Saturday, November 16, 2013

Education vs. Exposure

As I was taking a college writing class several years ago, the class was reading and discussing a book that I found very offensive. It was saturated with vulgar language, and disgusting illustrations and themes. I refused to read or discuss the book, and opted not to come to class those days. I told my professor I was willing to do an extra assignment in order to be fair, and he asked me to write him an essay on the pros and cons of engaging students in materials that they find offensive. This was my response. 

Education vs. Exposure

            When students walk through their professor’s doors, the professor is automatically given the responsibility of giving them a broadened perspective of the world around them.  Students have existing ideals and opinions that have been formed by a parent, ecclesiastical leader, and life-experience in general.  Their views have been formulated through a mix of education and exposure, and are accepted as truth, whether they are or not.  It isn’t until these beliefs are tested and tried before one can really be sure if they are a practical, real-life view of the world.  Education is like a refiner’s fire.  Old views and opinions should be tested and challenged before they are accepted as a life-long creed of living.  People are, after all, only human, and they shape their belief systems around their own experiences.  A parent can still be ignorant, an ecclesiastical leader can still be narrow-minded, and life-experience can be misleading.
            When an individual makes the decision to be educated, they are saying they want more than what they have.  They want more experience, more knowledge, and more insight.  Because the very nature of education is a process of growing, this can often be uncomfortable.  In the course of learning, there are frequent challenges to one’s accepted truths, as they are required to stretch and grow into new principles and ideals.  As these situations arise, it is important to be able to decipher which of these experiences are necessary, and which are not. There are both pros and cons to engaging students in materials they find offensive.  This is determined by whether or not certain materials serve the purpose of educating, or just exposing.
            When a student comes up against offensive material, it serves as a crossroads.  Once they investigate their feelings, and decide why they are offended, they can better determine if their pre-existing views hold any weight, or if they need to be modified, or tossed out all together.  In order to do so successfully, students should ask themselves why they are offended.  Is it because of their adopted views of what is right and wrong?  Or what is normal or different?  As they answers these questions, they will either fight for what they believe, having a better understanding of the truths at their core, or discard or evolve them as they see that their pre-existing views were narrow or incomplete. 
            On the other hand, there are offensive materials that do not pose questions of right or wrong, normal or different - they simply carry the shock factor of immorality.  The difference between the two is best understood when one considers the difference between being educated and being exposed.  Being educated on certain subjects, ranging from drugs to religion, is far different than being exposed. Let's take rape as an example. The definition of this heinous act is enough to teach me that it is wrong. I believe we should all be educated about its dangers, what you should do if it happens, how to avoid it, etc. On the other hand, I don't need a graphic description of the act to understand or detest it any more than I would otherwise.  I read a book years ago that gave a graphic description of a father raping his daughter. It still haunts me. I vicariously lived through that. I do not feel it benefited me in any way. I wish I could erase those details from my mind.
That is exposure. And it hurts.
The same goes with certain materials adopted into academic curriculum.  For instance, I took a general Psychology class my freshman year of college.  During the course, we held a discussion on the myths about sex and sexuality.  In order to stimulate class discussion, our professor conducted a slide show that posed a series of true or false questions to the class.  Each slide was illustrated.  Sometimes, it was as innocent as two men holding hands.  Others were pornographic.  The question-and-answer session was educational.  The graphic images were exposure, and did nothing to further the educational aspect of the class.  This can have a negative effect on students’ learning.
            Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann developed a theory called the cumulative effects theory.  This theory basically says that media-messages are not all that powerful in the short-run, but in the long-run, after being repeated over and over again, they take a firm holding.  Once that occurs, people who disagree with those messages are discouraged from speaking up because they believe that if it's in the media, it must be the majority-view, and they are the minority.  The resulting silence of their views and their voices is referred to as the spiral of silence (Vivian 404).  What is most appalling about this is that the silence is self-induced because they think they are alone.
            Although this theory deals with media effects, this also holds true for the field of academia.  The fact that certain views or materials may be esteemed in academics gives credence to these views, whether they are worth entertaining or not.  This can create a ripple effect through students who are still striving to determine what is and is not true.  Because students so often come with open minds and open hands, they are not always thorough about sifting through what they are told and determining if it has any value.  Embracing certain offensive materials can create a mirage of truth about certain topics and issues that should not be held in high esteem.  This was demonstrated in the graphic slide show referenced earlier.  Showing such offensive materials in an academic environment gave credence to such behavior.  As offensive as the material was, the professor did not bat an eye.  From his demeanor and presentation, it could be assumed that this was normal, this was right, and this was ok.  As children, we learn through imitation.  This is still true at the crossroads of our adult lives.
            When we start a new job, we learn by watching to see how others perform and respond.  Not only do we want to know how to do our job right, but I think it’s safe to say that we also want to know what we can get away with.  When an individual is transitioning from high school to college, it is also a transition into adulthood. They are no longer sitting at the feet of mom and dad, but looking to the universe for answers to life’s most basic questions. 
Even outside of the budding adult, the academic arena is still a cross roads for all players.  This is the moment in a person’s life when they are willing, and wanting, to unwrap their brain and fill it with truth.  How that truth is handled, or mishandled, has lasting effects on the individual.  It is important to weigh each course’s material for its educational value, and be willing to “kill our darlings” if it crosses the line of exposure.  After all, the ultimate goal of education should be to arm us with the tools that will prepare us to extract Truth from the moments that make up the rest of our lives.  Although our lives may not be laced with rainbows and butterflies, there is no reason to pull ourselves through the mud to prove it.



No comments:

Post a Comment