Go back and look over some of the comments from the previous post. In particular, I am thinking of Nick Kasunic's, Alex LePore's and a few others. Think about what they seem to be saying or observing.
Then read chapters 2 - 4 in Enrique's Journey. As you read, underline, highlight or mark any passage that is particularly shocking, impressionable, memorable, etc.
Next, a bit of the "so what factor" for you to reflect on. Take a minute and reflect on that question: "So what?"
Then read the passage posted below. The following excerpts are taken from Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppresssed (The Continuum International Publishing Group, 1995)
The idea that hope alone will transform the world, and action undertaken in that kind of naivete, is an excellent route to hopelessness, pessimism, and fatalism. But the attempt to do without hope, in the struggle to improve the world, as if that struggle could be reduced to calculated acts alone, or a purely scientific approach, is a frivolous illusion. To attempt to do without hope, which is based on the need for truth as an ethical quality of the struggle, is tantamount to denying that struggle one of its mainstays. The essential thing, as I maintain later on, is this: hope, as an ontological need, demands an anchoring in practice in order to become historically concrete. That is why there is no hope in sheer hopefulness. The hoped-for is not attained by dint of raw hoping. Just to hope is to hope in vain.
Without a minimum of hope, we cannot so much as start the struggle. But without the struggle, hope, as an ontological need, dissipates, loses its bearings, and turns into hopelessness. And hopelessness can become tragic despair. Hence the need for a kind of education in hope. Hope as it happens, is so important for our existence, individual and social, that we must take every care not to experience it in a mistaken form, and thereby allow it to slip toward hopelessness and despair. Hopelessness and despair are both the consequence and the cause of inaction or immobilism.
In limited situations, beyond which lies "untested feasibility" alone - sometimes perceivable, sometimes not - we find the why of both positions: the hopeful one and the hopeless one.
One of the tasks of the progressive educator, through a serious, correct political analysis, is to unveil opportunities for hope, no matter what the obstacles may be. After all, without hope there is little we can do. It will be hard to struggle on, and when we fight as hopeless or despairing persons, our struggle will be suicidal. Hence the need for a kind of education in hope. Hope, as it happens, is so important for our existence, individual and social, that we must take every care not to experience it in a mistaken form, and thereby allow it to slip toward hopelessness and despair. Hopelessness and despair are both the consequence and the cause of inaction and immobilism.
What are your thoughts based on Nick, Alex and other posts, chapters 2 - 4, the "so what" pondering and the excerpt from Freire?
Impress me. Due Tuesday, 3/4.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Hope is one of the Catholic virtues. It is an emotion, a yearning for some greatness not present yet known. It is also an action, an impulse toward forming that greatness. Freire refers to hope as an ontological need, describes the virtue as one of the defining aspects of being. But is this accurate? Is hope one of man’s reasons for being as he is? Or more importantly, does man need a reason for being?
The answer is no. There is no purpose in being beyond existence itself. To assert that man must serve a more specific purpose is to negate the inherent nature of his existence, the essence of his being. He is responsible to himself, responsible to his future. Purpose has only the quality of defining man as a being that serves some function, or more precisely an entity with some design much like a car or television. People seem comfortable with this notion, comfortable to live out some imagined purpose and die contented that somehow that life had meaning in fulfillment of that purpose. Hope is dangerous in the minds of such people, distorted into the belief that beyond this life there is redemption for the meaningless existence they have led. Why should anything change if only in the end shall I find salvation, meaning?
There is meaning in hope, true hope, only where it is embraced as a part of the realization that humanity can change its condition, that the individual and the social form of which he is part are responsible for change and fully capable of enacting it within this existence. Where it is simply the emotion, as Freire states, the impossible idea that inaction will result in the fulfillment of expectation, people dangerously pursue their own self-destruction. They hope for meaning but do not seek it out. Existence, however, is not the submission to purpose or absurd hope. It is the embrace of freedom, the choice to seek out meaning, to serve only the function of being. An obvious corollary of this realization is the understanding that the individual and society are inextricably connected. The choice of the former directly impacts the nature of the latter.
So what? If I choose to embrace my existence as an end, the only purpose for my being, I must at least recognize the existence of others in the same light, that they can achieve the same conclusion I have, and that I may be able to assist that development. This is the foundation of hope, that virtue that propels man occasionally to the aid of others, the understanding that the world as it is, is not perfect but I can help make it perfect. “Enrique’s Journey” presents the triumphs and failures of a boy’s mission to reunite with his mother. Some resent him, perceive him as a threat to their purpose- structured existence. Others recognize his pain, his motivation, as well as all that he has suffered through. These people, who themselves live in almost miserable poverty, felt the need to help him attain his goal. These are the hopeful people, those who enact in some small way the betterment of the world, who realize that inaction is pointless. Some of the people who were interviewed by the author expressed this hope. “What if someday, something bad happens to us? Maybe someone will extend a hand to us.” They realize that the only difference between themselves and the migrants is circumstantial. They are working to spread hope, to spread the understanding that the individual is responsible for the well being of the societal structure.
At the age of 18, I realize a number of things; that life is the sacred attribute of my being, that I define the nature of my existence, the meaning I discover, and that I am the master of my destiny as well as that of society. So what I can I do to enact the virtue of hope? What can I do now that I am vividly aware of the suffering experienced by so many others?
I certainly do not feel remorse over the discrepancy between the circumstances of my life and those of others’. And I am definitely not so naïve or for that matter so impulsive as to believe that sacrificing the remainder of my life for the benefit of others will make any real difference. No, the alternative I choose is to pursue the betterment of my mind, the education that has awakened me to true conscience. I will use the only tool that really matters to me to choose my own future and with that future I will do what I can to improve the lot of my fellow man. My development is of the essence now, and I have an entire lifetime to change the world.
The question of “so what?” is a fair and logical extension of a reflection spurred by exposure to the plight of the world’s most vulnerable people. In fact, if we are content to merely chatter about the problems without the intention of using such discussion as a platform on which act, then we are severely misguided. The excerpt from The Pedagogy of Hope correctly asserts that hope can evolve into hopelessness through “inaction and immobilism.” Essentially, any hope for the world which we may hold in our hearts is worth nothing unless it compels us to act with that hope. This is the point that I believe Nick so accurately captures at the end of his post.
However, for us, as students in course entitled “Man of Faith” at Central Catholic High School in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, we should not need to ask “so what” or “what next” after reading and reflecting on Enrique’s Journey. Are we all expected to run down to Latin America after graduation to solve all of the problems faced by Enrique on his journey? No, of course not! Rather, in response to our reading of, and reflection on, Enrique’s Journey, we ought to be compelled to action in our own communities, and, when and where possible, in the larger international community. Take for example, the parishes in Mexico who provide food, shelter, and protection to the migrants as they travel north. Or, if you wish, consider those residents who run along the train tracks throwing food and clothing to the migrants. Both the parishes and the residents saw a need and deficiency in their own community and acted to alleviate the problem.
Thus, while we can certainly ask “so what,” as students at Central Catholic, we ought to know the answer to this question — service. Our city and larger region are home to countless people who are struggling and in need of help and there are just as many opportunities for us to offer our time, skills, and resources to assist our neighbors in need. A search for organizations seeking volunteers brought 247 hits (http://www.volunteermatch.org/bymsa/m6280/c/opp1.html). A similar search for charitable organizations in the Pittsburgh area (http://www.charity-charities.org/charities/PA/Pittsburgh.html) netted over 550 hits — and that only includes those organizations whose name begins with the letter “A”! While we do not have to all become aid workers or social service providers, we have a responsibility to become lawyers, doctors, and managers who recognize that we are more fortunate than many other people and carry out our lives in an according manner. Furthermore, our school has a volunteer service organization, Lasallian Youth, which can connect any student with a volunteer opportunity to suit his desires and skills. If you did not know (although you certainly should!), this organization also runs the Thanksgiving Food Drive and Lenten Mission Drive, which leads me to Alex’s comment…
I hate to jump on you Alex, but your comment really enraged me. First of all, “does donating to the Lenten Mission Drive fulfill my duty as a Christian, citizen, and human?” Of course your donation does not totally fulfill it, but it is a conscientious attempt to address these responsibilities. Your comments, as well as others, both in class and on the blog, insinuate that donating money to the Mission Drive is not an effective way to assist the young men at Camden. While a philosophical discussion on the morals of monetary charity may be in order, it should not be done at the expense of those in need. To put it simply, Christopher and Yiovanni could care less how we feel about fulfilling our obligations or whether we may be “imposing our authority on them”; what they do care about is whether or not San Miguel will be open next year so that they can continue to receive an excellent education in a safe and nurturing environment. Second, you claim that donating to the Mission Drive “doesn’t feel like [I’m fulfilling my duties].” To answer that bluntly, it does not matter how you feel when you offer a donation to San Miguel. The entire point of charity to make a sacrifice for someone else. Sometimes it might make you feel good, many times it does not, but there ought to be no expectation of personal gratification with charity. Perhaps that is the problem — we fail to translate discussion into action because discussion yields the gratification of making a point, yet charity and service entail a sense of selflessness without an expectation of “good feelings” or happiness.
All of this talk of hope led me to peruse "Spe Salvi", Papa Ratzi's new encyclical. Say what you will about the man's theology, but he is very well read. The encyclical is actually rather interesting (including his rather favorable view of Marx, all things considered, and references to Plato, Bacon, and Kant). Essentially, my cursory read of the encyclical led me to this conclusion:
Hope is the forgotten middle child of the three Christian virtues (faith, hope, and charity). Often it seems that hope gets lumped in with one or the other virtues (ie, "I hope God exists" or "I hope that this money makes a difference". But in and of itself, hope is a fascinating virtue. It is the fundamental ability to see the best in a situation or in a person (keep in mind that here I am referring to what PR/BXVI would call a "lesser hope"). Think about the Cape of Good Hope, if you will. That barren piece of rock was so named because of the optimism the early navigators felt when they began traveling eastward instead of southward. It's no shocker that the symbol of hope is the anchor. Whether you see the glass half empty or half full, every human being is capable at some point of summoning this energy source inside that keeps us moving onward and upward, regardless of the conditions we find ourselves up against.
So how does this relate to Enrique's Journey? The most obvious example of hope is Enrique himself. Even after six failed attempts at reaching the US, he is still struggling to see his mother. But I also think that there is extraordinary hope demonstrated by the farmers who live along the train tracks. These individuals, likely making less than $2 a day, still manage to see in the migrants their essential humanity and drive for a decent life. To quote Papa Ratzi: "Indeed, to accept the 'other' who suffers, means that I take up his suffering in such a way that it becomes mine also. Because it has now become a shared suffering, though, in which another person is present, this suffering is penetrated by the light of love. The Latin word con-solatio, 'consolation', expresses this beautifully. It suggests being with the other in his solitude, so that it ceases to be solitude."
I come than to the issue of "so what". It is very well and good that these individuals in Veracruz are caring for the migrants, shouldn't that be enough? I feel that the answer to that would be no. Social action is a blending of action, reflection, and transformation. We have been doing pretty well on the reflection part, but I think that there may be some legitimacy to the idea that we can be caught up in congratulating ourselves on how brilliant we are for thinking about the situation at hand. Without action and transformation, reflection produces platitudes. What is the answer? I'm not sure. But I do know that an optimistic and hopeful view of the situation is absolutely essential in the discussion. To succumb to a pessimism of "there is nothing we can do" is to not even allow for the possibility of social change. To paraphrase one of those inspirational posters: "You always miss 100% percent of the (shots/opportunities to help your fellow man) that you don't (take/let yourself think of because you won't allow yourself to believe in a solution to social problems).
While I'm on my soap box (or "hope box", as the case may be), I just want to say something about the 20/20 video. I'm not sure what the guy's name was, but the father of the second child in the video is a wonderful example of hope for me. Beneath his almost comical hope that he will someday defeat all of the cockroaches lies something deeper, a fundamental hope for his family. He did not choose his situation, yet he tries to maintain an optimism and cheery nature that I think can serve as a model for all of us. Where so many individuals have fallen into despair, he does what he can to provide both the material needs and the emotional support his family requires.
"So What?" is an inquery that is not surprising to hear from the "everyday" individual. As Bryan said: It is a "logical" and "fair" response, but the Idea
of hope and charity are the ideas I felt were significant and both need to be elaborated on, rather than just merely touched upon.
Hope without action is meaningless.
I can surely say: "I hope to do well on Mr. williamson's math test tommorow" but unless I bring home my book, sit down and practice the mathematics, then it's a waste to even hope from the start. Not only does hope involve action but action and hope need one another. If there is going to be hope for these young boys and girls in Camden, then certainly the action needed is some form of charity(action, by all means) given to them. If hope isn't present in our minds, then whats the point of giving the charity?
You see hope and action must co-exist. It is redundant to say: "oh I hope these poor children in camden recieve help", but not take the affirmative action in assisting these young indivduals with some form of "help", aka charity or any other form of assistance. I would say that maybe if we helped out in our fellow communities and parishes then this world really would be a different place(assuming everyone nation-wide is doing the same in their regions).
Now this topic of charity was also elaborated on by Bryan but I also want to make it clear that charity doesn't have to feel good for it to essentially be "good". Infact, I don't recall a time where self-gratification was established by giving. Naturally, it is receiving
that fulfills our selfishness. After the fall of Adam, from the creation story in the bible, man's proclivity was to be greedy. To put himself first before others. To receive instead of give. But we must fight this natural inclination not just to help each other, but to benefit society as a whole.
Now I have an Idea. Most of you won't like this idea. I know Brother probably will disagree with me but I'm going to express it regardless. The idea I have founded is Strict taxation of all churches.
If churches were taxed for all their income and property, they’d most likely crumble overnight from their own obsolescence, and the National Debt would be wiped out as quickly. The productive, the creative, the resourceful should be subsidized even if they're working for charity. As long as we put our faith in the government(hoping that they use it for the common good) then I don't see a problem with taxing churches and using the money for the ones in need.
Hope is the virtue that makes the Christian crave for the Kingdom of God. Having heard of the Kingdom of God, he wants to go there. I WANT TO GO THERE.
Before hoping for something, the Christian must determine if his hope is possible. Can he really obtain it? This must be answered before desiring for something. Would a Christian desire a bear if he was living in the City and bears were not allowable? Absolutely not! Therefore, before hoping for something, the Christian must know it is possible and he desires it with all his heart. Enrique in the story knows finding his mom is possible but very dangerous but he truly desires this.
Reading Enrique’s I am left feeling one thing: gratefulness. Grateful to be an American with so many opportunities. Grateful that I didn’t have to encounter the hardships that drive millions of people from Mexico and Central America to come here illegally.
Enrique’s Journey is ultimately about the desperate longing for something better. This is very similar to the Christian virtue of hope. Hope is the virtue that makes the Christian crave for the Kingdom of God. Having heard of the Kingdom of God, he wants to go there, much like Enrique’s search for his mother. The virtue of hope stirs the Christian to desire eternal life as his final happiness. It draws him to place his trust in the promises of Jesus Christ, relying on the grace and help of the Holy Spirit to achieve this final goal.
"If I have one tortilla, I give half away, I know God will bring me more." An old woman from Veracruz in the story says this and this is a rather powerful statement. This lady displays all three of the theological virtues but most importantly charity. The Apostle Paul has given an incomparable depiction of charity: 'charity is patient and kind, charity is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Charity bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.'" (1 Corith.13:1-4) This woman, was reduced to eating bark of a tree…. Pretty intense stuff. She endured quite a lot.
The Christian should never view suffering as a sign that God has deserted him. Rather, he should wholeheartedly thank God for the suffering, accepting these trials as a test in faith which will lead to his blessing, bringing about endurance, character and hope.
During hardships, the Christian maintains hope. "Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer."(Rom. 12:12)
So what? So what about all these sufferings and poor Enrique. Well as a Christian man, a Man of Faith, I know I must take action. To at least share the story would be a service to these people but know I could do more. I cannot travel down there to physically help but I should be helping those impoverished around my area. Personally that’s not me, so I’ll just settle with giving money to the Lenten Drive I guess…
Brian wins most valuable blogger agaain. Way to sneak that LSY shout out in-- word.
to Alex, burn.
Brian's nice for a guy like me to have. He can articulate what I mean pretty...good. I very much agree with him. While I desperately try and convince myself to do something about the poverty and injustices in this world, I seem to be totally ignorant of the thousands of services and volunteer work I can provide in this city alone.
As we've discussed before, I do realize the basic human dignity and the inherent and usually excessive pride that most likely hides in a lot of us, but despite the latter, "handouts" to those in need are not yet futile. Putting myself in various situations, and recalling some of my own experiences, I realize that success nor even survival can be achieved alone, no matter my efforts to avert help or aid.
As for hope, regardless of it's definition (lesser or greater), it is the single most influential presence in our world. Hell itself is the sole lack of hope, right? Soo I think I want some of it now just in case. It takes us one step at a time; it is the reason for Enrique's seventh trial journey to the US. Therefore, we are here to do such? We exist to hope? Maybe because I'm just super lazy.
Thus, while I maintain a hope that progresses my own being, I...hope... not to define my life with it. I do believe in a more progressive existence than just hoping (the kind Oliver speaks of) for human condition (this remains a priority I guess though until perfection is acheived?)
I'm juust saying, I feel like we're going in circles until we get to heaven. To this I suppose one could answer that it is our job to break free of that circle here on earth and strive for the kingdom of God in this same place.
Like Oliver, at the age of 18, I realize a number of things; "that life is the sacred attribute of my being, that I define the nature of my existence, the meaning I discover, and that I am the master of my destiny as well as that of society." (Oliver Ruiz, above)... and I hate myself for it... and I hate myself for hating myself for it.
I guess it just seems silly to even talk about it-- hope and "so what". Recalling C.S. Lewis, it seems that my human nature screams for my feet to keep moving in the right direction, and to help all those in need along the way.
I'm lost. Cue Brian.
I'd first like to point out, with all due respect, that the connections I am expected to make are too demanding for this space, a blog post. I will, nevertheless, (and in the shadow of giants like Olly, Bry Bry, Grandpa Paz, Andrew, and Mr. Pineapple Pina) try to cut straight to the point.
I fervently agree with Freire and Oliver: there are different kinds of hope. Some hope is inherently fruitful (though not always successful as it pertains to its explicit goals) and necessitates action and mobilization. Enrique, in some ways, is consumed by such hope. His hope, unfortunately, is born of desperation. But still: it leads him to move, to actively commit his whole being to what he sees is the best way of bettering his circumstances and his life. I would argue that his hope is possibly too self-serving, though one can't really blame him, considering where and when he comes from.
Another unfortunate, hollow, and naïve kind of hope exists, which requires naught but the continuation of regular praxis and resting upon a self-debilitating crutch: an imagined and convenient purpose to life.
The only respectable option in life (unless one has resigned to not hoping at all) is to choose the former. Such efficacious and energetic hoping is the only kind that will result in anything beyond unfounded and willfully-ignorant pacification.
I disagree with Oliver, as well, however. He says, in describing how he feels he will answer "So What?" in his life: "I am definitely not so naïve or for that matter so impulsive as to believe that sacrificing the remainder of my life for the benefit of others will make any real difference. No, the alternative I choose is to pursue the betterment of my mind, the education that has awakened me to true conscience. I will use the only tool that really matters to me to choose my own future and with that future I will do what I can to improve the lot of my fellow man. My development is of the essence now, and I have an entire lifetime to change the world."
One (not necessarily myself - don't fight me Oliver) could argue that Oliver's answer to "So What?" is as convenient and naïve of a crutch as that used by the people he describes in his second paragraph: "People seem comfortable with this notion, comfortable to live out some imagined purpose and die contented that somehow that life had meaning in fulfillment of that purpose. Hope is dangerous in the minds of such people, distorted into the belief that beyond this life there is redemption for the meaningless existence they have led. Why should anything change if only in the end shall I find salvation, meaning?"
I disagree with his contention that sacrificing the remainder of his life would be essentially pointless. But his possible assertion of individuality, that all people must answer the "So What?" for themselves, is much more important.
Well I'd like to write more, but I need food, sleep, and to attend to other work. Maybe if you pay me Brother, I'll write more. Maybe.
Ps. Oliver Ruiz <3 Ayn Rand?
In reading over the comments so far, I'm reminded of an editorial I saw in the NYTimes about a month ago. It was written by a former country director of Cameroon, and it talked about the lack of skill in the Peace Corps, given the amount of young, out of college volunteers. He argued that it would be better for older, more experienced volunteers to serve who know about agriculture, education, and life in general. They have a wisdom that younger people do not.
I talked about the article with a man I know, who also happens to be a former country director for Cameroon. He agreed with some points of the article, but essentially told me that older volunteers are one component of a better PC, but not the solution. Young volunteers serve the purpose of the PC just as well as older volunteers.
The main goals of the PC are to promote understanding of the US (by the host country) and of other cultures (by the volunteers), and provide technical assistance. If one believes that the PC should be promoting development, they should look to the World Bank or USAID. The point is the the PC, just as any other organization around the world, has a specific focus, and is and can be effective within that framework.
That being said, I find it important to try to strike a balance between what Oliver writes and what Alex and Nick contend. We are inherently social beings, and as such, our humanity depends on the humanity of others. We are but one part of a community, and our success or failure is both "consequence and cause" of the success or failure of community.
I don't agree with simply pursuing our own "rational self-interest" (see: Rand, Ruiz), or admonishing ourselves for being selfish because of our actions (or lack thereof). As is the case with the PC, we all have a specific function. It's easy to criticize someone or something for not doing something. It's easy to criticize ourselves for the same reason. But I have thought of this issue in my own life and have realized that yes, I can help, but I can be more effective later in my life when I have a more completely shaped world-view, life philosophy, and skills. In the meantime, I can serve by doing what we all can do: donating our time, energy, and money when and where possible. It's great to devote your life to a cause, but I think that we have obligations to ourselves and others to follow our lives where they lead us, help where and when and how we can, and hopefully end up serving others along the way.
Bryan's right...we don't need people to give up their own personal lives in order to serve others. That's not always effective. We should serve others by using our skills, whatever those may be. We can draw inspiration from those in "Enrique's Journey" who share the very little they have with Enrique and others like him. We see their sacrifice, but they do not change their ways of life to suit others. Rather, they work within their condition to help that of those they are serving. We should do so as well. By doing so, we engage hope actively, working towards the betterment of ourselves and others.
Dear Bloggers,
Keep this short and simple...I think the 'so what' question can be answered in various ways. Bryan made the respectable point about us not being expected to solve all of the problems that immigrants ecounter. So what do we do? Donate to a place like Camden or another area that needs financial assistance seems like a good start....I think that we can all agree that there does come a point however where donations need to be translated into physical actions.
In regards to the virtue of Hope, I think Paz pretty much summed it up on his 'hopebox'. Enrique truly does illustrate what Hope really is. Its not us hoping for a good grade or extra money, but its someone hoping for a better life..no matter how many times they fail.
In conclusion, I would like to introduce The Man of Faith Blog Power Rankings....
1) PAZ- "IF YOU WILL?" Week in and week out Always seems to bring his A game. With Sperendeo-like sweaters, and scholarish insights theres no reason why Paz shouldnt be number 1.
2) Oliver Ruiz- Just read his posts...may take awhile but worth it. Rolling with the idea of both Quantity and Quality...good work. Could make a run in the future at Paz.
3.)Mr Sperendeo- Although he hasnt made his presence felt---The Economist is here gentlemen. Possibly the best dressed individual to ever grace the hallow Halls of Central. Match the looks with the brains and you get our number 3 blogger. Responsible for 69 Billion of last years 70 Billion GDP...need i say more?
Worst---
Alex Lepore
I very much take issue with brendans second to last point in that mr. sperendeo, though his presence has not been felt with his seductive barry white voice, he is somehow the THIRD RANKED BLOGGER IN THE POWER RANKINGS? I conclude that after that last gdp test, the bad one himself be let off with not just a warning, but should be struck from such lists in the future. "UUHH YOU KNOW THIS TEST IS EASY I DID IT IN 5 MIN LAST PERIOD HUH?" why is there a need to make everything a wuestion? who knows? ah has it rubbed off on me? i dont know? AH. frightening...
But as for this whole article on hope. Just some questions I would like to draw out of the text. The author talks a lot about hope and how we can not lapse into this type of hopelessness of inaction. Does not action in itself inherently bring hope. Is there not, simply but acting in a way to help these people are we not bringing with it hope. Also, what is it uniquely about a "hopeful struggle" that makes it better than a struggle that isnt so "hopeful". I know for the sake of space Bro b prob left out where the author elaborated, but i would position these questions not just to bro b but also to the class.
On to what Alex and Nick have posted. I think that to call us as a class out for "not doing anything" right now immediately after reading the book or watching a video or talking about immigration is foolish. Is not the point of discussing and learning about these issues now so that we as a community can make a profound differnece in the future? What is stopping us from physically helping these people in the status quo are our family obligations and the fact that all of us have parent paying for us to go to school and who want to see us graduate. We help out with charitable donations now with the hope in the future that we may change the underlaying structures what create such situations like that in camden and Latin America.
What I have to say about the book is that that Enrique is a tough duuude.
Power bloggers:
1. Oliver- the silent assassin, always pumping out fantastic material without a peep and who would be my first pick if I were Miami.
2. Bry Guy- Just because I love you
3. JB- Because you now have a new name, Yates, and it sounds so scholarly that I couldnt ignore it.
Well Bryan, congratulations on entirely misinterpreting my point. In no way was I trying to undermine the Mission Drive's effectiveness as a vehicle to assist people. My comments about the Mission Drive are rather a metaphor for something that is EASY for mostly all of us to do.
Go back to Mere Christianity. C.S. says, "In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving way too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small."
^ that is what I'm saying. News flash: most people that are donating to the Mission Drive are not using their "charitable donation" as an impetus for further action. Many Central students can donate 20, 50, 100 dollars without being hampered or affected in the least. They can MINDLESSLY open their wallets, take out money, put it in an envelope, and feel good about themselves. I think you would agree that this is not the desired result. Sure, they are giving money to people in need, and in the meantime most don't understand why they're doing it. That's charity I guess.
What I was trying to address was the concept of justice. The type of service that Brother Ernest stressed/recommended/that we do- interaction with people. You know this. I think you would agree. I have a friend who grew up in an extremely affluent family. She could have graduated high school and not worked a day in her life and been comfortable. Yet, she decided to do missionary work after college, not settle for an easy life. I know that realistically, everyone will not do this but I think it would benefit us to try to move closer towards this type of action.
Since you seemed to overlook the last portion of my last post, I'll retype:
I believe empathy is a good place to start. However, I think it would greatly benefit our class if we discussed how to turn empathetic sentiment into action so that this valuable book and its message are not reduced to words on the page of an Internet blog but used as an impetus to actually do something.
...And just for your peace of mind, I do donate to the Mission Drive.
So a couple years ago, when ABC first started running the show "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," TV Guide (I think) ran an article that criticized the show for being "hollow generosity." In a sense, the author was saying that the charity ABC was showing was simply a quest to gain ratings. They made money by broadcasting feel-good stories that the corporation created themselves. ABC had reacted by saying that the show's primary purpose was to aid those in need and that the profit gained from the show (even with the ratings high) was miniscule compared to other ABC specials, including LOST.
In other words, TV Guide was concerned for the motivation for the charity ABC broadcast. Or maybe, ABC was genuinely being charitable, but the ratings and profit were just an alterior motive or sidenote? Ultimately, the author concluded that the families on the show were just simply poster childs, nothing more than an icon of ABC's charity.
While I am not as cynical as TV Guide, there's an important message in the story. What is the motive (or motivation) to do charity? I'm pretty sure I understand what Bryan is saying here: For the students in Camden. Money is money and they will be grateful regardless of the motive. And I also understand that charity is biased towards the recipient than the donor.
But what I don't get is that charity is just that. A cut and dry generosity. I personally feel there is a definitive difference in charity between say, Rupert Murdoch and Bill Gates. Both donate millions (if not billions) to worthy causes. But Bill and Melinda "get their hands dirty." Bill tours throughout America's public school system to promote computer research. Rupert Murdoch donates an absurd amount of money to exonerate himself of charges of being a greedy, old man (which he is).
While I concur that the majority of charity's emphasis is on the victim, the recipient, I firmly believe that there is a significant aspect of charity that involves the donor.
For those who still don't follow (which includes 90% of you, my bad), here's a little illustration:
Hypothetically there are 34 school days in Lent. One freshman donates $1 every day for the entirety of the Lenten Mission Drive. He watches the videos, he is "moved." Another freshman sleeps during homeroom and donates nothing, until the last day, where Bro. Ray yells at him so much for being an inconsiderate fool, that he donates $34 dollars, just so Bro. Ray stops screaming "diarreah of the mouth".
Both donated the same amount over the same time period. San Miguel sees $34 dollars each regardless of the events. Economics says they are the same. But I don't.
Since it is now 5th period as I write this, my response will be based mostly on the class discussion. One thing we must take into consideration is this--there are two sides to every act of charity, the side that "gives" and the side that "receives". To the receiving side, it really doesn't matter why the act of charity was done by the giving side, just that it was done. For the kids in Cambridge, it really doesn't matter that you have no idea what you are giving to, just that you want to dress down/earn extra points in a class/play in a basketball game, just that the money gets to the school, that the school opens its doors again next Spetember, and that you have textbooks to use and pencils to write with. Whether we have "changed" as the people who have done the giving is immaterial--it would be nice if we did change, if our hearts were affected, if we used the Mission Drive as a first step in a journey that takes us to much greater acts of charity and justice. To the kids in Cambridge, however, all that matters is that the money is there, that the school can function, that they won't have to go to a public school where they will most likely fall through the proverbial crack.
And while I'm here, I suppose I should say something about hope. Hope is an interesting thing. It inspires us to move beyond our basic needs, our basic instincts, to go further, to yearn for something, to believe things are possible. Enrique is turned back many times in his struggle northward. Over and over again, he boards the Bus of Tears. He is beaten. Still, he knows he will see his mother. He has hope. This is a hope that comes out of desperation, for sure, but it is an altogether human hope--to see a loved one again. Enrique's humanity shines through as we see him, after being told by the man at the clinic to just stop, ask a car for a ride, which turns out to be la migra, who takes him back to Guatemala, only to turn around again, to start again, to hope to see his mother again, and to use this hope to force himself to act to find his mother.
If we are human, we must have some sort of hope. Something that drives us to look beyond animal necessities, to feel that we can be more, that we can do more, that we can go further. We must have some hope that acts of charity and justice that we do, however small, can change the world. We must have some hope that we are part of soemthing greater--that in taking small actions of justice and charity, we are affirming our humanity, and not just wasting time that could be better spent with our faces in books. We must have some sort of hope that, although we cannot change everyone's situation--we cannot save every impoverished child in the world, certainly--we can do something that will affect change for someone, that will emphasize the inherent dignity in a person whose situation needs to be "lifted up," that our work is not in vain, and that even small actions are worthwhile ones. To believe less would not be human.
The relevancy of chapters 2-4 of Enrique’s Journey can be found in the passages which explore the mission and actions of the shelter director, Mrs. Olga Sanchez, and the priest, Ignacio Villanueva Arteaga. Perhaps the most blatent example of “God at work in human history” is evidenced in the actions of these two Christians. Page 91of Enrique’s Journey characterizes the actions of Olga: “She strokes their hair. She tells them that God has spared them for a reason...“‘God has a plan for you,’” she says. “‘You will learn to live- in a different way…Don’t cry, this is the beginning of a new life..You must keep going forward…you must go forward and trust in God.’ ” Similarly, priest Ignacio provides sanctuary for the migrants and proclaims the social message of the Gospels: Being a good Christian means being a good Samaritan. What I find unique about these two mercenaries (and relevant for this discussion) is that instead of applying this “so what” factor to their daily lives, they find their calling through aiding the destitute. Instead of settling for this notion of laziness (or the ‘so what’ factor) they are living out the mission of Church. They choose not to accept that they can not make a difference.
The passage that stands out for me from the excerpt of Freire is: “Hope as it happens, is so important for our existence, individual and social, that we must take care not to experience it in a mistaken form, and thereby allow it to slip toward hopelessness and despair. Hopelessness and despair are both the consequence and the cause of inaction or immobilism…After all, without hope there is little we can do.” This concept of hope progressing towards the stage of immobilism or inaction, is, at its’ prime, occurring with the ‘so what’ factor. I believe that it is imperative to have hope for the future and to live out that hope through your deeds.
By only responding to Enrique’s Journey and the calling of Christ himself with empathy, and remaining there, is an example of hope turned into inaction; and becomes the general ideal expressed by Alex and Nick-- “So what?” My reflections on this reaction of empathy and ‘so what’ is that it is necessary to answer that reoccurring question within the context of your own lives. If you do not wish for the message of Enrique’s Journey and the calling of Christ to become lessons learned in a course, you must find what it is that you, as a human being, can do to heed the calling in your own way. I believe that it is an individual choice that must be made within the context of your own salvation. The answer cannot be found with your parents or with Bro. Bob for that matter; It rests solely upon the individual to make up his/her mind to hear the calling of God and respond in whichever way they deem necessary; however, lying around and letting ourselves become consumed with this notion of inaction (or the ‘so what?’) is not a proper way to go about making a difference. I am firmly convinced that this concept of inaction or “so what” is the first step to a road of despair and immobilism. I think one can see, through Enrique’s experience, the challenge to retain hope in a world of seemingly distress. Enrique has endured some of the most gruesome experiences, but he did not lose his hope –to reunite with his mother.
Enrique’s is a very powerful story, and I believe that one of the most important things to take away from the book is that it is important to keep hope alive.
As a true “Man of Faith” one must have the courage to say that you are going to at least try to make some sort of difference. Whether that difference is implemented through volunteering at Jubilee Soup Kitchen twice a year, giving monetary donations to the Central Catholic Mission Drive, or even praying for change, it can only be decided by you. In the end, it is you who will have to answer for all your doings, or in this case, lack thereof. After all, like the priest proclaimed, “Being a good Christian is being a good Samaritan.”
Just this past Sunday, one more feel good reality show was added to the primetime line-up- Oprah’s Big Give, to relatively good ratings in the writer’s strike starved television schedule. Instead of salacious shows like Big Brother or of Flavor of Love, which pit young and stupid twentysomethings against each other for a miniscule prize in comparison to the weekly advertisement revenue, Oprah’s Big Give pits volunteer professionals as they try to improve someone’s life during the weekly challenge (Bryan, maybe you want to apply?). To fit the reality show stereotype one of the hopeful’s is eliminated each week. It is easy for people to criticize this sort of exploitation as an inauthentic charity, but the criticism is steeped deeply in sanctimony. Yes, it’s ideal that charity went on without the aid of television cameras, but it is also ideal that when Oprah builds a school in Africa for girls she does not get criticized for not building it in America. Charity cultivates hope, an essential Catholic value, and Oprah does more to build up hope, even while maintaining her power-mogul status.
Hope and charity should be profitable, not necessarily in a strictly spiritual nor capitalistic sense, but a nice mixture is good. Unless an extreme devotion, by our standards, like becoming a nun or brother devoted wholly to charity even a non-profit company gets a salary. Charity is not wholly a business either, but the return currency should not be a merely be a "feeling". Questioning the motivations of charity is a personal reflection, not a community dialogue. Ideally money and time should be given for a purpose, but obviously charity is encouraged and in the ultra-competitive college application process volunteerism is ironically mandatory. Now this hope and this charity is a type of compassion felt by us, perhaps over-generalizing, as part of the Western elite, but echoing several before me there are multiple dimensions of this catchphrase. Enrique’s hope and Lourde’s too, is born out of an idea of an ideal and desperation. His treacherous journey is predicated by a desire for love and validation, and hers on a desire to provide what she cannot. But even there motivations are questionable for even Sonia expresses her dislike for the practice of leaving behind children in dangerous lands.
Now so what if I watch Oprah to feel good, or even the weigh-in of the Biggest Loser for that matter? It can be inspiring or nothing may come of it, but it does not really matter, these shows serve a dual purpose keeping television afloat and doing charity the American way. Televised charity may not be as powerful spiritually as the quiet man who fasts alone in his room, as the bible tells us, but just because it is fashioned for ratings does not lessen the result. Whether my money is given blindly or for bonus point in Latin does not affect the change that can be made passed of the money collection. Charity does not and should not stop just because it is not wholly selfless, idealism should not stop action. Ideally Lourde’s would not leave Tegucigalpa, ideally Honduras would be a perfectly fine place to live, ideally the world would act like the Coca~Cola commercial, but where ideals fail to satisfy the fruits of human hope work to fill up the void left behind. Hope, in all of its faces, is a virtue necessary for earthly development.
I don’t know if I would say that the majority of the kids in our school mindlessly open their wallets without any idea of what the cause is. Sure, there are a good amount of what I call “pricks” at Central (kids who don’t give two shits (pardon my French (its necessary))), but I believe many who do donate know the cause and don’t just give $ to give it. I like to think that there is good in all of the students here, which may be hopeful (thinking that is under attack by some), but I feel hope is necessary to get through life. Just because students don’t walk around saying to their peers “I really wish to help these kids” doesn’t mean that they don’t feel it on the inside. After seeing the ABC clip over the tv’s, I could see students reactions after viewing it, as well as hear conversations in the halls, to the poverty and danger of the Camden residents.
People all over the world have hope, whether it be hoping to get into college, or hoping for a meal every day. Enrique’s hope pushes him to take a dangerous journey like countless others in his situation. Hope leads people to strive for goals and better situations.
People losing all hope entirely is quite a disturbing thing to see. I believe a large part of what we are doing with the LMDrive is giving hope to children in Camden to make a better life for themselves and maybe even their families. This drive is very effective, and I don’t feel anyone can say that it is simply a “handout” of money to keep someone on their feed (but clothes or food) for a week, but instead give them education to better themselves and give them this hope for a better future (related to the idea of “Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime).
Ya diiiiig?
In light of todays class discussions, i would like to give a shout-out to my good friend bubbles lepore and tell him that once again, ive got your back. Although i understand very much so where Bryan in coming from, i believe that bubba's point is a bit more substantial in looking at the long term implications of hope and charity. let me explain.
If i am correct, Bryan's point is that a donation is a donation, regardless of who is donating and what his impetus for the donation is. Certainly, the students at the san miguel school are ecstatic to recieve any donation, and the fact that it is coming from bryan woll in pittsburgh probably means absolutely nothing, as long as they are recieving an education. and that is all well and good.
the only point that i would like to make is that what bubba is stressing is the meaning behind this donation, something that will help every one of us individually in the long run if we are to be a positive influence in society and to have the type of charity that C. S Lewis talks about. Sure, a twenty dollar bill is a twenty dollar bill no matter who it came from but imagine for a second the scenario in Enrique's Journey when he is attacked on the train and left with life threatening wounds.
As enrique, battered and beaten, trudged through the fields of Las Anonas, the first rancher he came to was less than inconsiderate as he told enrique to get lost. The second man he came to, however, Sirenio Gomez Fuentes, was happy to offer Enrique help and to help him to medical care. Not only was Sirenio instrumental in enrique's survival, but so was the mayor, who decided that a living migrant was better than another dead one, and the townspeople who offered him money.
Now to my point: i think it is obvious to see which people have hope, and have a meaning behind the help that they give. The first rancher could not care less about enrique, and it would be meaningless for him to sacrifice his precious time and money to help out yet another migrant in need. The other people in this excerpt, however, help enrique because they hope to give him a chance at life and at his journey. For them, their donations are meaningful because they will support a cause, even though it might hamper them in doing so. The point is, sure it is easy for most of us to sacrifice money to donate the lenten mission drive, because it is not going to hamper us. Even if we are giving "meaningfully" to the mission drive, it is not the same kind of charity that C.S. Lewis speaks of. When it comes down to it, we can see real charity when we look at the real life situation that enrique is in. For the people that are confronted by enrique, they must make a decision based upon the fact that their help and donation will hamper their own lives. The real charity comes from those who decide to help enrique because it will help a fellow human in need, and it will go towards a good cause. The first rancher could care less about enrique because he feels no meaning in giving him money, and therefore when it comes down to giving hard earned money-instead of meaningless lunch money-he is not willing to make the sacrifice. I understand where bryan is coming from..but it is obvious that these people will not offer help unless there is a purpose like bubba talks about, and not everyone has the opportunity to just dish out money in a meaningless way like most of us can in homeroom to the mission drive (even though the kids in camden could care less where it comes from)-we will not be picking from our parent's money tree forever.
decisions, decisions..
Cj real quick...like what your saying...but if im not mistaken the mayor kept Enrique around and took him to the hospital, because it would cost the town three times as much to bury his azz...that is after paying for someone to dig the grave, handle the paperwork and all that fun stuff...anyways just thought i point that out real quick...because personally, it seems more or less within our world there are reasons for why others act as they do in different situations where they may come off as acting with mercy and compassio...dont get me wrong, i agree with what you are saying just thought id point that out....anyways my real post will be coming later
no you are right and i agree..for it seems that the mayor might have even been acting selfishly in order to save some money. But the mayor you are referring to is the second one in the picture(Diaz from San Pedro Tapanatepec) The first mayor he encounters, whom i was thinking of, is Mayor Carrasco and this is the one who offers help to Enrique. Upon being confronted by Enrique, Carrasco's mother offers help by cleaning his wounds, and the Mayor himself clothes Enrique and begs that Diaz take him to the doctor. Diaz is less receptive and less understanding and questions not only the impetus for the migrants' journeys, but also why the Central American governments send him all of their problems.
As I read through chapters two through four of Enrique’s Journeys, after finishing the excerpt from Freire regarding the concept of hope, I found myself consistently hoping Enrique would finally make it to the United States. How could you not at least hope for this kid? Bruised and beaten, we see an Enrique in chapters 2-4, struggling to outwit and outlast the various obstacles along his path. Yet, even through all of his trials (multiple wounds, broken teeth, several lesions) Enrique is steadfast on his objective to reach his mother and he does not allow any amount of pain or hardship to end his odyssey.
Depicted in her Pedagogy of Hope, Paulo Freire writes, “Without a minimum of hope, we cannot so much as start the struggle. But without the struggle, hope, as an ontological need, dissipates, loses its bearings, and turns into hopelessness.” It is important to understand the connection between both hope and structure. Hope can only be regarded as the starting point or impetus toward action. If we are unable to transform our feelings of optimism into charity, than our initial feelings of hope will consequently be altered into feelings of despair and pessimism. Freire goes on to further explain this transformation of emotions as she writes, “Hope as it happens, is so important for our existence, individual and social, that we must take every care not to experience it in a mistaken form, and thereby allow it to slip toward hopelessness and despair. Hopelessness and despair are both the consequence and the cause of inaction or immobilism.” In terms of the question, “So What,” I believe it is obvious that by reading this novel, as well as other comparable writings, which allow the reader to truly empathize with the characters of the story, we are called not just to express sympathy for these individuals, but to use our emotions garnered from reading these novels as a catalyst to begin to actively aid in improving our society.
In Pedagogy of Hope, Paulo Freire asserts that hope requires active participation in reality while, contrastingly, contending that despair remains rooted in passive and sedentary abstract wishing: “[H]ope, as an ontological need, demands an anchoring in practice in order to become historically concrete…Hopelessness and despair are both the consequence and the cause of inaction and immobilism [sic].” Demonstrating his dogged determination to reunite with his loving mother and the active nature of hope, Enrique attempts to enter the United States seven times (51), covering at least 10,000 miles, sleeping in cardboard boxes, (62) and washing his broken teeth with urine (64). He goes days without eating and sleeping on each of these trips, escapes la migra on numerous occasions, and suffers a severe beating from Oaxaca gangsters (54), further illustrating his commitment to his mother. Moreover, the pursuit of one’s dreams causes a transformation in one’s perspective of their life and environment, helping one to develop a more optimistic outlook. While many other migrants view the trains as “…El Tren de la Muerte …the Train of Death…” (71), Enrique perceives the trains as “…El Caballo de Hierro …the Iron Horse…” (71) because of “…the magic of the train- its power and its ability to take him to his mother” (71). Additionally, although 42.5% of Mexicans live on less than $2 per day and 30% of children have stunted growth due to malnutrition (105), many Chiapas residents freely give from the little resources they have to the passing train travelers (103-19). Under the leadership of Bishop Hipolito Reyes Larios, the residents have fed, clothed, housed, and cared for Central American migrants because of their firm belief and hope in Jesus and his message of compassion and therefore, charity. Ultimately, when we Christians serve others, we physically display our faith in Jesus Christ as God and savior.
Furthermore, the situations of many of the hopeless residents at the Shelter of Jesus the Good Shepherd support Freire’s claim about the correlation between inactivity and despair. Many of the cripples can no longer work, or even walk, prompting many to mistakenly conclude that they lack human worth: “ ‘Let me die’ they say” (91). However, once many of these people receive prosthetic legs and/or arms, they feel uplifted because they can participate in many of the activities that they previously enjoyed. We are called human beings because, by our very nature, we are meant to actively engage others and the surrounding world.
As Christians, we must participate in “…opportunities for hope, no matter what the obstacles may be” (Freire). Thus, as it regards the “so what” question, God understands our individual abilities, situations, and resources, and judges us accordingly, according to C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. As high school students, we have limited resources, time constraints, and undeveloped talents. However, we can serve those in need in our immediate communities by volunteering at a nursing home or homeless shelter and by giving charity to those in need (i.e. the Lenten Mission Drive). Once we acquire more power and influence (Dr. Sky Foerster) as adults, we can help those in need throughout the world, such as Central American migrants, using our developed talent and resources.
First off, I find it curious that Bry Guy is now the spokesman for Christopher and Yiovanni, and their feelings toward us and our donations. And as an aside if my memory serves me correctly I think its spelled Yovanni, or so the signs say, so if he is their spokesman he should be let go. HAHA I kid I kid, I joke wit you. As to this debate between Bry Guys and Bubba, I think that both are correct in certain senses. Bryan is correct that philosophical or moral discussions should not derail physical assistance, and Bubs is certainly correct that ignorant giving often leads to nihilism.
Initially note that this blog is an intellectual forum which affords us the opportunity to discuss the underlying ideas and themes behind policy decisions and in this case the immigration issue, and their relevance and implications on our lives as well as others. Therefore, I think that we are only kidding ourselves when we believe that when we grow up and become doctors, lawyers, bankers, or even policy makers, that we will somehow hold the almighty power to change a system or structure that will relieve poverty or suffering or structure violence. I believe the time now and we have been afforded a great opportunity to examine these types of issues due to the Mission Drive with an added bent toward solving them. Therefore, I somewhat view hope as a utilitarian mask for goals or achievements to strive for, which are often never reached, yet can justify horrible atrocities in the status quo.
I feel that the world can only exist in the relationships and interactions that we share with others and those experiences shape our reality, or our perception of reality. Jayan Nayar follows the same trajectory of thought; “[p]ower indeed does lie at the core of human misery, yet we blind ourselves if we regard this power as the power out there. Power, when all the complex networks of its reach are untangled, is personal; power does not exist out there, it only exists in relationship.” These relationships exist in our daily human experiences, including the Mission Drive, and to recognize the power that we hold, through our donations, is to identify Christopher and Yovanni’s subservience in that relationship. We must endeavor to rid ourselves of this power dynamic, which is what I believe Bubba was touching on with his nihilism argument, and strive to refuse this subservient relationship. Nayar again substantiates my argument, “[c]hanging the world therefore is a misnomer for in truth it is relationships that are to be changed. And the only relationships that we can change for sure are our own.” The one common denominator in all of our relationships is that of I, and to then change relationships we must re-examine the I in each of them and within us. Perhaps then, when we have broken down power dynamics, will social structures follow.
This is where I see the importance of the question “so what” and Bubba’s assertion that we must not be ignorant of our relationship within the Mission Drive. If our ultimate aim is to challenge and break down the societal structures that place Christopher and Camden into poverty, not just place a band-aid over the problem by providing for immediate educational funding, we must first realize our roles in these networks of power; not slip into nihilism after the Drive’s conclusion. Bubba made a good point today in class that when he asked students about previous mission drives, they could neither relate to him the objective nor the success of the endeavor. I don’t know about you Bryan and others who have echoed his points, but this sounds extremely troubling; and if we are to challenge these structures of poverty, we must go beyond simply placing money into a jar.
Additionally, in light of C.S.'s recent behavior in class, i think he should be taken out of the top 3 power rankings and we should insert Clark B. I just feel that he brings so much more to the table: brilliant insights, the paa, he willingly sits in the back seat, and the constant need to look at gloves online which he will never buy himself but always insists you look at.
In the question of "So what" two particular things caught my attention. First..."unveil opportunities for hope." We must discover the opportunities and places in which hope still lies. For example there has been a lot of reference made to this year's Lenten Mission Drive, and I am going to once again use this. For the children of Camden there is still hope. A hope for a good education, a hope for a better life, hope to escape the troubles of their situation. To me hope and action are almost a proportion if you will. The children of Camden want to become better and have a better life. They, even through all the struggles and obstacles, have found hope! Who are we to then not put forth this same effort through action? They have broken down all the obstacles so we must in turn break down our obstacles whatever they may be. We must find that same hope which they have found and take a stance to make their hopes and wishes a reality.
Secondly was the need for a sort of education in hope. I can see this being applied to the areas to where hope is still left to be found. If people of a particular region such as Camden had lost hope, then no amount of money, volunteer work, or aid is going to make a difference. Education is first needed in the decision making process as to where to apply our efforts. I feel that through this type of application we can then precede forward.
This has somewhat happened in our own Central Catholic and I believe that we have proceeded forward. Although people in our school may mindlessly drop money into the envelope every morning for the drive, "so what"? Let them...
Although the school collectively may not know the exact cause does that really matter? The students who head the project are intricately involved and want to make a difference not for their own gratification, but rather for the betterment of the children of Camden and the San Miguel School.
Its late so I'm going to try to make it short and sweet.
First, when I read "Pedagogy of Hope" the spirit that Paulo Freire described immediately reminded me of Enrique and his story. At the beginning Enrique was driven to behavioral problems and addiction by the wrong kind of hope. This wrong kind of hope was the blind wish that his mother would come home. As we saw in the first chapter this wrong hope led Enrique to a depraved condition. However, when Enrique decided to head to El Norte and actively sought out his mother he began to pursue hope. This hope has seemed to transform Enrique. In Chapters 2-4 I do not recall Enrique sniffing glue or doing other drugs. In addition, the power of Enrique's newfound sense of hope is confirmed by the fact that, although he failed 8 times, he keeps going back. Perhaps Enrique is driven by desperation, courage, or foolishness, but one thing that must drive his journey to El Norte is the new kind of hope.
On the "so what factor," I think that both Bryan and Alex have elements of truth in their posts. I agree with Alex that mindless giving is not good. Yet Bryan makes an equally good point that the San Miguel School does not care why the people are giving. I think that it is very important for me and probably others in our religion class to know why we donate to the mission drive and to constantly question whether we could do more. However, that does not necessarily mean that mindless giving is bad. In fact, I think that mindless giving could eventually need to a fully conscious sense of charity. In fact, I recall donating to the mission drive without a clear sense of why I was donating. I still donate to the mission drive, but now I am more conscious of why I am donating. Perhaps learning why we are donating is part of growing older and wiser -- which I believe I am doing despite the protests of Paz and others who call me immature. Ultimately I believe that an amalgamation (fancy word for combination) of Bryan's and Alex's approach to the mission drive is necessary. Bryan, in his inordinately vehement support for the mission drive -- he is after all, the mission drive nazi -- is so concerned about helping the students of San Miguel that he is not concerned with what supporting the mission drive is supposed to be doing for us and the student body. And Alex, when Bryan starts to attack there's no dodging the storm.
Bryan, you my nazi, always.
I’ll be using the same excuse as Kevin, although I’m writing fresh off my trademark 4 hour nap.
The final sentence of the first paragraph of the short “Pedagogy of Hope” excerpt is one that caught my attention. It reads, “Just to hope is to hope in vain”. This characteristic of reckless hope is one which I think is applicable to many of us upon attempting to answer the “so what” question. Many of us hope we could make a difference for those who suffer daily, but we never really go beyond that. Especially at the current stage of most of our lives, the inability to do much more makes the “so what” question more of a burden than a guide. In the big scheme of things, the individual can only address and affect a very small portion of the world, so the “so what” question, if useful at all, must be applied to a specific area or occurrence.
As KB touched upon, I agree that a combination of Alex’s and Brian’s points is necessary if both the pragmatic and moral goals of a donation are to be achieved. From a financial perspective, there is absolutely no difference between a genuine donation and one which is “mindless”, although I still wonder whether there is such a thing as a mindless donation. From a Christian perspective, it is clearly necessary to have the right intentions upon acting. Nevertheless, people have a wide array of opinions and questioning someone’s intent serves little purpose. I believe that we tend to focus a bit too severely on intermediate steps rather than on the ultimate goal, even if some of those steps aren’t justified or supported.
Only 3 people on the power rankings? I’m a bit disappointed in you Jay Bilas.
Hope seems to be the most commonly misconceived of the Catholic virtues. (Faith Hope Love). All too often hope is seen as a “feel good” facet of Christianity and not requiring a change of heart or conformity to Catholic social teaching. Faith is difficult, it call us to learn our faith but inevitably we come to a time when we either abandon logic and reason and jump in or skeptically tip toe around the edge waiting for logic to take us further. Love needs little introduction. As we all know, for true love to blossom, self sacrifice and flexibility are necessary. Hope on the other hand seems to be a virtue without action behind it (at least in the majority of public opinion).
In “The Pedagogy of Hope” a key notion that needs to be taken to heart is that “the idea that hope alone will transform the world, and action undertaken in that kind of naiveté, is an excellent route to hopelessness, pessimism, and fatalism” It goes on to say that there is no hope in hoping for hope sake. In short, we can hope that oppressive social structures will be ended and that the fullness of Catholic Social Teaching will take root in society, but until we take an initiative to start the wheels turning, nothing will come about of the blind hope that society is all too familiar with. According to Freire, we must first start the fight in order to be hopeful, “Hopelessness and despair are both the consequence and the cause of inaction or immobilization. It is a vicious circle. Without action there can be no cause for Hope, likewise, without Hope why should one feel inclined to act.
Post a Comment