The age old question... how do we most effectively and efficiently stop the world from utter collapse (both socially and environmentally)? That is essentially what this debate about the WWF report - Our Common Cause - is about. The title says it all - it truly is a common cause, and we are all in this together. But people like to fight fight fight about how we deal with our issue.
And I'm so sick of it.
I find myself only able to sympathize with those who are suggesting that we need a variety of solutions and strategies. Because there are 7 billion people on this planet. There are numerous cultures, languages, beliefs, emotions and so on to contend with. So how could one approach possibly work? How can someone suggest that their way is THE way? It just doesn't work for me...
I liked Renee's comment from the online debate (found here). She says a few things that resonate with me, but I'll draw attention to the last part of her comment - "My point is that we need both views; and to present them as antithetical is not constructive. However, I take issue with Graham's comment; it is not about the either-or of ideological evangelism of some environmentalists or going with the green consumption game. These issues are more nuanced than this. If we neglect to draw out and foster values that will inform deeply ecological behaviour, we are truly barking up the wrong tree. As I said before we need all approaches, all the time."
Ed (from the "other" side of the debate) suggests a similar sentiment in his response to the issue. "So we’re agreed that our cause and our aims are commonly held…it is our respective methods and approaches on which we differ." But it seems like he is still suggesting that their (Futerra's) way is the best way and the only way that will work within the time frame that we have. Sometimes I do worry about time. If I take this climate change issue completely and totally seriously, then I worry. But I guess I don't see green marketing, green business or anything of the like being the fast and furious answer. It might work faster than appealing to people's deeper intrinsic values, but I still don't think it will be fast enough. And for any lasting change to happen I think we need to work at the level of emotions and values that have created the paradigm we are living in.
In a recent Globe and Mail article David Suzuki said that they didn't do any environmental education for kids when they started the Suzuki Foundation, because they honestly thought there was only ten years to save the world. And so what was the point of engaging kids? We have moved past that now and think of kids as the future and a huge part of the long-term solution. If we don't assume that we will adapt and carry on, then why would we bother? We have to work and live under the assumption that things can change and improve and that we can appeal to people's more intrinsic (and perhaps hidden) nature.
I don't think it is about talking to people where they are at, because I don't think that people always know or accept where they are at. And to assume that people have gotten to where they are at without being blasted by tons of highly powerful media and messaging (often telling them that they aren't good enough and need various products to be whole people) would be naive and misguided.
Mombiot points out that marketers and politicians play to the extrinsic values of society and use messaging as a way to manipulate culture and engineer our society. This was very clear with the advertising around cigarettes, and now climate change.
I went to a talk by Jim Hoggan (author of Climate Cover Up) once and was horrified to learn about the PR strategies that were employed by the people trying to create confusion around climate change (turns out it is some of the same individuals who did the PR for cigarettes). Anyhow, I spoke with him afterwards and said, "I don't get it - if this is how powerful PR is, then why don't we just fight back with PR??" Of course the answer was money, and I felt slightly naive and silly for asking. The environmental side does not have the money to launch the same scale of a PR campaign.
As a result we have to turn to other methods as well. And everyone who cares needs to join the "common cause". I like Mombiot's sentiments at the end of his commentary. He says that we "must lead this shift ourselves. People with strong intrinsic values must cease to be embarrassed by them. We should argue for the policies we want not on the grounds of expediency but on the grounds that they are empathetic and kind; and against others on the grounds that they are selfish and cruel. In asserting our values we become the change we want to see."
I like the idea that we can appeal to people's intrinsic values and that change will result. Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I think it is one of the necessary ways we have to try. Not least because I think that if we don't believe that this is possible, then we might as well just all go home. And I'm not willing to do that yet.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Art with Heart
The beauty of blogging is that it allows me to incorporate multi-media and is a great way to share a wide variety of resources and interesting pieces of media that inspire me with other people. As this blog is mostly for the purpose of responding to readings I have mostly been sticking to the written word to express myself and share my thoughts about the readings. But, the next set of readings are about the Arts! And as much as I believe that the written word can be art, I think its time to dedicate one blog to other forms of expression.
I completely agree with Bill McKibben that "what the world needs now, is art sweet art" and that there are few things more powerful. I'm also loving this quote of his right now, "there also needs to be hope as well — visions of what it might feel like to live on a planet where somehow we use this moment as an opportunity to confront our consumer society, use it to begin the process of rebuilding community. They don’t have to be romantic visions, though a little romance wouldn’t hurt."
An example of some art ( I just wrote heart instead of art... subconscious slip?) with vision and hope...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raGSqdUI1IQ
And tonight I just got back from seeing Johnny Clegg live at Butchart Gardens. First of all - what a venue. What a gorgeous place to dance the night away to live music. I was inspired to learn more about Johnny Clegg and was looking up some of his history and activism, because if you haven't heard of him he isn't your average musician. He is a singer, a songwriter, a dancer, anthropologist and a musical cultural and environmental activist. He played at COP 17 at the Climate for a Change concert, but sadly I didn't get to see him there. Happily, my Mom got me tickets to see him play on a warm, sunny, summer's evening and I took a much needed hiatus from school to spend some time with family and friends, dancing under big trees and being transported back a few weeks to the past 7 months that I spent in South Africa. It was blissful and rejuvenating. Johnny Clegg's own words describe the importance of getting out into nature to refresh our spirit and soul - He wrote, about playing a conference in the Durban botanical gardens - "Living in the City, it is extremely important to reconnect with a living environment that lives and breathes independently of the cities artificial man-made character. We know from psychological studies that the colour green produces feelings of calmness and pleasure. Botanical Gardens remind us that within this space thousands of living trees, plants, flowers, and all the insects, birds and small mammals, have a place in our life. It is a wonderful thing to go to such a space and rediscover this fundamental truth."
Johnny Clegg in the park
I just love it when people use their art (particularly music) to try to do good in the world. And so many people are doing just that! When I read McKibben's first article (essay), I was a bit surprised that he was saying there was little art about climate change, because I feel like I have seen a fair amount. So I was glad to read his follow up article saying that in fact people were waiting in the wings, ready to release their art on the world.
When I went to Durban for COP17 I didn't want to go there to fight with our "government" which was the role I had always played up until that point as the coordinator of the Canadian Youth Delegation. This time I wanted to take a team of environmental educators with the purpose of using the conference for environmental education. And so six of us fundraised and set off to Durban for a month where we used art as our medium for expression. Not our expression, but that of the kids! We launched a project called Power to the Kids and did workshops at schools, orphanages, camps etc. about their vision for their future. They then depicted their vision through art. We did the same workshops in schools in Victoria and Vancouver and when we were at COP17 we created a huge collaborative mural of all of their visions!
There is so much I want to share on the topic of art . Art with heart!
A year ago a group of our Victoria FUN Ambassadors took an art for social change workshop and created posters for a Water Walk that was put on by Positively Afrika to raise awareness about water issues in Kenya. Check out their great work!
Water Walk Art Video
Here's another example of a different type of art activism.... can you find me in the photo?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/350org/3092486897/
And finally - this is hot off the press. The exhibit just started, and it sure is different - http://www.projectaware.org/update/breaking-all-rules-cause
I could write ten blogs about art, so maybe I'll write another one tomorrow. If not, I'll leave it at this and head to bed feeling inspired about arts-based methodologies to research and how to have more art (of all kinds) in my life!
I completely agree with Bill McKibben that "what the world needs now, is art sweet art" and that there are few things more powerful. I'm also loving this quote of his right now, "there also needs to be hope as well — visions of what it might feel like to live on a planet where somehow we use this moment as an opportunity to confront our consumer society, use it to begin the process of rebuilding community. They don’t have to be romantic visions, though a little romance wouldn’t hurt."
An example of some art ( I just wrote heart instead of art... subconscious slip?) with vision and hope...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raGSqdUI1IQ
And tonight I just got back from seeing Johnny Clegg live at Butchart Gardens. First of all - what a venue. What a gorgeous place to dance the night away to live music. I was inspired to learn more about Johnny Clegg and was looking up some of his history and activism, because if you haven't heard of him he isn't your average musician. He is a singer, a songwriter, a dancer, anthropologist and a musical cultural and environmental activist. He played at COP 17 at the Climate for a Change concert, but sadly I didn't get to see him there. Happily, my Mom got me tickets to see him play on a warm, sunny, summer's evening and I took a much needed hiatus from school to spend some time with family and friends, dancing under big trees and being transported back a few weeks to the past 7 months that I spent in South Africa. It was blissful and rejuvenating. Johnny Clegg's own words describe the importance of getting out into nature to refresh our spirit and soul - He wrote, about playing a conference in the Durban botanical gardens - "Living in the City, it is extremely important to reconnect with a living environment that lives and breathes independently of the cities artificial man-made character. We know from psychological studies that the colour green produces feelings of calmness and pleasure. Botanical Gardens remind us that within this space thousands of living trees, plants, flowers, and all the insects, birds and small mammals, have a place in our life. It is a wonderful thing to go to such a space and rediscover this fundamental truth."
Johnny Clegg in the park
I just love it when people use their art (particularly music) to try to do good in the world. And so many people are doing just that! When I read McKibben's first article (essay), I was a bit surprised that he was saying there was little art about climate change, because I feel like I have seen a fair amount. So I was glad to read his follow up article saying that in fact people were waiting in the wings, ready to release their art on the world.
When I went to Durban for COP17 I didn't want to go there to fight with our "government" which was the role I had always played up until that point as the coordinator of the Canadian Youth Delegation. This time I wanted to take a team of environmental educators with the purpose of using the conference for environmental education. And so six of us fundraised and set off to Durban for a month where we used art as our medium for expression. Not our expression, but that of the kids! We launched a project called Power to the Kids and did workshops at schools, orphanages, camps etc. about their vision for their future. They then depicted their vision through art. We did the same workshops in schools in Victoria and Vancouver and when we were at COP17 we created a huge collaborative mural of all of their visions!
The mural we put together using South African and Canadian kids' art showing THEIR vision for THEIR future :-)
A beautiful piece out of Vancouver, BC.
One of my personal favourites!!
There is so much I want to share on the topic of art . Art with heart!
A year ago a group of our Victoria FUN Ambassadors took an art for social change workshop and created posters for a Water Walk that was put on by Positively Afrika to raise awareness about water issues in Kenya. Check out their great work!
Water Walk Art Video
Here's another example of a different type of art activism.... can you find me in the photo?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/350org/3092486897/
And finally - this is hot off the press. The exhibit just started, and it sure is different - http://www.projectaware.org/update/breaking-all-rules-cause
I could write ten blogs about art, so maybe I'll write another one tomorrow. If not, I'll leave it at this and head to bed feeling inspired about arts-based methodologies to research and how to have more art (of all kinds) in my life!
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Do we have to choose?
What a fascinating topic for tonight's readings - behaviour change vs. social change, or "collective social action", as it was called by Kenis & Mathijs (2012). It has never occurred to me to separate these things, or to think of there being two different "camps" in the environmental movement. Now I need to assess whether or not it is my own ignorance that hasn't made this divide strikingly obvious to me, or if is the tendency to overanalyze and name things on the part of academia.
Let me quickly fill you in on the debate that I just read and I'll go from there. To really simplify it the debate was about whether collective social action, structural change or systems change was the method of social change that was needed, or if it was the ABC (Attitude. Behaviour. Choice) approach that focuses on behavioural change of individuals. Shove (2011) who was arguing against ABC as an effective approach went so far as to say that there was no room for collaboration amongst the differing paradigms. She argues that "it is useful to be clear about the incommensurability of these contrasting paradigms, and hence about the impossibility of merger and incorporation. Whatever else it might be, a more holistic approach is not one in which letters like `S' for system, or `P' for practice are grafted on to the ABC." (Shove, 2010, p. 1279)
I found it interesting to note that when Kenis & Mathijs (2012) were interviewing environmentally aware and engaged young people, all of the youth who said that they were involved in some sort of action for social change, also practiced behavioural change (or what I might just refer to as a healthier lifestyle). They found that it didn't always work the other way. That is, people who only changed their behaviours weren't always active on a more societal and structural level. But the fact that people are simultaneously working to change themselves and the system proves that Shove is removed from reality on this one.
I would go so far as to say that it is hypocritical to suggest systems change if we aren't willing to start by making changes in our own lives. Why should we continue with our unsustainable lifestyles, sit back, blame the system and not have to step up to the plate in any way.
Perhaps she is suggesting that people change their behaviours in a different way - that they start being politically active, or educating themselves or others about root causes. Those are behavioural changes as well, and I don't feel like the debate about whether writing letters to government or changing lightbulbs is the way forward on this one is worth anyone's time. I think that people should be trying to live more healthily, more happily and more sustainably, and at the same time should be aware of the root causes (as much as we can possibly understand such complexity), and ideally should be active in some "social change" activities. I fully agree with Shove (2010) on the need for a clear vision and alternatives. I actually agree with quite a lot that she says. But to suggest that these two paradigms can't cohesively come together is enough to make me need another glass of wine.
Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42(6), 1273–1285.
Shove, E. (2011). On the difference between chalk and cheese: a response to Whitmarsh et al's comments on "Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change." Environment and Planning A, 43(2), 262-264.
Kenis, A. & Mathijs, E. (2012). Beyond individual behaviour change: the role of power, knowledge and strategy in tacking climate change. Environmental Education Research, 18 (1), 45-65.
Let me quickly fill you in on the debate that I just read and I'll go from there. To really simplify it the debate was about whether collective social action, structural change or systems change was the method of social change that was needed, or if it was the ABC (Attitude. Behaviour. Choice) approach that focuses on behavioural change of individuals. Shove (2011) who was arguing against ABC as an effective approach went so far as to say that there was no room for collaboration amongst the differing paradigms. She argues that "it is useful to be clear about the incommensurability of these contrasting paradigms, and hence about the impossibility of merger and incorporation. Whatever else it might be, a more holistic approach is not one in which letters like `S' for system, or `P' for practice are grafted on to the ABC." (Shove, 2010, p. 1279)
This notion that these paradigms were impossible to incorporate with each other made my blood boil a little bit. I find her writing dense, so I am not sure if I am just missing a major point, or if she is actually posing a very convincing argument that I just don't understand, but as it stands right now, I just do not agree with that at all. I find myself relaxing and feeling much more comfortable with the philosophy of Whitmarsh et al (2011) when they point out that "there are many examples of successful
interdisciplinary working which bring together sociological, psychological,
and other approaches (eg Darnton, 2010; Devine-Wright, 2010; Upham et al, 2009;
Whitmarsh et al, in press), for example to elucidate energy consumption and the
potential for a sustainability transition within energy systems (Nye et al,
2010)."
I particularly found myself agreeing with Whitmarsh et al (2011) when the express their disappointment and worry with this approach. "It is disappointing, and frankly very worrying, if efforts such as these
are dismissed because they include contributors from a range of backgrounds. We
should be vigilant against claims that one particular perspective is the only,
and correct, one particularly when this view is one in which
society must change but sees no role for citizens in directing or enacting this
change."
Shove does respond to Whitmarsh et al's concerns, but I am not left feeling convinced. I fully believe that social change and behaviour change have to go hand in hand, and that there is room for many approaches and a diversity of tactics. For example, at FUN Camps, we approach environmental education from both paradigms that are being presented here. We educate about behaviours and lowering one's ecological footprint, but we also teach and share systems theory and the we delve into the root causes of issues. We teach "action-oriented knowledge", which is defined in the article by Kenis & Mathijs (2012) to include (1) knowledge about
the nature of the problem and its effects, (2) knowledge about root causes, (3)
knowledge about strategies for change, and (4) knowledge about alternatives and
visions.
This could be an overview for how we approach environmental education at FUN Camps. Kids as young as 6 are learning how to take action and be agents of change, and by take action I am not referring to just turning off the stupid light. I am so sick of this debate to be honest. No, of course it is not enough to just change a lightbulb, now can we move on? You would never catch me saying that behaviour change alone will be enough to solve these massive issues that we're facing, but I certainly see it as part of the picture. To take all responsibility off of the individual seems hugely problematic to me. Should we (especially those of us living these privileged lives) not have to accept that our lifestyles, greed and desires for more and more stuff might just have a tiny bit to do with what is going on?I found it interesting to note that when Kenis & Mathijs (2012) were interviewing environmentally aware and engaged young people, all of the youth who said that they were involved in some sort of action for social change, also practiced behavioural change (or what I might just refer to as a healthier lifestyle). They found that it didn't always work the other way. That is, people who only changed their behaviours weren't always active on a more societal and structural level. But the fact that people are simultaneously working to change themselves and the system proves that Shove is removed from reality on this one.
I would go so far as to say that it is hypocritical to suggest systems change if we aren't willing to start by making changes in our own lives. Why should we continue with our unsustainable lifestyles, sit back, blame the system and not have to step up to the plate in any way.
Perhaps she is suggesting that people change their behaviours in a different way - that they start being politically active, or educating themselves or others about root causes. Those are behavioural changes as well, and I don't feel like the debate about whether writing letters to government or changing lightbulbs is the way forward on this one is worth anyone's time. I think that people should be trying to live more healthily, more happily and more sustainably, and at the same time should be aware of the root causes (as much as we can possibly understand such complexity), and ideally should be active in some "social change" activities. I fully agree with Shove (2010) on the need for a clear vision and alternatives. I actually agree with quite a lot that she says. But to suggest that these two paradigms can't cohesively come together is enough to make me need another glass of wine.
Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42(6), 1273–1285.
Whitmarsh, L., O'Neill, Saffron & Lorenzoni, Irene. (2011). Climate change or social change? Debate within, amongst and beyond disciplines. Environment and Planning A, 43(2), 258-261.
Shove, E. (2011). On the difference between chalk and cheese: a response to Whitmarsh et al's comments on "Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change." Environment and Planning A, 43(2), 262-264.
Kenis, A. & Mathijs, E. (2012). Beyond individual behaviour change: the role of power, knowledge and strategy in tacking climate change. Environmental Education Research, 18 (1), 45-65.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Choose your own adventure - an exploration into positive deviance..... through positive deviance
This is a positively deviant blog. This is like no blog you have ever seen. This blog stands out above the rest. This blog has uncommon behaviours. In this blog, you get to choose the adventure. Yes, that's right. This is a choose your own adventure blog. I, in this blog, am introducing you to positive deviance. However, as we have discovered.... syntax is a slight issue. Vocabulary is not always as it seems. Therefore, the first step is to clearly define our terminology. BUT, as per usual, this is subjective. Ergo, you are now faced with your first "fork in the path". You can do either one of the following.
a) for the website definition of Positive Deviance, please click here and then return to this blog.
OR
b) For the Liz Beattie definition, please click here.
Hi... you have chosen the website definition and now you have returned to this blog. I would like to begin by saying that I am slightly disappointed, as it is difficult to understand how you did not choose the Liz Beattie definition. Liz Beattie is an exceptional person. In fact, I might argue that she fits the mold of positive deviance. However, I have just been informed that Beattie can not be placed into a mold and I have to say I agree. But that my friends, is exactly what positive deviance is all about. An exceptional person who does not fit our standards of how things should be, but who comes up with creative solutions that often better the situation for everyone. You are now faced with another crossroads. On this "choose your own adventure", would you like to see an example of Positive Deviance, to confirm that I am not misleading you with my example? If so, please click this link. If you need further convincing, please click here to return to Liz Beattie's Blog.
Oh hello.. you're back again. Good to see you. You might think I don't like you, but it's not true. I know I keep sending you to Liz Beattie's blog, but really... she's positively deviant, and I am doing you a favour. But here you are... a taste for the common, a desire for the normal. Perhaps it is more familiar for you. That's okay. People don't always feel comfortable with the positive deviants. Nor should they. That's the point. But they are there. Behind the scenes. Fixing shit. Fixing all kinds of good things. Perhaps we should harness their energy, their creativity, their enthusiasm.
However, like with anything, we are constantly making assumptions and putting our own subjective lens over the situation. I feel like taking this moment to look through my own lenses to try to analyze what assumptions I am currently making about these positive deviants. It is clear that my personal lens has already been exposed. I believe in looking at assets first. I am in fact looking at Asset -Based Community Development for my thesis topic. So, I wont lie to you - I am biased. And I think that this notion of looking for assets and exceptional individuals who can help to shape the future of a community is a very positive and beneficial thing. But I will try to unpack my biases in an .... uh, unbiased way?
Okay... here we go. Unpacking.... dirty clothes into the laundry. One by one.
Special kids. Keeners. Overachievers. Superstars. Unsung heroes. Savants. Whatever you want to call them, there are people who stand out. Everywhere. All over the world. Sometimes it is called the tallest poppy syndrome - which is seen somewhat negatively. That is, the tallest poppy gets chopped down. Not as wonderful a way to look at it at positive deviance. But it happens.
And more commonly I see people getting shot down for being "too enthusiastic", "too keen" or too different from anyone else. Instead of being celebrated for who they are.
So let us celebrate those deviants. Let us embrace the differences. Let's think outside the box, and as a community work to find those outliers who might just be the key we need to find a new solution to the problems we confront.
Positive Deviance Initiative, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.positivedeviance.org/
a) for the website definition of Positive Deviance, please click here and then return to this blog.
OR
b) For the Liz Beattie definition, please click here.
Hi... you have chosen the website definition and now you have returned to this blog. I would like to begin by saying that I am slightly disappointed, as it is difficult to understand how you did not choose the Liz Beattie definition. Liz Beattie is an exceptional person. In fact, I might argue that she fits the mold of positive deviance. However, I have just been informed that Beattie can not be placed into a mold and I have to say I agree. But that my friends, is exactly what positive deviance is all about. An exceptional person who does not fit our standards of how things should be, but who comes up with creative solutions that often better the situation for everyone. You are now faced with another crossroads. On this "choose your own adventure", would you like to see an example of Positive Deviance, to confirm that I am not misleading you with my example? If so, please click this link. If you need further convincing, please click here to return to Liz Beattie's Blog.
Oh hello.. you're back again. Good to see you. You might think I don't like you, but it's not true. I know I keep sending you to Liz Beattie's blog, but really... she's positively deviant, and I am doing you a favour. But here you are... a taste for the common, a desire for the normal. Perhaps it is more familiar for you. That's okay. People don't always feel comfortable with the positive deviants. Nor should they. That's the point. But they are there. Behind the scenes. Fixing shit. Fixing all kinds of good things. Perhaps we should harness their energy, their creativity, their enthusiasm.
However, like with anything, we are constantly making assumptions and putting our own subjective lens over the situation. I feel like taking this moment to look through my own lenses to try to analyze what assumptions I am currently making about these positive deviants. It is clear that my personal lens has already been exposed. I believe in looking at assets first. I am in fact looking at Asset -Based Community Development for my thesis topic. So, I wont lie to you - I am biased. And I think that this notion of looking for assets and exceptional individuals who can help to shape the future of a community is a very positive and beneficial thing. But I will try to unpack my biases in an .... uh, unbiased way?
Okay... here we go. Unpacking.... dirty clothes into the laundry. One by one.
Special kids. Keeners. Overachievers. Superstars. Unsung heroes. Savants. Whatever you want to call them, there are people who stand out. Everywhere. All over the world. Sometimes it is called the tallest poppy syndrome - which is seen somewhat negatively. That is, the tallest poppy gets chopped down. Not as wonderful a way to look at it at positive deviance. But it happens.
And more commonly I see people getting shot down for being "too enthusiastic", "too keen" or too different from anyone else. Instead of being celebrated for who they are.
So let us celebrate those deviants. Let us embrace the differences. Let's think outside the box, and as a community work to find those outliers who might just be the key we need to find a new solution to the problems we confront.
Positive Deviance Initiative, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.positivedeviance.org/
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Criticism can hurt
I don't know if this will be the most relevant of all the blog posts. And by relevance I am referring to how directly they are linked to the course readings. But this is directly linked to the course materials that we have been focusing on, and it certainly has a psychological dimension. So, here we go...
It's about a film. A film about cancer. And the environment.
I found it very difficult to watch, not only because of the massive injustices and insanities being exposed, but also for very individualistic feelings of worrying about my own health and the health of those that I love. I wont lie. It scared me. (The film is called Living Downstream and is based on a book by Sandra Steingraber).
But I am actually writing enough about the film for a class assignment, so I am going to talk about something a little bit different here. I want to examine not only my own emotions that came up during the film, but the psychological dimension of giving and receiving feedback and/or criticism.
Here's the context: I thought the film was scary. I felt fear, anxiety and thought many scenes were ominous and foreboding. My heart rate actually increased and I could feel physical feelings of anxiety creeping into me during certain scenes. I thought that the use of fear was intentional and that it was a strategy being employed by the writer of the book and the filmmaker.
So, I set about helping to write a group paper about how it is using fear, which can lead to anxiety and denial in viewers that already are shutting off from this sort of issue. But then this morning we had a Skype call with the filmmaker. And she seemed so lovely. I couldn't help but think, "what a sweetie". And when someone asked her if it was meant to be scary, she said that no, it wasn't supposed to be scary at all. And then this evening she sent an email saying that she had been taken aback by that question and that she was certainly not intending to scare people. The tone of her email was almost apologetic and I really related to that feeling. She mentioned that she felt criticism about her work quite acutely. I feel the same way.
So now, because I liked her (over skype), and I can relate to what she was saying in her email, I don't want to criticize the film. On a rational level I know that it isn't a personal thing, and my graphic design background drilled it into my head that criticizing other's work is just a part of life, and should not be taken personally. But, on a gut level I don't want to write what I really felt about the film, based on what she has said that her intentions were. It's an interesting psychological shift that I am noticing in myself. I had no problem with looking at the film through an incredibly critical eye before I had a face to a name and she became a real person. It shouldn't make a difference, but it does. It changes something viscerally inside, and my academic guard goes down, letting my emotional side out.
That being said, she did mention anxiety as one of the intended outcomes, which one could argue is very closely related to a feeling of fear...
Also, and this is what I will end with, my frame and lenses could be quite skewed right now. I have spent the past week and a half immersed in studying the psychology around fear, denial, loss etc. and I knew that we were watching the film with a critical eye and would have to write a paper about it. I also knew that the paper would have to do with course material (which has been a lot of fear, denial, loss etc), so it is quite possible that I watched the film with lenses on that only allowed me to see it in that way. Perhaps on a different day I would have been way more focused on the hopeful and uplifting messages. I'm sure there is some amazing psychological theory that I could relate this to, and a perfect reading to cite, but at this moment I am too tired and bed is calling my name. I just needed a place to share these thoughts as they have been consuming my mind while I try to work through this assignment from this new place where I no longer feel completely genuine.
It's about a film. A film about cancer. And the environment.
I found it very difficult to watch, not only because of the massive injustices and insanities being exposed, but also for very individualistic feelings of worrying about my own health and the health of those that I love. I wont lie. It scared me. (The film is called Living Downstream and is based on a book by Sandra Steingraber).
But I am actually writing enough about the film for a class assignment, so I am going to talk about something a little bit different here. I want to examine not only my own emotions that came up during the film, but the psychological dimension of giving and receiving feedback and/or criticism.
Here's the context: I thought the film was scary. I felt fear, anxiety and thought many scenes were ominous and foreboding. My heart rate actually increased and I could feel physical feelings of anxiety creeping into me during certain scenes. I thought that the use of fear was intentional and that it was a strategy being employed by the writer of the book and the filmmaker.
So, I set about helping to write a group paper about how it is using fear, which can lead to anxiety and denial in viewers that already are shutting off from this sort of issue. But then this morning we had a Skype call with the filmmaker. And she seemed so lovely. I couldn't help but think, "what a sweetie". And when someone asked her if it was meant to be scary, she said that no, it wasn't supposed to be scary at all. And then this evening she sent an email saying that she had been taken aback by that question and that she was certainly not intending to scare people. The tone of her email was almost apologetic and I really related to that feeling. She mentioned that she felt criticism about her work quite acutely. I feel the same way.
So now, because I liked her (over skype), and I can relate to what she was saying in her email, I don't want to criticize the film. On a rational level I know that it isn't a personal thing, and my graphic design background drilled it into my head that criticizing other's work is just a part of life, and should not be taken personally. But, on a gut level I don't want to write what I really felt about the film, based on what she has said that her intentions were. It's an interesting psychological shift that I am noticing in myself. I had no problem with looking at the film through an incredibly critical eye before I had a face to a name and she became a real person. It shouldn't make a difference, but it does. It changes something viscerally inside, and my academic guard goes down, letting my emotional side out.
That being said, she did mention anxiety as one of the intended outcomes, which one could argue is very closely related to a feeling of fear...
Also, and this is what I will end with, my frame and lenses could be quite skewed right now. I have spent the past week and a half immersed in studying the psychology around fear, denial, loss etc. and I knew that we were watching the film with a critical eye and would have to write a paper about it. I also knew that the paper would have to do with course material (which has been a lot of fear, denial, loss etc), so it is quite possible that I watched the film with lenses on that only allowed me to see it in that way. Perhaps on a different day I would have been way more focused on the hopeful and uplifting messages. I'm sure there is some amazing psychological theory that I could relate this to, and a perfect reading to cite, but at this moment I am too tired and bed is calling my name. I just needed a place to share these thoughts as they have been consuming my mind while I try to work through this assignment from this new place where I no longer feel completely genuine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)