie but I am married to one of his students who like you was greatly affected by the man. I had the joy of teaching at Talmud Torah when he was at still working at JWC and I knew he was one of those special educators who was making a difference in the lives of kids! Where is the justice in the world when a great guy like that gets taken way before his time?
What occurs to me is that you look at the question 'what s curriculum' from the point of view of a teacher, but not from the point of view of the education system. What is the role of curriculum in creating a more uniform set of knowledge and skills acquisition among teachers across a whole education system - say across a whole province? How could an education system work without a curriculum?
Also, are there not different degrees to which a curriculum may be designed to prescribe teaching practice in the classroom? For example, I imagine that in some countries at some time there has been a very rigidly defined curriculum that sets out in great detail what a teacher can and cannot do in a classroom: other countries at other times might have only the vaguest guidance with little or no prescription (or support). It sounds to me like you have something in the middle in your school. (And this raises the question of whether in talking about curriculum we mean only the content of teaching or to what degree it includes the method?)
Just some ideas!
Post a Comment