DagSeoul: Positions, Populations, Punk, Poetics

his loss

The head of my school likes to walk into the classroom and interrupt class. Give you an example. I had my students writing about an important question of interpretation in their reading this morning. They were to use their texts to find evidence to support their answers; they were to be clear and precise; they were to proofread their work. I timed this writing exercise because i’m trying to encourage my students, who are still learning English, to be able to perform well even under stress. Each will have to take several western standardized exams, like the ACT, in order to have any hope to attend university outside of Cambodia. So, we’re working on being concise (answer the question and only the question,) being clear (using good subjects and being able to recall technical language used in literary analysis,) and being precise (having strong subjects perform precise actions.)

The head of my school walked into class and stood over my students—each of them, today—and for an agonizing eight-minutes strolled and lurked; he pulled their notebooks away from them so he could read what they’d written, and then he insisted they make changes to words by silently pointing to mistakes and whispering phrases at them. I heard him pointing out subject-verb agreement errors (misplaced s endings) and missing apostrophes. He was doing their work for them; he was patronizing them; he was stressing them out; he was harming them, in my opinion. Worst, he was doing it because he knows I don’t want him doing it. So, he was purposefully harassing my students today in order to encourage me to say something about it.

This man enjoys standing over students. He does it all day, everyday. He enjoys asserting his authority. He enjoys being correct. He cares not for learning, in my opinion; he prefers merely to be obeyed, which he’d likely refer to as modeling and assessing. Watching him quietly harass my students is one of the hardest things I have to endure. It is harassment. They hate it. They are intimidated by him. When I arrived a month ago, I thought he was just naive with good intentions. After all, anyone can see the way the kids stop what they’re doing, slow down, become quiet, and shrink from him in his presence. He must find it pleasing.

I’ve since learned his concept of teaching is telling students what they need to do and assessing whether or not they’ve done it. It’s like the authoritarian’s version of base memory and repetition education. Worse, he wants me to teach that way. Because I refuse, he thinks I’m uncooperative. In his eyes, we have a consistent struggle that he insists effects the entire school. Of course, I teach in a room and work from that room all day and talk to no one about our problem. So, he harasses my students and projects his personal garbage onto me to justify his reason for distrusting and disliking my work. He brings his problem into my professional development. It’s quite awful.

I was writing a novel and not working last month and for the previous four months. I was poor but working on what I love to work on. It was slow-going, the writing, because I had stopped for a while. But it was coming. I’m trying to finish my dissertation, and now I’m not finishing it in the time I wanted to. But it’s for a reason. I stopped that work to teach. What isn’t cooperative about my decision to work with high school students in reading and language arts and to work twelve hours a day, five days a week, to do it? What isn’t cooperative about tolerating a dolt in my classroom and his persistent betrayal of student confidence? What isn’t cooperative about learning a model for lesson-planning that is entirely foreign to me, making mistakes, and attempting to correct those mistakes, after which enduring the humiliation of being told the work I do in the classroom is meaningless unless it can be quantified and represented on an observation form? Our model isn’t about quantities, by the way. That’s a basic misinterpretation of how the assessment pieces work according to the model. The goal is that the students and teacher stay focused and together during work and that students and teacher always be attempting to build while learning. I’m not used to the format the organization should be presented in and I’m not used to the highly-structured classroom. There’s good reason why. I taught university. I lectured. I taught writing. It’s a different thing I’m doing. What isn’t cooperative about admitting i’m learning and trying, within one month and with no formal training, to implement this model in my classroom? What isn’t cooperative about resisting the urge to quit and to return to the comfort of reading and writing?

Everything I’m doing is about being more cooperative because I believe in cooperation and community work. I want to be here. But each day this monumental prick reminds me that he thinks I don’t want to be here. It’s making me sick. I feel harassed. It’s the worst I’ve felt as an employee for a very long time. —And teaching in Korea—being the lone foreign teacher in a large high school in a poor neighborhood—was difficult. And it’s only bad because of one man.

Any administrators reading this will know what I’m talking about, and teachers will surely know. This guy is acting the way he thinks an administrator should act: a boss who has his say and knows he’s being listened to because people illustrate they are following rules and simply respond to him with “yes” and “no”. He’s performing.

I don’t think the head of my school is aware the students hold him in contempt, at worst, and fear him, at best, that the teachers are afraid of him for their jobs and annoyed by his presence in their classrooms. I believe he thinks he’s doing a tough job. It’s white of him, certainly. It’s patriarchal, of course. The privilege to not have to rely on others. But I think he’s like so many foreigners, in Cambodia and Korea, who believe they know exactly what must be done to fix things. Now that he’s achieved an appearance of power, he’s ready to wield it as a tool of direct authority. He doesn’t seem to realize it’s just an act; that we all can see it’s just an act; a poor, impotent performance that represents lack of knowledge and training as much as lack of confidence and self-esteem.

I know this because he insists I need to be concerned about my relationship with him rather than be concerned with my work in the classroom. He conflates his relationship with me and my work in the classroom. It’s as if he thinks I care about being fired more than I care about learning to be a better teacher. 

I wish he’d read this because I want him to know how humiliating it is for the employees, faculty, and students to realize that each day we have to endure his disabling presence and pointless criticism. I want him to stew in the anonymity in which he dwells and will forever dwell as long as he seeks temporary restraint of things beyond his control. Fact is, the students are the ones doing work here; the ones doing the important work. And he’s lost that thread, hasn’t he? He thinks he’s necessary. They are. They are the school. And nothing else much matters.

dagNotes: Ohio’s legislature votes to defund Planned Parenthood

The problem with the United States isn’t that it’s a country full of ignorant, violent, women-hating, racist hicks. It’s most certainly not. The problem is that the US majority is so comfortable in its relative privileges that it consistently permits the ignorant, violent, women-hating, racist hicks to make all the important decisions.

(From Ohio)

Whiteness: To, For, and Against

dagseoul:

Always a white person around to tell Koreans about Korea and Korean culture.

Koreans are bound to have something to say about the upcoming Cloud Atlas film adaptation and its representation of Seoul and already white fans of the book are in defense mode against any hint of criticism. White people like to inform Koreans that their nationalism doesn’t makes sense because they’re already so Westernized, and they level the criticism without a hint of consciousness about how the critique is ridiculously short-sighted, narrow-minded, and insulting. As if to-become-first-world meant Koreans had to become “Western”. White foreigners do it all the time: a successful Korea means a Korea full of Koreans who are basically white people and all their new friends who helped them get there. In other words, to be successful means to not be Korean. That’s the implication. It’s understandable most Koreans push back against such interpellation.

You’ve likely seen the criticism Jim Sturgess is receiving for his insensitive discussion about his preparations for part of his role as Adam Ewing/Im Hae Joon in Cloud Atlas. I’m a Tykwer fan and not a Wachowski fan, so I’m already meh about the film. I don’t know what you do with an actor who has to play different characters with different ethnicities. I’m not a director. I do know that, at least, we should have actors who understand the complexities of culture, who understand racist film culture and its history, and who can appropriately address their roles without being racist themselves. White actors like to pretend they are unselfconscious about these things and it’s insulting and precious.

For what it’s worth, I have nothing to write about it that I haven’t written already. Although, I have noticed something about whiteness that’s worth discussion.

The ideological apparatus whiteness* works differently at home than away from home. At home, whites tend to use people of color and foreigners as barometers for the health of society at home in a way that recollects an idealized white society. In this manner, we can see how white supremacy uses white people in an effort to maintain its authority. Away from home, where white supremacy is challenged, whites tend to speak to people of color and their hosts about the health of their society in a way that (attempts to) interpellate others as subjects of white supremacy. In other words, white people attempt to address not-white subjects as white subjects. We can see this in the way that many Native Speaking English Teachers across Asia compose lessons that are intended to instruct students not only how to use English well but how to think about the world well. So to use English becomes a way to use whiteness. The teachers approve of others using whiteness/English well and so re-establish the authority in white supremacy.

*I use whiteness instead of white supremacy. White supremacy permits us to address of state of affairs. White supremacy is a fact. We can historically examine white power by addressing white supremacy. Whiteness is about something particular within white supremacy. It isn’t a narrative about a culture or society and its history. Whiteness modifies particular events and individuals. Rather than addressing action as white supremacy does, whiteness addresses acts. In this way, I can illustrate how whiteness composes (addresses) individuals, say English teachers, at home and abroad.

keeping this up top…some anon questions.

Whiteness: To, For, and Against

dagseoul:

Always a white person around to tell Koreans about Korea and Korean culture.

Koreans are bound to have something to say about the upcoming Cloud Atlas film adaptation and its representation of Seoul and already white fans of the book are in defense mode against any hint of criticism. White people like to inform Koreans that their nationalism doesn’t makes sense because they’re already so Westernized, and they level the criticism without a hint of consciousness about how the critique is ridiculously short-sighted, narrow-minded, and insulting. As if to-become-first-world meant Koreans had to become “Western”. White foreigners do it all the time: a successful Korea means a Korea full of Koreans who are basically white people and all their new friends who helped them get there. In other words, to be successful means to not be Korean. That’s the implication. It’s understandable most Koreans push back against such interpellation.

You’ve likely seen the criticism Jim Sturgess is receiving for his insensitive discussion about his preparations for part of his role as Adam Ewing/Im Hae Joon in Cloud Atlas. I’m a Tykwer fan and not a Wachowski fan, so I’m already meh about the film. I don’t know what you do with an actor who has to play different characters with different ethnicities. I’m not a director. I do know that, at least, we should have actors who understand the complexities of culture, who understand racist film culture and its history, and who can appropriately address their roles without being racist themselves. White actors like to pretend they are unselfconscious about these things and it’s insulting and precious.

For what it’s worth, I have nothing to write about it that I haven’t written already. Although, I have noticed something about whiteness that’s worth discussion.

The ideological apparatus whiteness* works differently at home than away from home. At home, whites tend to use people of color and foreigners as barometers for the health of society at home in a way that recollects an idealized white society. In this manner, we can see how white supremacy uses white people in an effort to maintain its authority. Away from home, where white supremacy is challenged, whites tend to speak to people of color and their hosts about the health of their society in a way that (attempts to) interpellate others as subjects of white supremacy. In other words, white people attempt to address not-white subjects as white subjects. We can see this in the way that many Native Speaking English Teachers across Asia compose lessons that are intended to instruct students not only how to use English well but how to think about the world well. So to use English becomes a way to use whiteness. The teachers approve of others using whiteness/English well and so re-establish the authority in white supremacy.

*I use whiteness instead of white supremacy. White supremacy permits us to address of state of affairs. White supremacy is a fact. We can historically examine white power by addressing white supremacy. Whiteness is about something particular within white supremacy. It isn’t a narrative about a culture or society and its history. Whiteness modifies particular events and individuals. Rather than addressing action as white supremacy does, whiteness addresses acts. In this way, I can illustrate how whiteness composes (addresses) individuals, say English teachers, at home and abroad.

Whiteness: To, For, and Against

Always a white person around to tell Koreans about Korea and Korean culture.

Koreans are bound to have something to say about the upcoming Cloud Atlas film adaptation and its representation of Seoul and already white fans of the book are in defense mode against any hint of criticism. White people like to inform Koreans that their nationalism doesn’t makes sense because they’re already so Westernized, and they level the criticism without a hint of consciousness about how the critique is ridiculously short-sighted, narrow-minded, and insulting. As if to-become-first-world meant Koreans had to become “Western”. White foreigners do it all the time: a successful Korea means a Korea full of Koreans who are basically white people and all their new friends who helped them get there. In other words, to be successful means to not be Korean. That’s the implication. It’s understandable most Koreans push back against such interpellation.

You’ve likely seen the criticism Jim Sturgess is receiving for his insensitive discussion about his preparations for part of his role as Adam Ewing/Im Hae Joon in Cloud Atlas. I’m a Tykwer fan and not a Wachowski fan, so I’m already meh about the film. I don’t know what you do with an actor who has to play different characters with different ethnicities. I’m not a director. I do know that, at least, we should have actors who understand the complexities of culture, who understand racist film culture and its history, and who can appropriately address their roles without being racist themselves. White actors like to pretend they are unselfconscious about these things and it’s insulting and precious.

For what it’s worth, I have nothing to write about it that I haven’t written already. Although, I have noticed something about whiteness that’s worth discussion.

The ideological apparatus whiteness* works differently at home than away from home. At home, whites tend to use people of color and foreigners as barometers for the health of society at home in a way that recollects an idealized white society. In this manner, we can see how white supremacy uses white people in an effort to maintain its authority. Away from home, where white supremacy is challenged, whites tend to speak to people of color and their hosts about the health of their society in a way that (attempts to) interpellate others as subjects of white supremacy. In other words, white people attempt to address not-white subjects as white subjects. We can see this in the way that many Native Speaking English Teachers across Asia compose lessons that are intended to instruct students not only how to use English well but how to think about the world well. So to use English becomes a way to use whiteness. The teachers approve of others using whiteness/English well and so re-establish the authority in white supremacy.

*I use whiteness instead of white supremacy. White supremacy permits us to address of state of affairs. White supremacy is a fact. We can historically examine white power by addressing white supremacy. Whiteness is about something particular within white supremacy. It isn’t a narrative about a culture or society and its history. Whiteness modifies particular events and individuals. Rather than addressing action as white supremacy does, whiteness addresses acts. In this way, I can illustrate how whiteness composes (addresses) individuals, say English teachers, at home and abroad.

"Why is … power … so readily accepted? In a society such as ours … devices of power are … numerous … visible … reliable … more imaginative … devious and supple …

[P]ower …
[P]ower …
[T]he [L]aw of [I]nterdiction[.]

Let me offer a general and tactical reason that seems self-evident: power … power … abuse … power … those whom it dominates … the latter … desire … freedom … Power … a pure limit … form …."

Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1 (via emptylight)

(Source: seraphmachine, via deactiavtedhookedonsemiotics)

dez-ray:

dagseoul:

dez-ray:

dagseoul:

No, Penny Red, riots are not about power.

We have to be willing to admit that riots, even extended riots wherein some elements seem to be well-organized, are not organized and in the end exist as expressions of excess. Once expressed, order is re-established. So, riots are…

If it were my city burning I’d be pretty fucking sentimental too, writer or no. Jesus.

Wait a second. I think you misunderstand my use of sentimental. I’m not talking about being sad about the devastation. I’m criticizing some of her descriptions about HER that, I think, are unnecessary. I’m a fan of Penny Red, so I’m not knocking here. I’m annoyed at her tone in the opening and closing of the post. Let’s be clear that I’m sad about the devastation. I’m not shocked. I’m saddened and I’d like to be hopeful that people will not be hurt. I’m not upset that people are destroying things. I’m kind of convinced that people will destroy things.

All that said, the point of my post was to remind people that riots are about establishing an order. We often talk about the disorder and chaos in rioting. But what typically results (when revolution is not present) is a strong and re-enforced order. Penny Red writes that riots are about power. And that, my friend, is an attempt to romanticize the working class in a way that I don’t like. The rioting is not about accumulating power, it’s about expressing excess. Expressing, in other words, Using or Destroying or Expelling. …

Alright, I hear you.

About power though, when I read what she wrote about power I read it more about exercising power rather than accumulating power.

I hear you. I suppose that might be the case. I’d like to say, I’ll give you that they feel like they are exercising power. Of course they are. I’m always a little weary when we (the left) romanticize situations and individuals in those situations. I don’t think there’s anything sentimental about direct action. I kind of get dogmatic about it. 

BTW, I cry. I am a sentimental fool. A romantic, even. There are some things that blogs don’t illustrate very well. 

(via proto-flake-deactivated20120717)

dez-ray:

dagseoul:

No, Penny Red, riots are not about power.

We have to be willing to admit that riots, even extended riots wherein some elements seem to be well-organized, are not organized and in the end exist as expressions of excess. Once expressed, order is re-established. So, riots are…

If it were my city burning I’d be pretty fucking sentimental too, writer or no. Jesus.

Wait a second. I think you misunderstand my use of sentimental. I’m not talking about being sad about the devastation. I’m criticizing some of her descriptions about her that, I think, are unnecessary. I’m a fan of Penny Red, so I’m not knocking the blog.

I’m annoyed at her tone in the opening and closing of the post. Let’s be clear that I’m sad about the devastation. I’m not shocked. I’m saddened, and I’d like to be hopeful that people will not be hurt. I’m not upset that people are destroying things. I’m kind of convinced that people will destroy things.

All that said, the point of my post was to remind people that riots are about establishing an order. We often talk about the disorder and chaos in rioting. But what typically results (when revolution is not present) is a strong and re-enforced order. Penny Red writes that riots are about power. And that, my friend, is an attempt to romanticize the working-class rioters in a way that I don’t like. The rioting is not about accumulating power, it’s about expressing excess. Expressing, in other words, Using or Destroying or Expelling. …

(via proto-flake-deactivated20120717)

That’s Capitalism Speaking

No, Penny Red, riots are not about power.

We have to be willing to admit that riots, even extended riots wherein some elements seem to be well-organized, are not organized and in the end exist as expressions of excess. Once expressed, order is re-established. So, riots are actually about establishing an order.

As Penny Red notes in her conclusion, it’s going to be up to the people and their government to decide what that order looks like. I’m pessimistic about transformation. In England, you’ll see growth in nationalism, xenophobia, and far right wing activity. You’ll see a re-emergence of white power. A continued rise in anti-immigrant sentiment. You’ll see the poor and uneducated blamed and punished. You’ll see tougher laws, longer sentences, more violent policing. (I hope I’m wrong.)

Rioting is about expression not empowerment. The State will seek to further disempower and disinherit those communities that were involved. And I don’t mean to imply that rioting is counter-productive. I don’t think it always is.

I really don’t like the way she gets sentimental in the last two paragraphs. It’s as if she’s romanticizing being there. I hate it when writers do that. Bad form.