I hate my job . . . my MA gives me hope . . . I hope . . .

I'm still not quite in sync. I'm not usually this morose (or maybe I am?) but after yet another week of the most abjectly soul destroying cr*p preparing for inspection when words are bandied about like 'excellence', 'quality' and 'standards' the definitions of which according to those uttering them bear absolutely no relation to any definitions I've ever had it takes its toll.
Hour after hour. I get up at 7, start working. get to work for 9. teach till 4. get home. turn on my mac. start working. 1am stop working. and so it goes on and on.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed: Paulo Freire (Critical consciousness):
"The first chapter explores how oppression has been justified and how it is overcome through a mutual process between the "oppressor" and the "oppressed". Examining how the balance of power between the colonizer and the colonized remains relatively stable, Freire admits that the powerless in society can be frightened of freedom"
Now this makes much more sense to me - even when taken out of the context of Freire's work with underdeveloped societies. Everywhere I look I am subject to 'oppression' or perhaps 'suppression' is a better word. Only it now wears a suit and has legitimacy since our language is re-appropriated and not our own any more. have you noticed how when a politician is engaged in bribery and corruption it is either not bribery and corruption or somehow this particular bribery and corruption is not as bad as 'real crime'?
"the "banking" approach to education -- a metaphor used by Freire that suggests students are considered empty bank accounts that should remain open to deposits made by the teacher. Freire rejects the "banking" approach, claiming it results in the dehumanization of both the students and the teachers. In addition, he argues the banking approach stimulates oppressive attitudes and practices in society"
My experiences seem to lead me to understand that 'banking' happens to everyone - educated or not. How come everyone just accepts that which they deplore? (me included). Only like modern financial banking this is far more sophisticated. Our behaviour seems to function like an internal automated telephone service - we just choose the appropriate number.
Freire doesn't seem to offer me a positive hook to explore unless anyone can help out?

Baxter Magolda:
"Absolutist –knowledge is certain or absolute;
I like teachers who will give you as much as you need and not just leave you with a little small idea and have you talk it out. I like it when they give you a lot of information. Then you can discuss it"
I actually agree with this as it strikes me as being at the heart of what a 'teacher' is or should be. I don't mean spoon feeding or anything of the like but someone who just knows lots of stuff and is willing to impart it so that you can either stand on the shoulders of giants or strike them down with your catapult. Its my experience of the opposite at UWN that brought me to my first truly crushing experience. Lecturers would say, "Today is about dealing with a client. Now, what would you do? And my immediate thought would be "Why are you asking me? Don't you know?" There is a lot of talk about this in education today but frankly its always polarised - lecture bad, groupwork good. Again language is bastardised. We have 'guidance' from staff now on BAs that amount to around an hour a fortnight. would you use the same word as a parent if you only consented to 'guide' your children for one hour a fortnight?
"Transitional knowing – There is partial certainty and partial uncertainty:
. . . And I though, well, why would this person teach this subject this way and be successful and at the same time there’s a person teaching it in a different way but still being successful? It begins to change you a bit"
Now this I can honestly say I have no real experience of. I observe countless lessons every year at various levels (1 yr olds to undergrads) and am completely nonplussed at how they are often described by others as examples of the above statement when to me they are clearly identical. Just because one tutor uses plastic boxes and another uses laminated card to do the same activity it doesn't mean that they taught it in a different way! They both recounted 3 aims and objectives in the first 5 minutes. they then both made H&S statements for 1 minute. They then both split the lesson up into 3 x 20 minute chunks with a chunk involving group work, a chunk involving Q&A and a chunk involving individual differentiated project work. They both then ended the lesson recapping for 5 minutes. Yet they are described as different ways of teaching and the two are successful. if a tutor lectures one session, had group work the next, does a seminar the next, has active project work the next, does distance learning the next then he/ she is not successful because they are NOT following the preset ideal!
"Independent knowing – Learning is uncertain – everyone has her own beliefs . . .No-one has the right to decide ‘this has to be your truth too’"
Yet this is done every single minute of every day - even amongst so called creatives and academics. Do we ALL just ignore the ways in which we are imposed upon and simply content ourselves with that small corner of our lives that we 'do' have control over.

Goffman:
"A major theme that Goffman treats throughout the work is the fundamental importance of having an agreed upon definition of the situation"
How and when does this agreement happen? What happens if you don't agree? Are these definitions imposed? For example if I went to a meeting and told a colleague that they were full of sh*t then, no matter how justified I believed I might be I would probably be criticized for being 'unprofessional'. Yet if I'm the head of a multi billion dollar global company I can do this and its not unprofessional. So at what point did we agree the parameters of professional performance.
"For example, when a lady who is attending a formal dinner—and who is certainly striving to present herself positively—trips, nearby party-goers may pretend not to have seen her fumble; they assist her in maintaining face. Goffman avers that this type of artificial, willed credulity happens on every level of social organization, from top to bottom."
What happens if you don't pretend? You get demoted to 'bit part player' (crewman number 5 for those of you that have ever watched 'Galaxy Quest')

Giddens:
"A stable self-identity is based on an account of a person's life, actions and influences which makes sense to themselves, and which can be explained to other people without much difficulty. It 'explains' the past, and is oriented towards an anticipated future.
'A person's identity is not to be found in behaviour, nor - important though this is - in the reactions of others, but in the capacity to keep a particular narrative going. The individual's biography, if she is to maintain regular interaction with others in the day-to-day world, cannot be wholly fictive. It must continually integrate events which occur in the external world, and sort them into the ongoing 'story' about the self.'"
This I'm resonating with a bit. But again, I just don't feel that it is 'self' driven. I keep seeing too many external influences, chance and favour affecting the biography. Most reflective thought as pushed by those that need you to reflect begin from the position that 'life is what you make it and that by changing the way you think you can change your life - absolving anyone or anything else of any responsibility. Yet this is clearly NOT the case. At least not in my experience anyway.

Foucault:
I've been trying to read this and am having difficulty so forgive me if I've got this wrong.
"At the core of Foucault's picture of modern “disciplinary” society are three primary techniques of control: hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment, and the examination"
This I can see. heirarchical observation takes all forms. We are watched, literally, electronically and through 'mentoring', progress evaluation, job satisfaction, PPRDs. We are judged through the documentation we are forced to employ and that which exists as a record of our compliance. We are examined when attempting to reach higher. The exam only has one question - will you do what we want, whether you agree with it or not?
"according to Foucault, the new idea that the mad were merely sick (“mentally” ill) and in need of medical treatment was not at all a clear improvement on earlier conceptions (e.g., the Renaissance idea that the mad were in contact with the mysterious forces of cosmic tragedy or the 17th-18th-century view of madness as a renouncing of reason). Moreover, he argued that the alleged scientific neutrality of modern medical treatments of insanity are in fact covers for controlling challenges to a conventional bourgeois morality. In short, Foucault argued that what was presented as an objective, incontrovertible scientific discovery (that madness is mental illness) was in fact the product of eminently questionable social and ethical commitments.
He further argues that the new mode of punishment becomes the model for control of an entire society, with factories, hospitals, and schools modeled on the modern prison"
This resonates with me too, but . . .
"We should not, however, think that the deployment of this model was due to the explicit decisions of some central controlling agency."
This is where Foucault and I part company and this I feel is at the heart of my troubles. I (yes, Richard, just like Fox Mulder - only without a Badge and gun) am shouting to heavens and railing against an unseen all powerful controlling agency. Only they aren't unseen. How I got here I'm not sure. Perhaps its the result of a lot of internalisation, self pity, disappointment and doubt?

I guess the real question is how I shake this off and move forward for the future. I wanted to change the world once and more importantly to me I actually believed that I had it in me to do so. That I really could make a lasting contribution to a better world.

Now I don't. Its maddening. My ex students who have gone out into the world sometimes come back and tell me that they have subsequently never met anyone as skilled or knowledgeable as me (altho I'm pretty sure that none of them would ever tell me otherwise anyway!!). And it should make me ultra confident and not a little arrogant. It would have once. Now it doesn't. I go to conferences and meet flash gurus, photoshop wizards, director coders, 3D magicians who are no better than me. First I automatically feel inferior and not up to scratch. Then as soon as anyone says a single word that I haven't heard before it changes:

There was a time when I would have ben intrigued, excited and gone up to them to strike up a conversation so that I could learn about it from them and then go and explore it.

Now I feel hopelessly deficient.

I guess I'm still trying to find a theory I can apply and some way of driving a plan for the future. I have no intention of allowing this project to become "The world of woe according to the Courageous One"