Cross-gender Conversation Difficulties (by Ronaldo Rodríquez)

Breakdowns, an overall lack of understanding and other difficulties in communication have often characterized the relationship between men and women. From a socio-linguistic perspective, Debora Tannen (1990) has shed light on this issue by observing that: “the minor and major frustrations that women and men encounter when they talk to each other lie in the different ways they use language.” Such distinction in the use of language, in addition, is said to be one of the many behavioural patterns society constructs for and expects from individuals of the opposite sex (Trudgill, 1972). In the light of these considerations, it seems reasonable to assess that misinterpretations between males and females can be accounted for by analyzing the distinctive way in which they perceive and produce language and in the differential expectations they have when addressing each other.

Sociolinguists have been able to show that from adolescence to adulthood, females produce more standard language than males. Based on the fact that hedges, tag-questions, adjectives and rising tones on statements are more frequent in women’s talk, it has been suggested that females are more uncertain than men. Males, on the contrary, are found to speak with more assertiveness, to be more interruptive, to tell more jokes and to produce more succinct utterances. As regards politeness, courtesy subjuncts (Quirk, 1976) and other well-bred forms occur more regularly among women, whereas an extended use of expletives and other bad-mannered formulas can be more commonly found among men.

Examples of difficultness in cross-gender communication abound. For instance, it is told that one Sunday, Calvin Coolidge, onetime president of the United States of America, returned home from church. After being greeted by his wife, he was asked: “What did the Priest speak about?” “Sin,” he replied. “And what did he say about it?” she insisted. Cooling made a silent pause and answered: “He said he was against it.” It could be suggested that incidents such as this are good representatives of several daily cross-gender conversations at home. They do not only show that females are by and large more eager to talk at home but also illustrate the fact that both speakers have different assumptions and expectations when engaging in conversation. Tannen further explains that while women’s talk seeks to establish and strengthen interpersonal connections (or rapport) men speak to preserve independence, negotiate status and display knowledge and skill. These behavioural patters explain the reason why when “trouble,” for example, arises as a topic within a cross-gender conversation, males have the tendency to provide a straightforward solution. Such demeanour normally puzzles and frustrates women because they simply want to talk about the problem and to be understood. Phrases such as “I know how you feel,” “It’s just as once happened to me,” or “Tell more about it” are the ones females yearn for when talking. This contention is rooted in the fact that little girls grow up in a world of intimacy, a world in which being a friend means sharing feelings and exchanging secrets. Little boys, conversely, acquire language in the context of making their way in larger, more competitive and hierarchical groups.

Thus, understanding both the different ways in which males and females produce and receive language and the expectation gap between them can enlighten the issue of cross-gender conversation and the difficulties thereof. Scholarly endeavour has also shown that an extended use of adjectives, referring tones, tag-questions and ambiguous remarks distinguish woman’s talk from men’s. The latter, on the contrary, seem to be more easily inclined to use assertions, the language of humour and less polite statements. Particularly at home, males are more likely to produce more concise utterances. It is on the basis of these differences that the conclusion that men are more confident than women is drawn. As far as expectations are concerned, women seem to value connection and rapport over other pragmatic intentions, whereas males are more concerned with status, practical solutions and power. In conclusion, an overall consideration of the phenomenon above described can not only help members of both sexes to know how their conversations may be improved but also ease the burden of not being understood.

Conclusions to Forum 3: Homosexuality in Children’s Literature

Better late than never, I will try to round-up this year’s last forum. The issue, again, revolved around the topic of homosexuality. This time the topic was inserted in the context of children’s literature. The idea was to ponder about whether it is right or wrong to include such controversial issue in stories for children. After considering your very valuable interventions, I think it is possible to reduce the different opinions to two main stances:

1) The first one could encompass those opinions expressing or implying the idea that children are not mature enough to cope with the idea of homosexuality. In a way, this position implies that homosexuality may be ‘confusing’ for children.

2) The second position would include those opinions expressing that it would be good for children to be in contact with the idea of homosexuality, since in this way they would learn to take it as something natural.

Although both positions admit a tolerant view towards homosexuality, those people adhering to the second stance make it explicit that, for them, homosexuality shouldn’t be condemned as a sexual deviation. This is important since everyone in the forum bestows an educative purpose to children’s literature. In consequence, it seems logical that, for a person who sees homosexuality as something normal, the insertion of this topic did not represent a risk in the education of children. Perhaps, unconsciously or not, those adhering to the first position may feel that facing children to the idea of homosexuality may ‘confuse’ them. But this potential ‘confusion’ can only take place if we admit that there is something wrong in homosexuality. If homosexuality were normal, then, what sort of confusion could we think of?

In reality, it is not the issue of homosexuality that is problematic in this discussion, but children’s literature itself. If we take so much passion in discussing such an issue, this is because, in a way, we perceive that children’s literature is a medium for cultural and social instruction. In consequence, no matter how naïve we think stories for children are, they always convey ideology. Although hidden or in disguise, genre roles, class struggles, sexuality, race and a long list of controversial topics have always been part of children’s literature. Why do princesses always await passively for their prince to rescue them? Why should any romance end up in a marriage? Why do marriages mean a happy ending? Why do we usually read about royal families and not about servants? Why most heroes are white, tall and smart? When we analyse stories for children from a critical perspective, it is not so difficult to identify the values, beliefs and principles that they convey. Perhaps, the important conclusion we can extract from this debate is that children’s literature is never innocent or apolitical. In a way, what we consider right or wrong for our children is the reflection of the world we believe in. If we believe that there is nothing wrong about homosexuality, then we wouldn’t find any problem in reading our children a book containing homosexual characters. If we don’t agree in reading our children such a thing, then this might be because, overtly or not, we find homosexuality objectionable.

Conclusions to Forum 2: Schism in the Anglican Church?

I don’t know why both last forum discussions and some of our later class debates ended up revolving around the issue of homosexuality. Apparently, this seems to be a topic that involves deeply rooted feelings and beliefs, all of which seem to easily move people towards debate and confrontation. Taking into account the potential violence that underlies such emotional discussions, I’d like to begin by acknowledging the respectful tone in which all these debates were carried out so far.

Everything started with our second Forum, which was meant do discuss the possible schism in the Anglican Church. Although the key point was the ambiguous proximity between Anglicanism and Catholicism, what seemed to have caught most of the attention was the acceptance of homosexual bishops by the English church. Among the positions expressed in the forum, there were two clear visions that prevailed:

• On the one hand, it is possible to identify a tendency to consider homosexuality as contrary to the Scripts, and thus to understand that accepting homosexual priests is an unavoidable contradiction for any Christian creed. According to this view, homosexuals cannot be integrated within Christianism, but should build themselves their own set of religious values.
  

• The other point of view prevailing in this forum was that, although one may accept homosexuality within Christianism, it’s not possible to introduce this radical change within an established church without creating something new. According to this view, we cannot go on talking about Anglicanism if we accept homosexual priests. For this view, then, schism is logical and expectable.
  

It called my attention that no clear opinion acknowledged the possibility of institutional evolution. Even within such a traditional field like religion, a historical perspective can bring to light the existence of constant change and transformation. As we mentioned in our last L&C III class, the Catholic Church is perhaps the clearer example of this constant transformative inertia that no institution can avoid. We could mention the radical changes that this church underwent in relation to wealth, forgiveness, witchcraft, heresy, slavery, education and even the interpretation of the Bible. To anyone, it is clear that the church that promoted the Inquisition was based on principles and beliefs that radically differ from those hold by the current Catholic Church. But this which is clear for the Roman church because of its long history and tremendously huge institutional apparatus is also clear for any religious institution provided that we look closely at their historical development.

This third point of view is a historical one, which in a way opposes to both views defended in the forum, since it acknowledges that religions can change, sometimes even radically, without necessarily turning into something new or without necessarily finding a problem in opposing to what they had been in the past. This is called evolution. Since religious institutions are at the same time social institutions, it seems logical that they evolve and adjust their values and principles to the changes and the evolution of the societies in which they are immersed.

The computer versus the blackboard

(The English Press, June 1995)

Article sent by Cristina Hoppenthal

The class room is in semi-darkness, illuminated only by computer screens. In front of each computer,  sits a child manipulating a cursor to create shapes as part of a routine maths lesson. The screens show symbols, video images and texts, all designed to national curriculum standards. The computers speak directly to the pupils through headphones, electronically encouraging, correcting or congratulating them. Patrolling the classroom as a “facilitator”, the new name to  describe a teacher.

This scene is fictional, but not as futuristic as it might sound. Some predict that it could be common by 2020. Much of this technology already exists, and politicians want to maintain the momentum of what educators describe as  “the education superhighway”. But is the superhighway, despite  good intentions, a dead end?  Though no one doubts that our children’s survival in the computer jungle of the 21^st century will depend on how conversant they are with computer speak, not everyone feels optimistic about the future in which computers take the place of blackboards. […]

Suspicions about dependency on computer learning are increasing. On one hand, there are those who argue that the computer  revolution will promote a new way of learning which will help Britain to compete with its economic rivals. On the other hand, there are those who say that the technology is being misused, and that countries such as Japan have not introduced it into schools because they want their children to understand the basics first so that they can then use the computer as a tool.

Some worry about their dehumanizing effect as, although computer learning allows a high degree of personal interaction between students, in the end the most important interaction is done with a data base.

Mark Sealey, editor of the English magazine Educational Computing and Technology, states his stance about computer learning. “The most important skills are the high order skills”, he says. “Most of the knowledge will be available electronically so that students will not have to waste time memorizing it. After all, it is not knowing the number of wives Henry VIII had that is important, but asking why he had so many.”

Early Children's Literature and Education (by Cecilia Acosta)

According to the debate that had taken place during the classes of L&C III, I thought it would be interesting to expand the main ideas of the beginnings of Early Children's Literature and Education.

 

“Early Children’s Literature”

 

First, it is necessary to define the term “Children”. According to the “Britannia Dictionary,” “All potential or actual young literates, from the instant they can with joy leaf through a picture book or listen to a story read aloud, to the age of perhaps 14 or 15, may be called children. Thus “children” includes “young people.””

 

“The Discovery of the Child”

 

In the mid-18^th century what may be defined as children’s literature was at last developing. The proper subject matter of children’s literature, apart from informational or didactic works, is children. More broadly, it embraces the whole content of the child’s imaginative world and that of his daily environment, as well as certain ideas and sentiments characteristic of it. The population of this world is made up not only of children themselves but of animated objects, plants, even grammatical and mathematical abstractions; toys, dolls, and puppets; real, chimerical, and invented animals; miniature or magnified humans; spirits or grotesques of wood, water, air, fire, and space; supernatural and fantasy creatures; figures of fairy tale, myth, and legend.

 

Almost at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, children’s literature remained recessive. The chief, though not the only, reason is improbably simple: the child himself, though there, was not seen, that is, as a child. Though he may be nurtured in all tenderness, he is thought of not as himself but as a pre-adult, which is but one of his many forms. His importance lay not in himself but in what Aristotle would have called his final cause: the potential citizen-warrior. A girl child was a seedbed of future citizen-warriors. Hence classical literature either does not see the child at all or misconstrues him. Astyanax and Ascanius, as well as Medea’s two children, are not persons. They are stage props.

 

Sometimes children were even regarded as infrahuman -for Montaigne, they had “neither mental activities nor recognizable body shape.” The year 1658 is a turning point. In that year a Moravian educator, Comenius, published Orbis Sensualium Pictus, a teaching device that was also the first picture book for children. It embodied a novel insight: children’s reading should be of a special order because children are not scaled-down adults. But the conscious, systematic, and successful exploitation of this insight was to wait for almost a century.

 

It is generally felt that, both as a person worthy of special regard and as an idea worthy of serious contemplation, the child began to come into his own in the second half of the 18^th century. His emergence, as well as that of a literature suited to his needs, is linked to many historical forces, among them the development of Enlightenment thought (Rousseau and, before him, John Locke); the rise of the middle class; the beginnings of the emancipation of women (children’s literature, unlike that for grown-ups, is in large measure a distaff product) and Romanticism, with its minor strands of the cult of the child (Wordsworth and others) and of genres making a special appeal to the young (folktales and fairy tales, myths, ballads). Yet, with all these forces working for the child, he still might not have emerged had it not been for a few unpredictable geniuses: William Blake, Edward Lear, Lewis Carroll, George MacDonald, Louisa May Alcott, Mark Twain, Collodi, Hans Christian Andersen.

 

“Early Children’s Education.”

 

If you ask yourself what a school is, many different answers may arise. In one of them, you can include the teacher’s classroom, or the playground, in others the headmaster or even the janitor. But it is almost sure that in all of the answers an irreplaceable element will appear as the nucleus: the classroom.

 

However, the classroom as we see it nowadays must not be taken as something “natural.” It is more that probable that if a traveller of the 15^th Century comes to see our current classrooms, he will not understand what is happening. The following pictures show different classrooms at different time:

 

P 2. A classroom of the actual Germany, as it appears on an engraving published in 1575.

P 3. Engraving of 1592, probably a Latin school, where a teacher and his collaborators can be seen.

P 4. A Lancaster School. It shows 365 students, with monitors standing next to them, in 1831.

P 6. Punishment at schools, 1860.

P 7. School in London, probably a kindergarten in 1906.

 

 “The Global Method,” by Jan Amos Comenius.

 

Comenius (1592- 1670) was a clergyman worried about the universalization of the divine message and the reading of the Bible.

 

Comenius’ central thesis was based on nature. He formulated axioms or principles showing how the role of nature interferes in people’s actions. In this case, a tree grows when its roots are strong and well-built. In the same way, teachers must encourage and give confidence to students basing their foundations on respect and obedience. These are the roots of the learning- teaching process. He supported the notion that the laws of the divine creation may reach their excellence only through the imitation of nature. Comenius’ vision was opposed to the idea of children being punished and he also suggested classrooms should be spacious, attractive and full of life, with coloured pictures hung on the wall, as we see them nowadays.

 

Principles Comenius Observed in Nature Applicable to Education

 

1. Nature observes a suitable time.

2. Nature prepares the material before she begins to give it form.

3. Nature chooses a fit subject to act upon, or first submits one to a suitable treatment in order to make it fit.

4. Nature is not confused in its operations, but in its forward progress advances distinctly from one point to another.

5. In all the operations of nature, development is from within.

6. Nature, in its formative processes, begins with the universal and ends with the particular.

7. Nature makes no leaps, but proceeds step by step.

8. If nature commences anything, it does not leave off until the operation is completed.

9. Nature carefully avoids obstacles and things likely to cause hurt.

 

Bibliography

• Dussel, Inés y Caruso, Marcelo (1999) La Invención del Aula. Santillana.
  
• Britannica Online 
  
• Comenius’ principles 
  

FORUM 3: Homosexuality in Children's Literature

In one of Néstor's comments to Vanesa's post (here), he wondered about the inclusion of such topics as homosexuality in children's literature. This issue is in a way also connected to our second forum discussion, the one about homosexuality, the Anglican church and the risk of a schism (here).

I though it would be interesting to share opinions on this issue. Do you think it right that literature for children cover this controversial topics?

Coping with immigration

Yesterday in our L&C IV class, the topic of immigration cropped up out of a discussion on nationalism. We briefly made reference to the different approaches to the issue of immigration in our country and the crucial role of education in curbing the risks of a social crisis at the end of the 19^th century. This relationship between education and immigration in 19^th-century Argentina had already been discussed this year in one of our L&C III meetings. I had written a post on that occasion, and placed it on If I may say so… Let me invite you all to have a look at it, and to expand on the conversation. Click here.

 

On Children’s Literature (by Vanesa Aguglia)

Nancy Anderson is a professor in the College of Education at the University of South Florida in Tampa. She teaches courses in children’s literature, and suggests some ideas about that:

 

“Children’s literature consists of all books written for children, excluding works such as comic books, joke books, cartoon books, and non-fiction works that are not intended to be read from front to back, such as dictionaries or encyclopedias.”

 

“Literary elements should be found throughout all of children’s literature. These important elements include characters, point of view, setting, plot, theme, style, and tone.”

 

“Every teacher should have at least 300 books in their classroom library.”

 

Do you agree with her?

 

What is Nationalism? (by Néstor Cevasco)

With regard to the article ‘Satire Nationalism,’ written by Flavia, there is, in addition, a very clear explanation on what satire is, including a list of the most famous satirist writers. But, what is nationalism? To enlarge a bit on this concept, I picked up a text by G. Orwell, a modern satirist English writer, who refers to this matter in his article ‘Notes on Nationalism’. According to him, there are some remarkable aspects of this particular word which I will list as follows:

‘Nationalism is the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.’

‘Nationalism is different from patriotism which is the devotion for a particular place or a way of living that one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people.’

‘Nationalism, in the extended sense, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, anti-Semitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism.’

‘Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. In this sense, he spends part of his life in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible (Orwell George;1945)

According to Orwell, it’s worth emphasizing that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. In this sense he quotes: ‘a nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist- that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating- but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations.’                                                  

 

Conclusions to Forum 1: Photo of a cannibal?

Our forum discussion on the photograph proposed by Néstor has finally come to an end. I guess we all agreed that we must be careful when using photographs as sources, since photographs are far from being objective reproductions of reality. Among the different ideas you mentioned, I’d like to summarise the following:

• Photographs don’t show the complete context in which a situation takes place.
  
• Photographs imply a person (photographer) who decides what to portray.
  
• Photographs are usually accompanied with a text that may guide or bias our interpretation of the image.
  
• Photographs can be easily altered using digital means.
  

In the case of Néstor’s pic, my opinion is that the label “cannibalism” is forcing us to see something that, according to what you have been discussing, may not be representative of the situation the camera originally captured. As you very well mentioned, the man’s eyes and expression, his posing for the camera, the fact that somebody else is holding the arm, and so, seem to dispel the hypothesis of a cannibal act.

I think this debate should teach us that we cannot blindly trust photographs. As a way of conclusion, I’ve published a post entitled Trusting photographs, which you can read at If I may say so… You’re all invited. And remember we're still discussing the Schism in the Anglican Church? I hope to see you commenting there as well.