My teacher is a nice guy. You know toughs well meaning good people that are doing there best. He is a huge cougar football fan. He loves God and his job. He is your regular blue blooded Mormon. He is different from me and I think he is an asset for the church.
Last Thursday I felt really uncomfortable sitting in his class. There was a power point presentation that didn't sit right. Before he showed us what he prepared he had a disclaimer. He said that he was not trying to say God let this terrible thing happen. He said it was a wake up call. So for 10 minutes in silence he showed us these images mingled with scripture.
(Slides have been removed)
I don't know what to do with this. I am trying hard to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. It seems to me that he is saying "nine one one", happened because God let it happen. Its like when people say "Now I'm not a racist but _______." Now I'm not one to gossip but ______." His implication is so strong in the text and images. He implies that we should fear God and do what is right before something like this happens again. The text by itself is good advice. But the choice of images seems random. There are problems with the USA. People should be better than they are. We would be a better nation if we came together and loved each other. Fear is a motivator but it only lasts so long. It doesn't promote true change. It happens on a personal level. It happens when a person chooses to change and is committed to that choice. Said person may have made the choice out of fear but it is the commitment and the choice to keep it is what keeps the change.
I think my teachers points are valid. But, they should have nothing to do with 911. I think he used it as a tool to appeal to emotion. I felt like he was trying to manipulate me. Maybe his plan worked. I think most of the people in the room were moved. I guess I might be stony ground. I am too old and jaded. I am past feeling. I wonder why he didn't use the katrina incident. I think you could make the same points. Maybe because last General conference our leaders said the recent natural disasters where not God punishing the wicked.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I am almost speechless. He probably meant well. However, you attend a university, not a High School Seminary. Using pictures of suffering to emotionally involve students is a pretty sophomoric tactic.
Prehaps he wants to get a job with LDSMPS...
Gian; things like this remind me why I didn't attend BYU. That's what I love about arguments like his; it's the seamless ability to pick and choose different codes of ethics and apply them to one's worldview. If I want to give a lesson on personal choice and doing the right thing; I simply choose scriptures that refer to Kantian Deontology... If I want to make an argument about teamwork; I choose sriptures which allude to Mill's Utility Theory. I guess in this case you could call it an appeal to Communitarianism, but who knows.... Utah is funny, you don't want to make the argument that the Church makes people crazy or stupid; but I bet if you looked at public opinion polls of both the Bush and Clinton Administrations year to year; Utah is probably very close to being dead last in the nation for % swing up or down in how they viewed each presidency.
Gian,
Perhaps you should bring your concern to your teacher and allow him to explain himself. That way you don't have to say you are giving him the benefit of the doubt while publicly suggesting that your teacher is a manipulative purveyor of false doctrine. Those are two damning accusations for a Book of Mormon instructor. The benefit of the doubt does not involve publicly complaining about the thing to which you claim to give the benefit.
I anxiously await and hope for your report of what your teacher said regarding his PowerPoint.
Respectfully your friend,
AMB
i'm sorry you had that experience Gian. Jim, get your philosophies of man out of here; don't trust the fleshy arm!
Allan, I see your point. And I think you are right. I guess giving him the benefit of the doubt would be to think the whole thing was benign and not think twice about it. I haven't given him the benefit of the doubt. I tied to at first. I saw the images and scriptures. I wondered how he was going to tie it in. His explanation didn't make sense. His visual message was far from his intention.
I think I will talk to him. I think when I do talk to him he will not have any unrighteous intent. I am the one that took offence and probably the only one in the class.
Allan your dissenting opinion is one of the reasons why I posted this. To just bounce this around in my head or complain to the choir would not put a new view on the issue. I would like to see many angles, (angels) they both look right, of this issue.
Oh Allan, I am curious about what you think of the message. What do you think his implications where?
Gian,
I also don't like what Steve called "sophomoric" uses of images to invoke an emotional response. I personally see it as manipulative. That's why nobody likes to see images of starving children in Africa with flies crawling out of their mouths. That's also why I hated the movie, "Dead Poets' Society." I felt like I was being manipulated. The same could be said about a slew of other movies and forms of artistic expression. It all seemed to hinge on whether or not I liked the emotive response or the overall message. However, in talking to people who loved the movie and in considering the fact that I loved "Dead Poet's" right-wing counterpart "Field of Dreams", I started thinking that maybe one man's manipulation is another's persuasive technique. It often hinges on your overall impression of the message.
As far as what your teacher thought, I really don't know. That's why I suggested that you express your concern and talk to him directly. He can better clarify than my speculation could. I will say this. In light of the fact that the practical, albeit short-lived, effect of September 11th was in part a bringing together of the people of the nation as one who were normally opposed interest groups. It also sparked a renewed interest in religion, maybe it did "awaken" people regardless of whether it was a punishment (which I also am not suggesting) or an experience we may choose to learn from regardless of its purpose (which no one really knows).
If we are to "liken the scriptures" unto ourselves, perhaps your teacher thought he was doing it here. It appears that he presented it as his opinion, not as official church doctrine.
Furthermore, as long as you are talking about what we were taught in this last general conference, remember that taking offense is a choice that we make. I think it may be a bit more constructive to suggest to him that there are more images that can awaken ourselves and remember to keep the commandments; including the second great commandment to love one another. There are calamities all over the world that demand our Christian service to aid others, there is genocide, there is sickness, there are many things beyond September 11th. Perhaps he would take your suggestion that Katrina could be thrown into the mix and that the presentation could be more inclusive. As a practical matter it is hard to include everything that possibly could though. But you don't know what he'd do or think until you ask.
AMB
Jim & Melissa Wilson, could you please explain what Utah's political support has to do with this issue? You seem to suggest that this PowerPoint was a Republican political argument made by the professor.
I wonder if it really boils down to right and left, dead poet’s society or field of dreams. I have been thinking about why I had this reaction. I think it is because I really feel like 911 has been used to further everyone’s agenda. It has so much baggage. It means so much to everyone but in very different ways. Some people see it as a unifying moment where everything felt clear. I see it as a tool to justify a foreign policy that I strongly disagree with.
In my mind I am thinking "how dare my religion teacher use 911 as a motivational tool". The answer to that exclaim is simple. He dares to do so because he sees the unifying of a country. He doesn’t have the same opinion about the event. So I think I will talk to him and apologize. Not because I thought he was preaching false doctrine. For the record Allan you accused me of thinking this. I never considered he was purposefully leading my classmates and me astray. I thought his presentation was confusing and manipulative. I think his intentions where good.
I will apologize for being so harsh and judgmental. I was this way because I could tell he differed from me politically. I have been doing to him what others have been doing to me. I saw him as a freedom killer. Like many see me as a "cut and runner".
You brought up the general conference... well I guess I brought it up. Believe it or not I heard the offence talk too and have already considered my mistake. You might do well to take you own advice. Your tone sounds quite offended.
Gian,
No offense taken. I'm actually enjoying this. That's why I check your blog regularly--I like to hear what you have to say and I think it is good. One of the many things that I admire about you Gian is your honesty. It is also interest to see how your opinions change over time.
I just meant to suggest that it may be a misunderstanding and is not as inflammatory as originally thought. I am guilty of this too, but often I think that we are quick to find fault in what others say before we actually find out what they are saying. Note that he did not say anything about the Iraq war. However you brought it up and other posters brought up George Bush. It begs the question, "who said anything about him?"
Also, while you did not explicitly say that he was teaching false doctrine, you said that he implied something antithetical to what was stated by president Hinkley in conference. That's why I thought you were saying you accused your teacher of teaching false doctrine.
This, I think furthers my point that we need to find out what others are saying before we accuse them of saying something they didn't. We read into things, and we get upset about messages conveyed that were unintentional. Do you catch my drift?
AMB
Allan, I was worried you where getting cross with me, what a relief! This is really good for me because it has clarified some things in my mind.
My professor did not mention the war or any political agenda. I was projecting my problems with 911 on the content of his slide show. I think that is the reason I reacted the way I did and my classmates probably didn't think twice. I thought it was obvious that 911 is still a touchy subject. In many people’s minds 911, George W. Bush and Iraq are forever intertwined.
In the world we live in, imagery has many subtle and powerful messages. I have tried to train myself to see the meaning of an image without knowing the artist intention. Right now I am at an intuition level. As an artist one of my goals is to communicate on a visual level. Hopefully a piece will stand-alone and the viewer understands the message. I think my first reaction was a critique of his slide show. I thought, "He can't know what this is saying." I wondered what others would think of the images I saw. I have got a lot of good info. I tried to make the post anonymous. But I also wanted to put you in the room a bit.
Anyway, I will let you know what we (me and my teacher) talk about.
Oh and I am glad you are enjoying it. I am too.
When trying to get a point across one tries to reach the majority of one's audience. I'm not sure what class this is but my guess the teacher saw the audience as predominantly young men (Freshmen perhaps? They're not far from high school). I'm not sure what he was trying to say about it being a "wake up call." Wake up about what? With the pictures being taken out of context I don't know what he means exactly.
I think the reason he used the 9-11 pictures was because he was giving the lecture in September, the anniversary of the event. In rhetoric, there's a Greek word, kairos which is related to timing: the right time [and place] to say and do things. If your instructor had given the lecture in December or November it would have lost its impact. 9-11 was uppermost in people's minds in September. I think it's as simple as that. Yes, it's overused but this event affected everyone deeply in this country and so was an easy topic to get his point across.
I do think the pictures are pretty random linked with the various scriptures. That's part of the problem here: the words and the pictures need explanation other than suggesting that the US had better wake up. So what action does the teacher wish the class to take? Waking people up means moving towards something not just noting it. (It's what rhetoric or persuasion is all about.)
Communication between us all is always imperfect but a dialogue in which we try to understand each other is a step in the right direction. So I'm adding my two-bits worth to your blog.
By the way, I hope you watched and listened to Alwi Shihab at Forum today. He's a Muslim who talks about bringing peace and understanding between Muslims and the West. The broadcast will be repeated on Oct 22 (I think). This I think will counteract the 9-11 images for you and your friends.
Mum
Here's my take...
When going to a University, we sign up for a chance to hear 50 people with 50 varying opinions stand in front of us and present their personal views. This is not a vocational environment. I don't agree with many of the ideas my past professors have put forth, but I enjoy exercsing my own mental faculties for point and counter points far more than sitting through a lecture that has been carefully designed to placate instead of stimulate. In short, I support the use of the academic bully pulpit. If I only wish to hear echoes of my own opinions, I'll stick to my blogosphere circles.
Also, to say, "this is why I didn't go to BYU" you number yourself with those close minded individuals who feel that by closing your mind to others religious views or conservative views, proves you have a more open mind. Those most out spoken against one view point often do it under the guise of free speech? or freedom? I have never understood this.
I think people are too quick to be offended and put off when it comes to religious discussions. We each have our own beliefs, and we anxiously await the moment someone crosses the line we have drawn to take offense. I think Gian is right on to bring this up for discussion, but the original tone seems to take offense, which only detracts from his other good points.
As to the use of imagery to evoke emotion, I support their use to this end. As a photographer, I am constantly in search of images that will stir the emotion of the viewer. Every powerful photo has a message behind it, and this message can't be neutral and unbiased. If I saw a picture of a starving child in Africa surrounded by flies, I would certainly take a photo of it and make it public. Anyone who has time to browse the internet from their climate controlled home/office will probably do well from seeing these REAL images since they may not have a chance to see such things in the flesh. Same goes for films and traditional art media. Show me a new point of view. Take me somewhere new. Gian makes a good point that professor doesn't know what message these pictures were supposed to portray. Oh well... I say use them anyway if you think they support your point. I do agree though, in this case, that the images don’t accurately support his message. The message in his quoted scriptures doesn’t reflect the images shown; although I didn't hear the lecture.
Very engaging…
One definition of “terrorism” provided by dictionary.com is:
“the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.”
Though I do not think it was intentional, I would go so far as to say that your teacher committed an act of terror with this presentation. By using these images to intentionally evoke an emotional response, rather than send the message “Wake up!” he is sending the message “Fear the past. If you do not, you will fear the future.”
Post a Comment