Need to vent about something that happened in my Master's program

[Political Heretic]

Okay, so this is probably going to turn into a bit of a rant.

I'm getting my masters degree in social work. I'm focused on a macro-level track, meaning my focus is more on community organizing, lobbying and group level advocacy, and broader focus on institutional level change, policy, etc. That, as opposed to more clinical work and direct helper to client relationships. (Though believe me, I have immense respect for those micro practice social workers, and partly see my job as advocating for broader policy or social change that helps them get the resources to do their jobs more effectively.)

So this semester is a great semester for me, because classes are almost entirely focused on macro level work. In my social welfare policy class, I convinced the professor to allow me to read Naomi Kline's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and present on the book. I convinced a couple other people in my cohort to read it with me and collaborate on the presentation. One of these people is a good friend of mine. The other is a woman that I don't know real well, but I am discovering is much more conservative than I would have expected or am used to.

So we get down to the point where I start emailing them to discuss how we want to tackle the presentation. And this other woman I don't know very well responds back saying (I'm paraphrasing,) "well, I think its important that we take time to point out that there are other ways to think about this, and other points of view and I'm happy to do that part of the presentation."

Ok here comes the rant.

I know none of you know me, so this is potentially going to sound like an incredibly arrogant statement. But I am thirty years old, and I have spent my adult life studying international politics, political economy and public policy. I have read more books on these subjects that most people I know. When I wasn't reading books, I was more alert and informed on political issues than anyone I know. I am single (perhaps for a reason, after reading my description of how I spent my time) and have no children. What I do have is time - and I spent multiple hours each day reading the news, studying trends, and digesting analysis from experts. I read economic reports, have trend data at my right hand. In short, I bet you that I spend five times as much time on these issues than any other person in my cohort and probably beyond. I can almost guarantee you that this person can not say that.

I freaking hate it when people use "well, its important to remember that there are other ways to think about this" line as a TACTIC - a way to buffer themselves against uncomfortable information that they don't like. And frankly, it pisses me off when I can come in and present correlated facts, research, sources and data to make a case and in one fell swoop someone else just completely cuts it off at the knees and equalizes it with the "well you need to acknowledge that there are other points of view" PLOY.

Of course there are "other points of view!" But I want to confront this lady and say, "oh really? Like what?" Because I can virtually promise you that her answer will be, "uh....well.... I don't know, but they're out there." Great, then get off your fat ass, go "out there" and do the study and research to find factual information fairly presenting an alternative perspective and then FEEL FREE to do your own presentation on that!

I'm not for indoctrination. I'm not for ramming home one perspective. But it makes me so frustrated when people use the "well you know there are other ways to look at this" line as a way to excuse themselves from knowing the facts, or doing the work to be informed on their own. No, not all opinions are created equal. If she wanted to come in armed with a clearly rational, well documented alternative thesis then GREAT. But she doesn't. She wants to chip away at this one because it challenges her dogma and make herself SOUND like she's the one that's being reasonable and "open-minded." And like I said, it makes me angry when I've done the work and made the sacrifices to be a veritable expert on this stuff and someone else without a clue can come in and act like "all ideas" are on equal footing.

:mad:

End rant.

[lligrd]

1. Hmmm, Why Not Direct Her To DU Or The Unmentionable

Site where she can "well" away while the rest of the group gets the presentation ready. In other words, find something to keep her busy with (bogus research or something)that the project isn't dependent on. It will at least save the time of arguing with her. I hate group projects because a good "group" is really hard to come by. And one bad apple really does waste a lot of time.

[lildreamer316]

2. Maybe a dumb suggestion, but it just

popped into my head, so I'll give it a whirl:
Try handing her a conservative's book that supports your position. I know they are out there. I'm actually thinking Lee Iacocca's book? The recent one about leadership? Or some of Buchanan's rantings of late? I think he's come down on the side of fiscal conservativisim too. I could be wrong.

Either way, you've got to know that your side of the presentation is going to be so much more convincing than hers. What kind of viable evidence could she possibly find that would ring true, anyway? She'll probably end up just looking kinda foolish. I wouldn't worry about it - throw yourself and partner into making your 'side' as strong as possible.

Please keep us updated..

[theredpen]

3. Argument Culture

Once again, I'm reminded of Deborah Tannen's 1999 book http://www.amazon.com/Argument-Culture-Stopping-Americas-Words/dp/0345407512/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203176330&sr=8-1">Argument Culture. Tannen is an expert on interpersonal communication, but in this book she ends up making a larger point that really resonates with situations like this. Basically, it's that Americans have come to believe that there are "two sides to every story" that deserve "equal time." To settle on a single conclusion, or completely rule out an "alternative point of view" is deemed a moral failing in this view.

This is how Holocaust deniers get air time. This is how "Intelligent Design" gets into science classrooms.

This stupidity is pervasive and doesn't seems to have any cultural boundaries. Even here on DU recently, I saw someone try to establish whether a fact was true by taking a poll on it. The inability to distinguish between and opinion, a fact, and a supported opinion is the biggest intellectual deficit we have in this culture.

[Fredda Weinberg]

4. Here's a clue stick from someone who got her Master's at 46

It's not about your genius or even the subject ... academia sifts out those who cannot get along w/others. Listen carefully to the feedback you get and respond - even commas matter. The easier you make the process on others and diminish yourself, the sooner you will be recognized as qualified.

Good luck.

[SPKrazy]

5. MSW program

in my experience was pretty much an indoctrination program, although I'm forever grateful for the indoctrination it gave me. I was marginally politically aware, and I learned a lot about social policy and realized that despite the fact that I'd always believed in Democratic ideals and voted for Dems, there were good reasons for my continued support and interest in political and social policy advocacy.


Good luck with your program

I thought I'd be a clinical person and move into a more macro practice within 10 years. Instead I have a clinical role, and supervisory role over other clinicians, and still see clinical work as my forte.

I've considered a PhD in Public Policy with a specialization in family and health policy. I'm a lazy bastid though at my age.

Too much going on in my life right now to deal with that too.

:hi:

[Lex]

6. ask her if her "other ways to think about this" are as well supported, researched,

organized, peer-reviewed, and referenced?

If not, then that needs to be stressed in her presentation. Or maybe that will be evident and only serve to make the main presentation more powerful?

[riderinthestorm]

7. She's trying to broaden the focus. Your presentation is on the Shock Doctrine

so why muddy the waters?

It's pretty obvious by her reply that she hasn't read the Shock Doctrine or she would know that a presentation about just the information in that book alone is so vast, so extensive, that bringing in more "stuff" would make the presentation unwieldy.

Perhaps you can frame your response in this manner; that you want to keep a narrow focus because of the enormous quantity of information in just that book. Tell her that if she wants to create her own seperate presentation, with another group of people, focusing on "the other side", that's fine but that today and with this group it's The Shock Doctrine.

I've seen this dynamic with book discussion groups - someone hates the book and really doesn't want to discuss it, so they try to derail the original purpose of that night's meeting by bringing in all sorts of other books and bullshit. It takes someone keeping the focus on the original topic at hand in order to get a decent discussion going of the book.

Good luck.