How to sustain Sustainable Living(Make up blog)

The world is changing. Neoliberalism, a belief system that promotes unchecked spending and acquisition above all else, in other words unabated capitalism, has shaped a world that where status is measured in how much one consumes, how many electronic toys one has, and has placed us in a race to see who can burn through fuel the fastest. Considering that almost every country now has cars, plastics, and general industrial technologies, and that those countries that who do not have them rush, cutting corners on safety and ecology, this has become a major problem. Due to carbon based emissions, it has been predicted that the global temperature will increase between 34.5 degrees F and 42.4 degrees F by the end of this century. Scientists have stated that any temperature rise above 35.6 degrees F will have dire consequences for the planet, speeding the melting of the polar caps, which would cause massive flooding, meaning the complete destruction of several ecosystems.
Of course, as teachers, it is our responsibility to teach students about these developments, and to teach them ways in which to prevent them. In his article, simply entitled SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, Ros Wade goes to great lengths to suggest curricula and activities that will keep these issues in children’s minds and empower them to do something about them, that will effect positive shifts in local and global societies. Some of his theories seem to call on Banks work on teaching globalisim in the classroom. Some of the cornerstones of Wade’s plan to teach sustainability to our students include the needs and rights of future generations, a concern for social justice, and the idea of interdependence. Wade goes on to also include how to identify and rectify habits that lead to waste, and to instill a general importance towards conservation within students.
In theory these are all wonderful ideas. However looking at general Social Studies curriculum, the question I have is, how will it within our perspective programs? In a program already filled to bursting with teaching about citizenship, national and global history, and social justice, where does sustainability fit in? Can it fit in? I’m not sure, and to be honest with you, since ecology issues do have a certain gravitas, wouldn’t that area of the curriculum be better served if it was given its own class? I feel that it would be, since it is such a large and pressing matter. Sustainable living should be part of new science core, that perhaps can have social studies overlaps.

Blah, Blah, Patriotism, Blah, Blah, Global Society, Blah, Blah

For this week’s blog we were asked to reflect on three articles that we have read, Is Patriotism Good For Democracy? by Joseph Kahne and Ellen Middaugh, On Defense of the Nation by Brenda Trofanenko, and I Pledge Allegiance To... Flexible Citizenship and Shifting Scales of Belonging by Katharyne Mitchell and Walter Parker. Each of these articles tackle what it means to be a patriot. At first glance, this seems to be a rather simple question, with a simple answer: a patriot is someone who believes in and is concerned about his/her country. But in today’s more polarized climate, in which the currant national administration has openly told the nation states of the world that either they are with us or against us, in which said administration will go down in history as one of the most unpopular presidencies in our country’s memory, in which we are involved in two wars, and in which the newest trend in academia is to discuss and speculate the loss of American hegemony, this question of patriotism becomes inherently much more complex.

Kahne and Middaugh’s piece explores the definition of being a patriot. They divide this definition into three subsets: those that are “Blind Patriots,” those that are “Critical Patriots,” and those who are “Active Patriots.” As their names suggests, “Blind Patriots” are those who unswervingly love their country, while “Critical Patriots” are those who love their country, but also admit that their country has certain short comings. “Active Patriots” can come from either group, but are involved in civic engagement. My questions for Kahne and Middaugh is why do they place such a pejorative term on people who express total loyalty to the nation? Furthermore, why is being critical and having an deep love for America mutually exclusive? Personally, I would never think of immigrating, but I would be among the first to admit that the United States needs to undergo some radical changes.

Trofanenko’s article delves into the question of how do we study the concept of nation, within the context of globalization, inside the social studies classroom. She argues that we must move past the “warm and fuzzy” view of a global society, as well as a the myths that have been used and abused in order to teach our children about the history of our country, and start to focus on teaching how American history plays on the world stage. This is a position that I wholeheartedly support, although I would like to add one addendum; in many of our readings, the term myth has been bandied about, and it is usually cast in a bad light. Myths are stories that explain how things came to be, and try to impart a moral to their audiences. By studying myths with a critical distance, students can learn what a culture values, and how a particular people see themselves within the world and universe. In other words, the teaching of myths is not the problem, the fault lays in how we teach our students those myths.

I’m not sure what Mitchell and Parker’s central point is. Although they claim to be arguing against Nussbaum, and what they perceive as her “either/ or” mentality when comes to teaching children about global citizenship, their description of Nussbaum’s views, with it’s concentric interlocking circles of identity, which starts at the local level and ascends into the cosmos, seems to be within their ultimate line of thinking. Although many of their ideas are exciting to me, including the view that today’s children see themselves as simultaneously part of the nation and the world, I think they are arguing for the sake of arguing. I might have missed something (it wouldn’t be the first time, and it certainly won’t be the last), but I think they might have been better served writing a defense or an addendum to Nussbaum’s article, as opposed to a critique.