LEARNING DEMOCRACY: A LIVERPOOL EXPERIENCE

Last week, at Liverpool Hope University, I attended a class on Documentary Theater that deals, among others, with the ways theater can memorialize historical events (including current ones). In the first hour, the teacher, Dr. Gary Anderson, lectured on the link between the student protests of 1968 and the soon to occur (November 30) national protest march in Britain about budget cuts in education and welfare services. Students are concerned because the budget cuts mean that their tuition fees will increase by 300 percent, from 3000 to 9000 pounds per year. Now in the second hour of class, a workshop session, Dr. Anderson said that since a major theme of student protest movements is the lack of participation in a democracy, it would be good if the students themselves discussed what possible action they can take to voice their concern about these budget cuts. On their own, the students discussed the budget cuts and other social issues, and agreed to focus their protest on tuition increases. They then talked about what concrete action they can take in the here and now to register their protest. Several suggestions were thrown, and eventually, the students decided to occupy one of the theater spaces on campus (see picture) that was reserved exclusively for music students. Students argued: we'll pay more but got no space here. Right then and there, the students stood up, walked out of the classroom and teh building, and occupied the nearby Capstone Theater. Dr. Anderson did not censor the students' action. Instead he (and I) followed the students to the music theater.

When we got to Capstone, the students (about 35 of them, could be more) were sitting on the stage. “We pay more but no space here!” was their mantra, chanted repeatedly, as they circled the stage like Indians getting ready for a warpath. The war dance over, a girl then opened the grand piano and accompanied three other students who sang a cabaret piece and delighted everyone (me too). Three others went to the tech booth to turn on the spotlights and the microphone. A technician walked in, saw that he couldn't drive the students away, stayed to check that the equipment was plugged properly, and walked out. The "show" continued. Dr. Anderson and I were asked to go onstage while the students chanted, then improvised a scene about government greed, and made protest speeches through the house microphone. Half an hour later, Dr. Anderson asked the students to stay if they wanted to but announced that from a pedagogical point of view, he was going back to the classroom to have a discussion about what happened. The students slowly returned to the classroom and after several exchanges agreed that while they should be aware of institutional constraints, they should retain the spirit of dissent (and the energy it generated) when faced with issues affecting their lives.

Whew! How's that for a regular class?

The technician will most likely report the incident. Dr. Anderson might get a reprimand or something. The Drama Department might be cast in an unfavorable light. Theater students might be branded as troublemakers. And I may be cited as an accomplice, who knows. But are those risks worth taking to have students learn active participation in a democracy? Think what the Deans will say, what OAS will do, what action ADSA will take, and what force the new Security Guards, hell bent on promoting peace and order the Loyola Way, will muster.

But talk about student empowerment, class energy and edgy performances -- this was it!

SA 157/240.35 Introduction to Cultural Heritage

SA 119/210 Introduction to Cultural Anthropology

Pasasalamat at Pagpupugay

CREATIVE VISUALIZATION INSOCIOLOGY - 1

O, SAVE THE KING!

Chess and Social Conflict

by Trisha Sanico, SA21, Section I

Black and white. Chess, seen as a fight between two opposing kingdoms, reflects the clash between groups in society. The photo above showing a white king standing on top of two black rooks emphasizes how one race in society can be more favored than another race. Ever wonder why the white pieces always get the first move? The same photo also illustrates gender conflict. The white queen, for instance, seems to bow down to the white king – a situation that depicts a patriarchal structure. The strategy in chess of protecting the king further deepens the patriarchal image. The queen, for example, may be the most versatile chess piece but it will go to the death, so to speak, to save the king from being captured by the opposing force. Like slaves to men, women subordinate and even sacrifice themselves to men. Thus, using the social conflict approach, then, one can see that the old-time favorite game is more than just a battle of wits but a symbolic struggle for dominance where one group, using whatever resources it can muster, seeks to overpower the other and show us, again and again, that the more powerful always reigns supreme.

Note: After a session on the Sociological Perspective, I asked my class in the introductory course to visualize a concept or theoretical approach using readily available materials. (We earlier practiced on Lego-like blocks.) Students were to take a photograph of their work and write a paragraph discussing their creation. Here are two submissions, shown in two separate blogs. This is the first, the other one follows.
-Ricky Abad

CREATIVE VISUALIZATION IN SOCIOLOGY- 2

OBJECTIVITY VISUALIZED

by Karen Ann Labsan, SA21, Section I

Objectivity in social science research means conducting research with personal neutrality or with minimal or no influence from one's opinions and groundless ideas. The table tennis racket represents the sociologist as if s/he is wrapped in a white sheet to cover or eliminate biased thoughts and be colored only by different hues and shades that represent the facts and the theory(-ies) used to interpret those facts. The racket is not entirely plain and white for it is nearly impossible to be precisely a hundred percent objective. But it goes with saying that these colors represent data and theory both of which should be least affected by unjustifiable and/or irrelevant common-sense assumptions.

Note: Here's a second submission of the creative visualization exercise in the introductory course.

- Ricky Abad

WOE TO THE RESERVE ARMY OF LABOR!

by Ricardo Abad

The July 1 issue of The New York Times, Economy Section, reports that while American factory owners have been slowly adding jobs to the US economy since the start of the year, the situation gives little relief to the two million workers who have been laid off since the end of 2007. The reason: factory owners are now looking for workers with higher aptitude and technical skills, and only a tiny fraction of laid off workers qualify for these new positions. It’s no longer a question, the Times item adds, of laying off workers and replacing them with cheap labor from abroad. It’s now finding better-qualified workers who will be paid more dollars per hour.

The capitalist game plan has apparently changed. Capitalists no longer take advantage of a reserve army of laid off workers that can be hired at lower rates. These workers have become inutile. The technological sophistication of manufacturing now demands high-skilled technicians to operate, maintain, and improve on new machines to stay competitive at the profit game. The hiring rate for these skilled technicians are higher, of course, and that means greater capital outlay for labor, but the larger sum of salaries will probably pittance compared to the profits to be earned from their labor.

But woe to the reserve army of labor! Already disadvantaged by being the first to be laid off when the recession began, they are now doubly disadvantaged by a new manufacturing order that renders their labor unwanted. One long-term effect will be greater poverty for the unemployed, and eventually, a larger divide between the poor and the rich.

Marx may not have foreseen this double whammy. But he was right on the nose about inequalities growing wider under capitalism. Why I read somewhere that in England, the class gaps in life expectancies have increased in recent years. Looks like Marx is still getting empirical support in the age of high technology.

For The New York Times piece that stimulated this blog, see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/business/economy/02manufacturing.html