we'd get this complaint, still. we were too one-sided. yeahsureright.
i took a lesson from this and from some of our activist work in a deindustrializing community. it was sort of modeled after Saul Alinksy's project. Anyway, at the beginning of classes, i have them write anonymous, ungraded essays about topics we are going to discuss. why are there poor people? what can we do about it? what is affirmative action? why does it exist? should we keep it.?is the family disappearing? why? what should we do about it? what about work? why can't we all have meaningful work? is that possible? blahbeddyblahfookinblah
i'd go through the essays, content analysis style, and show how many had "conservative" "liberal" "radical" views. etc.
then, we establish together, with evidence, that there was a dominant view and that view was mainly conservative!
Soooooo, obviously the other side that they always think is missing had done a damn good job already, and gosh-a-golly how did they learn all this? parents? tv? firends? observation?> what?
guess it's time to give a hearing to the "other" side since thee's, like, this dominant view out there an' all!
heh.
they still didn't like it. :)
i heart gramsci,
Kelley
At 02:24 PM 7/9/03 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
>Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
>>The insistence upon seeing "both sides" is what draws
>>the attention in.
>>Ehrenreich's observations about how difficult it is to
>>live on very meager pay are either correct or not;
>>there is no debate, only fact checking. What exactly
>>is the other side?
>
>That low wages for some are good for the economy as a whole, promoting
>high levels of employment and productivity that benefit everyone in the
>long run. That the poorly paid deserve it because of their low human
>capital and their debased time preferences (pursuing satisfaction today
>rather than sacrificing for a better tomorrow). But you knew that.
>
>Doug
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>