Hippie Colors

I assumed early on in my teaching stint that teaching is all about teaching. But as soon as I got started, people started pressuring me to finish my M.A. then my PhD. Then circa late 1990s, the institution incentivized publication and just so that you can survive on a teacher’s salary there are opportunities available in socsci to engage in contract research, consultancies and trainings.

A colleague of mine at the University once said, "Can’t I just teach?" to which another said upon learning of that remark, "Eh di dapat magturo na lang siya sa high school". [I have nothing against my friends who teach in High Schools, of course]

Early on, I realized that the University does not do a very good job of explaining to people like me what a position in the University is all about. A number of people like me entered just wanting to teach and ended up initially confused or resistant to all the myriad pressures they bring to bear on us.

It was late in the game when I had my awakening and it was only last week when I could put words to that awakening. A university is different from a teaching college in that it produces new knowledge and does not merely transmit knowledge. It was Fr. Joey Cruz who said something in a way I could understand; that new knowledge could also mean a new way of looking at things, a new way of proceeding, a new way of saying things and not necessarily a new discovery. 

Last week, while listening to my U.P. teacher I also realized that someone in a University must be aware of methodologies, or ways of comprehending what is true and how to comprehend that truth. In the past, we would have said that a professor produces new knowledge using the scientific method. But today, with so many approaches beyond positivism, academics can also handle knowledge using approaches that are interpretative, constructivist, post-colonial, feminist, post-positivist, post-structuralist, post-modern, etc. Nonetheless, an academic must pick one methodology (or craft a new one or use methodologies alternatively) and run with it producing paper after paper after paper.

I realize now that what truly makes an academic is not knowledge of the field per se (although obviously that is important). Knowledge of the field plus good communication skills and classroom sociability makes you a good teacher. A good academic must know the various methodologies, what could be considered the tools of the academic trade and apply them (or apply some) with great skill. That is why we study for our M.A.s and our PhDs, not so much for the content but for the tools, the mastery of which is manifested by a thesis or a dissertation.

I look around at my colleagues and realize that the people who are respected are those who demonstrate mastery of the tools as seen in their publications. Sometimes I wish though that their works weren’t just things of academic beauty but papers that move forward discussion on development (praxis, of course, is my methodological bias).

To teach is a craft learned best by experience. But to be an academic is also a craft which involves the mastery of tools available to academics.

I am temporarily reactivating my Bourdieu blog for at least a month, updating it maybe once a week. Feel free to visit http://bourdieublog.blogspot.com/. The re-entry essay is entitled Skirting Rules and Jewelry.

On another note, I am now committed to doing a paper for one of my classes on the Institute of Philippine Culture in its early years in the 1960s, studying the emergence of a social scientific research institute in the context of a humanities-dominated teaching University. As a starting point, I read parts of the book published by the Ateneo entitled: University Traditions: The Humanities Edition. The book contains transcripts of interviews (in itself a wonderful approach) with famous teachers in the Humanities (including Ferriols, Manny Dy, Roche, Beni Santos, sol Reyes and others) and for my topic, I got a lot from the interviews with Ramon Reyes and Leo Garcia of philosophy and Fr. Balchand of theology (and Fr. Bernad of literature).

It was interesting to learn that literature defined Ateneo education the way that philosophy does today. It was also interesting to learn that the students of that time took 24 units of Theology (!), 12 units of Latin for AB majors (6 units for BS majors) and took 24-27 units per semester.

It seems appropriate that the Traditions series starts with Humanities because the Humanities seemed to define Ateneo education back then (and still does to some extent now). What I also found interesting was that the social sciences were hardly mentioned. History was mentioned but back then History was considered Humanities. In the pages that I scanned, I remember that sociology was only mentioned once (in connection with Fr. Doherty) and people like Lynch of sociology and McPhelin of Economics were not mentioned at all.

Pretty soon I’ll be going over old Guidon articles circa late 50’s and early 60’s and will provide updates on other interesting tidbits I pick up.

I think it is Nietzsche who says we are all prisoners of our culture. My daughter is three and a half and I begin to see this more and more now.

I wanted to raise her in a gender-neutral way, not necessarily making her wear pink and play with dolls or kitchen sets. But it’s so hard to swim against the tide.

The difficulty became apparent early on when relatives were giving my daughter pink dresses.

Then my wife decided some time back that it was time for my daughter to go through the princess stories: Cinderella, Snow White, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, etc. My child is enamored with Cinderella (although she identifies herself more readily with Gus, the mouse with a big tummy). Sometimes she picks up a broom, sweeps the floor and starts singing "A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes". She has a princess and a prince doll and she’d make them dance to the tune of "So This is Love". Yesterday she was making her two other dolls, both females, dance to "So This is Love". At least she is still free that way. 

On a different note, I think it is stories like Cinderella that make us believe in love at first sight. Imagine, the Prince and Cinderella see each other for the first time and instantly Cinderella sings, "So This is Love". Poor children don’t know that the filmmakers just had to cut the scene short so that the movie wouldn’t be too long. (Imagine a child growing up thinking THAT is love).

I was asking my wife if there is a story with a girl who is not princessy and she was saying Pocahontas because Pocahontas does not go with John Smith in the end (Didn’t she?) But then, that doesn’t break the stereotype enough for me.

Then this Christmas, two relatives gave my child dress up dolls including a Barbie.

I’m not exactly ranting at society. I am extremely grateful to those who love my child and give her gifts. All I’m saying is that I’m seeing my daughter become gendered before my very eyes.

I’m also beginning to wonder how we all were gendered ourselves. Who were the icons of manhood and femininity during our times? What were the toys we played? What were the clothes we were made to wear?