Vol #1, Col #7: Electronic HandShaking & the Technological Divide: More than Just Smoother Business Practise

The term “net” implies a device of capture and/or constriction that possesses enveloping properties. When used in reference to that little old invention known by html hypertext coders as the world wide web (www, for short), this is a rather apt analogy considering that few of us can live without it, and online addiction isn’t as rare as one may think. For that matter, I’m sure many of you can’t even begin to recall a time in your lives when the internet did NOT exist (though I still remember the days of typewriters, word processing and Ataris – shut up, I know I’m getting up there!) – when you weren’t able to conduct all of your research for school projects via the web, when you couldn’t maintain long distance friendships/relationships without racking up the phone bill, when you couldn’t check the status of your bank account(s) from the convenience of your living room sofa, when you couldn’t find out about the latest fashions and pop culture from around the globe, without having to ‘leave on a jet plane’ (as they say). The advent of the internet has literally changed lives – there are no two ways around it – but whether its life changing properties are for the better or worse is still largely up for debate.

Like any ground-breaking innovation, it too has some serious downfalls: the commodification/de-valuation of music and consequent stealing of tracks (a phenomenon to which I personally relate and to which I’m strongly opposed) merely scratches the tip of the iceberg. Child porn rings, white supremacist message boards, organized crime solicitation, online instructions for bomb and drug manufacture, pro-anorexia websites, and services to aid in eliciting extramarital affairs are just some of the web’s more “fantastic” (note the sarcasm) offerings. But with that said, all of this stuff already existed in the REAL world. It wasn’t that the web corrupted humans. Rather, it merely has served as a MEDIUM through which our corruption has become concentrated.

While I would never discount that the “digital web revolution” has aided tremendously in terms of conducting business (for that matter, much of my own entrepreneurial efforts would not be feasible economically if it weren’t for email) and has led to a more international perspective in terms of world issues among the general populus, when it comes to the business of personal relations, I gotta tell you, I maintain a vastly different view.To me, in the age of globalization and technological advance where academics and suits alike postulate the “interconnectedness” of our globe, it would seem, in fact, that we’re more disconnected than ever before.As knowledge of each other, different cultures, and “the underground” has become increasingly more accessible (albeit still highly oriented around the perpetuation of stereotypes), our relationships have moved into progressively more superficial terrain.

Case and point: I was recently “dating” (if you can even call it that) a gentleman who refused to pick up the phone in order to have an actual conversation with me. He’d spend hours texting me and then several more hours apologizing for the miscommunication and arguments that resulted because of texting’s limited capacity to capture the emotion and intention behind one’s words (when you’re a sarcastic bastard like myself, this is particularly difficult to convey). Yet, he couldn’t seem to understand why perhaps actually speaking may be more suitable in this scenario. His excuse was that texting was more “convenient” for him, allowing him to engage in a multitude of other activities, while socializing. Like any woman with self-respect, I read this (both literally and figuratively) as essentially his desire to half-ass a so-called “relationship”. Suffice it to say, it was short-lived. I’m not here on anyone’s convenience and as “old-fashioned” (pardon the pun) as it may sound, I’m NOT actually capable of forming a deep emotional bond with someone merely by reading words on a screen. I don’t know – in-person engagement, hearing a person’s voice, and experiencing them in a three-dimensional capacity tends to work a little better (but only just a little, of course, again note the sarcasm) – but, maybe that’s just me?

It is of my humble opinion that our technological OVERstimulation has led to intellectual AND importantly, emotional UNDER-stimulation as we battle to attend to everything at once, but NOTHING in its entirety. Everything is now seen as “fleeting” or “transient”, and we can establish intense passionate love affairs as quickly as we can end them. In sum, we’ve somehow managed to convince ourselves that wishing one of our so-called “friends” ‘Happy Birthday’ via Facebook upon receiving notification that it is so and so’s special day makes up for the fact that the other 364 days a year this person’s existence remains unacknowledged in our lives.

Then there are some – more extreme tech supporters we’ll call em - who would rather be immersed to such a degree in a virtual made-up world that they’ve gone to the extent of creating fake profiles, fake bank accounts, and yes, you've got it, fake relationships via “interactive” (and I use that term loosely) programs such as SecondLife, to which membership does not come cheap. One needs to ask themselves what is wrong with society when people would rather formulate and maintain their identities and interactions through a computer screen, than actually endeavour to intermingle the good old-fashioned way?!

If you don’t want to take my word for it that the net has led to the above-described “social ill”, I hate to break it to ya, but the social scientific research is in my favour. As I recently learned in my Sociology of Deviance class, hardcore net fanatics and individuals who were raised in “wired” families tend to socialize less (and when they do, it is within smaller social circles), suffer from increased loneliness and depression and often lack a strong sense of personal identity (the net leads to a phenomenon known as “de-individuation”).

It is built within our genetic and evolutionary codes that humans are a social species – we are naturally compelled to flock together with like-others. In this way, the idea of the “technological divide” can not only be applied to differences in accessibility and use based on socioeconomic and demographic factors, but moreover said term can be used to designate how social relations have become significantly altered as a result of the net’s introduction.

Like any major change enacted upon society, characteristically there are those who are pro and those who maintain firm positions of staunch opposition. Call me a Luddite if you will, but I look back fondly on the days where conversing meant talking in-person not through MSN, cultural education involved the incorporation of ethnographic methods and phones had not yet transmutated into all-inclusive entertainment units equipped with their very own home recording and playback devices.

Vol #1, Col #6: You Say You Wanna Revolution? Well You Know, Then Start Doing What YOU Can!

If the 50s embraced traditionalism, the zeitgeist of the 60s was one of revolution, and those growing up during the 70s were characterized as belonging to the “me generation”, then the children, such as myself, who came into their own throughout the painted-faced hair metal and Nirvana decades comprise the most apathetic cohorts, to date. We bitch and bitch and bitch about how hard we’ve got it, and how much is wrong with the world, yet very few of us actually endeavour to engage in collective action in order to make a difference. As we all know from the not-so-far off “swinging 60s”, while all revolutions originate with a mere single voice, they require the support of many; otherwise they bubble and fizzle away.

This is precisely our problem: I believe there are progressive forward-thinking individuals out there the same as there have always been, but because of the structure of modern society, along with the values we promote, people our age are less apt to even bother voting, let alone take part in a countercultural movement as controversial as let’s say the anti-Vietnamers known as “The Weatherman”. In my view, this “blah” indifferent mentality stems from a combination of the following factors:


#1: A SOCIETAL FOCUS ON EXCESSIVE INDIVIDUALISM
Ah, “The (North) American Dream” and the “Be All You Can Be” speech from the army are just a small sampling of the individualistic-oriented messages that are shoved down our throats on a daily basis. For that matter, if we do receive collective ‘calls to action’, they are rarely inclusive to all parties (ie: they usually have a narrow focus, be it gender, sexual, or ethnic specific-rights that are being fought for).

As a consequence, we get so completely caught up in the struggles of our own lives (after all, we’re told that’s where the emphasis SHOULD be) that we often neglect others, not realizing, of course, that EVERYTHING we do affects other persons, irrespective of whether said actions were intended to do so. Ironically, while we claim to be more “connected” than ever before, in actuality, we are further apart.


#2: A LACK OF MORAL & ETHICAL COHESION
In a word, society has gotten “complicated”. As much as the discourse surrounding globalization makes claims that cultural mixing and integration lessen racism, and lead to more “universal” humanistic notions of culture, I think it’s fairly apparent that this is not the reality.

The US, especially in regards to popular culture (a major vehicle through which values are propagated), has maintained a position of hegemony over other countries for quite some time. While this is changing due to the aforementioned nation’s economic situation, it would be a downright lie to claim that certain countries (and accordingly, their views/cultures), not to mention certain ethnicities WITHIN those countries remain privileged at the expense of others.

We as people and the UN as an institutional body, cannot agree on what morals, ethics, values, laws, and the like should (and “if” is really the question) apply to all persons at all times. As a consequence, when it comes to binding together to fight against a so-called “common enemy” (which brings me to my next point), the decision as to whom that person(s) is/are, in it of itself, is a problem.

While I strongly maintain that the best judgements are informed by a multitude of perspectives (“nationalism kills”, people), it’s very difficult to make any solid decisions when such perspectives are conflicting, rather than complementary. In the end, it is impossible to please everyone, and because we live in a capitalist society (which ties in heavily to our promotion of individualism), well, those with the “big guns” (ie: the moula) typically win out.


#3: LACK OF A COMMON ENEMY
Should we blame our parents? The media? The government? The CEOs of multi-national corporate conglomerates? Society as a whole? Men? Women? The ethnic minorities? OR the victims themselves for the world’s growing plethora of problems?

We quite simply can’t, as a society, agree on towards whom we should be pointing our fingers. Everyone’s got a different theory, but not one is free from partisanship or personal biases.

I personally don’t think we should be attempting to scapegoat anyone as the sole perpetrator. Rather, I’d like to see a world in which EVERYONE does their part (that’s my call to collective action, take it or leave it), but that’s just me…


#4: WHERE OH WHERE ARE OUR POSITIVE ROLE MODELS?
The days of John Lennon, Mother Teresa and Princess Di are sadly long gone. Instead, we’d rather glamourize completely talentless celebs like Paris Hilton and/or make the indiscretions of pro athletes like Tiger Woods “breaking news.”

The problem with the mass media (especially when it comes to influencing the impressionable minds of our adolescents – ie: our future leaders) is that it has become nothing more than a vehicle of distraction and entertainment. At one point, those with a message used the media to promote their cause(s) and gain recruits, and if the major news outlets wouldn’t listen, they’d start their own. Now, even our news broadcasts are laughable at this point – they’ve become about nothing more than the 30 second sound-byte.

While there are a few amazing candidates out there like Bono or Angelina who are sincerely trying to make the world a better place, not only are their efforts frequently overshadowed by the latest Tinseltown scandal (shows you where our values are), but further, when they do receive airtime for their goodwill activities, the media often constructs their actions as calculated – nothing more than a means of reputation management.


#5: TOO LITTLE TOO LATE?
While admittedly there is certainly no shortage of global-reaching societal crises at this current point in history, among my list of my top five biggest pet peeves is: complaining coupled with inaction. Too many people feel completely overwhelmed by the sheer volume of maladies that our modern world has to contend with. As a consequence, they remain stagnant. IMAGINE IF EVERYONE HAD THIS VIEW.

While I don’t expect any of you (as I could hardly expect such of myself) to go out there and crusade against every single dilemma that is currently plaguing humanity whether it be in accordance with environmental concerns, human rights violations, organized crime or what have you, I don’t believe it is too much to ask everyone to try and contribute in their own way. There is ALWAYS someone who has it worse off than you, I assure you (especially considering the comfortable lives in which we live on this end of the globe).

It’s as easy as picking up after yourself, volunteering at a soup kitchen, sending money or other goods for relief, adopting a rescue animal, assisting an elder who is struggling with their groceries, or even encouraging a friend or acquaintance to seek counsel for his/her psychological distress. It doesn’t matter what it is, JUST DO SOMETHING (for someone other than yourself, that is).


#6: PRIORITY SETTING
Because we live in an industrialized wealthy Western nation, we tend to ignore the problems that are colouring our very own backyards. For example, did you know that the UN has flagged Canada’s homeless problem as one that we should seriously be ashamed of?

But let me clarify - it’s not as though the majority of us doesn’t give a shit about our own. Rather the emphasis (again thanks to the media) is almost invariably placed on the tortures and sufferings of those from undeveloped nations. Therefore, we remain ignorant regarding our home-grown predicaments. This, my friends, is by NO accident (but I don’t have time to dissect the political and ideological frameworks that inform and shape our mass media).

What it comes down to is this: how do you weigh one human’s life as being more valuable than another’s or one human’s problem(s) as being more severe than another’s? Isn’t everything relative? When faced with highly emotionally-charged questions like this, too many people would rather opt for the easy way out, than face their own biases. The result yet again? Inertia.


The point to this entire rant of mine is as follows: although we have wars, moral panics, and epidemics just the same as we did in the past, joint movements in protest of a better world, in demand of a more tolerance societyNO longer occur, and I’d like you to consider why. It’s not just oversaturation. It’s not just distraction. Something has sincerely altered our value system, and in my view, it ain’t for the better.

If I were born in the 60s, you can bet your bottom dollar, I would have been up there in the front lines fighting for what I believe in. Nowadays, it seems like a feat just to get people to come out to an awareness-raising charity event. ‘Tis a sad state indeed. Let’s change it. Break out those bellbottoms. I wanna revolution.

Vol #1, Col #5: Good Old Credentialism: Look Out Retail Management, I Just Got My B.A. in English!

As much as I hate those guilt trip-ridden conversations with the parental units that begin with, “when I was your age…” I’ve gotta say there is something to them, especially when it comes to the subject of “growing up” (and by that I mean, fulfilling the checklist of getting the car, career, spouse, 1.2 kids, and the white picket fence). But, as pointed out in Foot and Stoffman’s seminal work, "Boom, Bust and Echo”, which dissects market trends based on demographic theory, the concept of the ‘generation gap’ (ie: the inability of those from a given generation to be able to relate to their predecessors and/or ancestors) is nothing new.

We all grow up within a given cohort, and it is those shared experiences (mediated and impacted by the decisions made by the generations that came prior) that determine not only many of the social aspects of our lives, but as well the marketplace with which we are faced. As alluded to by the title of this article, a growing phenomenon that us twenty-somethings are now burdened with is UNDERemployment (ie: we are overcredentialized for the positions that are accessible to us upon graduation).

The narratives that our parents and grandparents like to rely upon in order to justify why we are still co-dependent, unmarried (and childless), and only earning $9.50 an hour ($12 at best!), in our twenties, state that we are lazy, unmotivated, and seriously lacking in the strong work ethic department (ie: our social circumstances are entirely a result of our OWN failings). Now, there are obviously bad apples in every group, but we can hardly consider them representative of larger social trends. In fact, contrary to what these “generational bitchings” (yes, a term I have now coined) suggest, we have MORE people not only attending post-secondary institutes, but further obtaining post-grad degrees, than EVER before!

Taking this simple fact into consideration, it is easy to see that ultimately all of these mythologies about our cohort being spread by seniors come down to fear: they’re scared we’re gonna screw up the very world they worked so hard to create – the world we’re inheriting – and frankly, they also don’t want us to take over the reins just yet (again, it’s nothing new that people get the willies when it comes to being labeled old and incompetent, read: they’re gonna be kicking and screaming all the way to the old-age homes). The ironic part of all of this, of course, is that they (ie: the babyboomers), purely because of their sheer numbers, are largely to blame for our predicament:

PROBLEM #1: THE ERADICATION OF MANDATORY RETIREMENT

TOO many babyboomers are holding on for dear life to their jobs, which in turn disallows us from ever climbing up the social ranks. The result: while the cushy positions remain occupied, all that’s left for grabs for us are the medial labour jobs, admin positions, retail and service-oriented work, and, don’t forget, the paradise known as the fast-food industry. Even then, many of the jobs that we can “get our hands on” (or better yet, particularly in the case of the last industry mentioned on the aforementioned list, “sink our teeth into”) are still only part-time, temporary, or contractual (ie: we have NO sense of stability, and are often forced to live paycheck-to-paycheck. With student loans to pay off, this typically doesn’t go over very well).

But in all fairness, pensions have been cut dramatically in many fields, forcing seniors to take a hiatus from their golfing expeditions and air-conditioned Floridian lifestyles to re-enter the workforce. In addition, because we are in uncertain economic times (ie: thanks to the so-called war-on-terror, along with changing environmental practices, among other things), having a single job (or for that matter relying on a single family income) that is able to substantiate one’s lifestyle, in the first place, is becoming increasingly next to impossible (yes, I work three myself, and go to school part-time, I hardly think I’m lazy and unmotivated as the popular discourse would suggest).

PROBLEM #2: INFLATION, INFLATION, INFLATION!

Remember the good old days when you could purchase a full tank of gas for less than $15? NO, neither do I, but I do know that in some alternative universe, many moons ago, such was the reality. Though our technology has allowed us to produce products faster, and at a cheaper rate, the fact that only a handful of corporate conglomerates control some absurd amount (upwards of 70%) of the entire world’s economy allows them to over-charge us ignorant consumers in an effort to maximize profits which, according to the compelling documentary, The Corporation, is their legal designation, above all others. The point: everything these days, from foodstuff to rental properties, is MORE expensive.

But, don’t think for a second that our governments are innocent in this equation either. In fact, some governments go out of their way to ensure that corporations will maintain their headquarters within the territories under their charge to ensure that their economies remain solid. Consequently, white collar crimes, the disregard for environmental regulations, human rights violations (including the privatization of essential resources such as water), and the like get completely skated over as if they weren’t serious concerns. As ACDC put it: “money talks.”

PROBLEM #3: TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT & GLOBALIZATION

Human labour in a lot of previously valued, and highly regarded positions (particularly, machine-oriented grunt work) is no longer required, thanks to technology. For all the good it has brought, it has also cost a lot of people their salaries.

Moreover, because we are increasingly moving in the globalized direction and the disparities in wealth between the poorest and richest nations continue to expand, it is in the best interests of corporations (read: more cost-effective) to outsource their labour. If you’ve ever wondered how and why it is possible that you can phone up what appears to be a local helpline for your cable, phone, or internet service, yet get connected with someone who speaks broken English at best, there’d be your answer.

PROBLEM #4: THE SOCIAL DEPRECIATION OF COLLEGE, THE TRADES, & OTHER SKILLS THAT GREATLY IMPROVE EMPLOYABILITY

Because our parents and our parents’ parents fought long and hard not only for equitable access to higher education, but as well for better quality learning overall, there is a widespread belief ingrained within our society that if you don’t obtain a university degree (moreover, a university degree in a “PRACTICAL” field like medicine, engineering, teaching, or law), you will FAIL at life. While I’m not suggesting that all of us undergrads ought to go on our spring breaks and never come back, I do feel that it would do society a lot of good if it acknowledged that the “essentiality” of a university degree is tempered by one’s residential terrain in terms of its level of urbanization, and its population characteristics (ie: which demographic groups compose the primary target markets).

For example, in London, Ontario where the available jobs for people of my educational level and age are largely in the financial, service, real estate or customer service sectors, I’ve got a girlfriend who merely finished grade twelve, and consistently has been employed in better paying positions. Why you ask? For the simple reason that she’s bilingual. Similarly, my older brother has never gone to university, likely couldn’t write a properly structured thesis for the life of him, and doesn’t have a clue as to how to study effectively, but guess what? He earns as much as THREE times what I do for the simple reason that he works within the trades.

Finally, if you come from a well-regarded family within your city, connections will often bypass the entire application and interview process. So, as much as I value my education, I question just how transferable and valued the skills that I have been taught are in the real world.

Alright, get to the point you’re all thinking, so here it is: they say that too little choice is debilitating, but I’d like to argue that the opposite is true as well. While some of our parents and grandparents may have been miserable with the changeless and predictable existences they led, in my view, it would have been a hell of a lot easier to determine your future direction when it was clearly plotted out for you. You either inherited the family business, or studied under a subject area which you knew would lead to a specific employment outcome, you either married your neighbour, highschool sweetheart, or the match arranged for you in advance, you had at least one child (preferably a boy), and were well into your rearing years by your thirties, at the latest.

These days the dialogues on the milestones one must hit throughout their life course range from stating that “40 is the new 30”, AND you’re supposed to be a worth a few million by 20. With all of these mixed messages, not to mention the catch 22 education/employment opportunities we have to contend with, I’m certainly not surprised that most of us don’t have it together just yet. Maybe it’s our parents who need to get with the program!

Vol #1, Col #4: Edu-MY-nation: Taking a Page from Plato’s Philosophers Kings

I’ve met some of the most ignorant individuals in my life, at my so-called “prestigious” Ivy-league university. Not just ignorant, but close-minded, prejudice, and unrealistic as well. To sum it up, they quite simply have no concept of the “real world,” and accordingly, despite boasting B.A.s and M.A.s out their ying-yangs, they remain ill-equipped to deal with many of life’s “stresses, and messes” (if you will).

While said individuals are successfully exceeding the 4.0 GPA mark, when it comes to “street smarts”, and EQ (yes you read correctly, I’m referring to the much overlooked, but indispensable domain of “emotional intelligence”), it’s a whole nother story.
Undoubtedly, this phenomenon can partly be accounted for by the appeal of my school to “trust-fund” types, but in my view, our current academic canon (and its points of emphasis) should carry the brunt of this burden as well. While it’d be foolish (and blatantly inaccurate) of me to suggest that our Western-borne educational system has ever triumphed in the impartation of “life skills”, I do believe that aspects of our older curricula (which would aid in the development of not just well-rounded students, but better people, in general) are worth reviving. But before we embark on a little academic “time travelling”, perhaps an illustrative example of exactly what I mean when I say that my fellow post-secondary peers possess a whole host of unredeemable qualities, is necessary.

Last year, as part of my degree requirements, I had to (emphasis on HAD, and not in a positive way) acquire a full year credit in a hard science. Naturally, being a student of the social science, artistic, and humanities realm, I opted for what seemed to me to be the least of all evils (ie: geology!) Despite this area NOT appealing to my particular tastes, I was actually so successful in this endeavour that, at one point, I found myself sitting in my prof’s office overviewing an exam on which I obtained a high 90, with her trying to convince me that I should promptly change my major. (This little tidbit will prove relevant in a moment - just you wait – but in the meantime, back to this tale’s plot development…)

For one of my assignments in this course, I was required to grace the hallways of the Bio/Enviro Sci. building in order to view various mineral samples, which were on exhibit in glass cases lining the walls. It was there that I met a seemingly intelligent student (he’d apparently been studying at our academy for over seven years, and was working on his thesis) who proceeded to not only introduce himself by showering me with insults, but even after a severe bitch-out, continued to poke and prod me (I guess he really wasn’t lying when he said he’d been there for seven years, ie: his only form of interaction with anything in almost a decade was likely in the form of a dissection and so partaking in a normal conversation wasn’t really something he was all that practiced in!)

Despite my casual appearance and clear interest in the exhibits, the first words he uttered in my general direction came in the form of a sardonic query, “Rocks for jocks?” I immediately shot back, “Do I look like a jock?” (For those of you unfamiliar with the connotations laden within my adversary’s expression, essentially he was calling me stupid, and making the assumption, right from the get-go, that I couldn’t possibly be a serious student of the hard sciences, though my final grade in the course would suggest otherwise.) This wit-LESS banter continued for quite some time, until I just got so fed up that frankly I decided I’d complete the assignment later (and let me tell ya, procrastinating and/or putting things off goes against every fiber in my being).

During the process of this entire ordeal, all I could think was, “Wow! For someone so smart, how could he be so stupid?” I even contemplated suggesting to him to look into (for his own good) completing a course in human relations psychology, but figured the attempt would fall on deaf ears. So how does this relate to former models of post-secondary excellence? Well, at one point, basic communication skills (ie: reading, writing, and rhetoric – the very subjects we delved into last week) were heralded! But moreover than that, the foundation of all of Western thought and the entire Western schooling system lay in the precepts of Ancient Greek philosophy.

Plato founded the first official university known as, “The Academy” in 387 B.C. with its driving force dedicated to the “Socratic” search for truth (in a nutshell, this method consisted of continually drilling others on their opinions, until they could no longer justify why it was they believed what they did – hence it’s a rather clever means at getting at underlying discriminatory viewpoints). In addition, it is believed that Plato regularly posed various social problems to his students, and made it a competitive exercise among them to see who could come up with the best (and most humanitarian of) solutions.

The greatest strength of philosophy as a course of study, in general, however ultimately (when taught properly, that is), is that there is no such thing as a right or wrong answer. Everything is entirely subjective and as a consequence, by being exposed to this discipline, it pretty much goes without saying that one’s worldview, conceptions, and ideologies will be greatly expanded. The result? A human being who proudly embraces a liberal, inclusive, and sympathetic attitude towards others and their particular life circumstances. In a world where racism still runs rampant (don’t kid yourself, it’s just better veiled than it used to be), embracing an overall philosophical approach in the educational system is definitely something worth striving for.

Long after the Sophists, Stoics, and Epicureans, education largely became the province of clergyman; as a result, religion and academia became entangled, with Latin (because it was the “holy” language) purported as the most important of the subjects. The Middle Ages’ view was that education was intended to, “instill obedience, discipline and habits of cleanliness,” into its students. Considering the fairly recent moral panics surrounding schoolyard violence, and a general air of insolence among pupils (directed at any and every authority figure), perhaps the former of these two areas could use a little extra “umph”. As for the latter, well as they say, “cleanliness is next to godliness.”

During this time, increased attention was also paid to the encouragement of artistic development; as an artist myself, you know I’m going to have no qualms about this venture. In fact, I’d go so far as to argue that artists have been assigned the societal role of modern day philosophers, and therefore, not only should artistic pursuits be accentuated in schools (arts programs sadly, whether performance or visual, are always the first to be hit by budget cuts), but further, art overall in society is what promotes change, and therefore it should be accorded higher value by the general public. But that’s an entirely separate discussion, in it of itself.

Our final destination on this educational journey is that of “The Age of Enlightenment” (or in chronological terms, the 18th century). During this time, there was a forceful push away from religion, and a move towards critical thinking and reason, along with the expansion of literacy to the broader public (ie: it wasn’t just cool for the rich folks anymore).

Education in the 18th century was conceived of as a, “necessary tool to overcome ignorance, fear and superstition” with the ultimate aim being to realize a more, “open-minded and egalitarian society”. As this “Age” was predated only a century prior by the height of the Renaissance which looked to revive many “classical” practices, the influence of Ancient Greek philosophy, in this view, is not coincidental.

While the flaws (namely, the lack of access to women and other minority groups, or at best, the segregation policies, not to mention the widely-accepted corporal punishment practices, and well, those pesky uniforms!) of our previous educational academies largely outweigh their merits, I do think there is something to be said about reviving or at least ushering forth a new respect and regard for certain subjects of the past.

So…what do I feel should be brought “back to the future”? HOME EC. for starters! (Oh, the days of the 1950s, when women attended college just as much to earn their M.R.S. as any degree!) But in all seriousness, Home Ec = a valuable commodity, and here’s why: far too many college-aged kids don’t have a clue as to how to darn socks, do their own laundry, or prepare a meal that doesn’t consist of a questionable powered substance labeled “cheese mix” and bleached flour noodles. After all, mommy dearest isn’t going to be around forever to fulfill these demands! Aside from establishing a skill-base on the domestic front, I also feel that more focus deserves to be paid to both the liberal arts and the social sciences because of their capacity to open up one's mind, and therefore, one's world (and I’m not just saying that ‘cause I’ve majored in both).

While it has been said that we’re currently training students for technological jobs that have yet to be created, it doesn’t matter how qualified, accomplished, and up-to-speed on the latest “gear” one is, if you’re lacking in basic interpersonal abilities, as well as a global perspective, you simply ain’t gonna cut it in today’s over-saturated and over-credentialized market.

Finally, though I don’t believe that any of the following have ever been offered as REQUIRED electives in any highschool and/or post-secondary program (at least not in North America), I think that teaching students how to budget (time, money, their social lives, and the like), how to deduce whether one’s relationships (both intimate and platonic – ah another Plato reference) are healthy, as well as how to child-rear are all skills that could go a long way. Though I’m sure plenty would argue that said domains really ought to be in the charge of one’s parents, let’s face it, many of them don’t have it figured out either!

Vol #1, Col #3: "Trippingly the Tongue”: Reading, Writing, and Rhetoric, Three Rs in Desperate Need of Revisiting

I prefer the term ‘shades’ to ‘sunglasses’, calling men ‘gents’ or ‘fellas’, vocalizing that ‘I shall’ rather than ‘I will’ partake in a given activity, and receiving flattery that consists of being described as ‘fetching’, ‘delectable’, ‘well-mannered’, and ‘poised’, instead of having my looks equated with a certain temperature reading one experiences in the summer.

I may even bust out a little ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ action, if the occasion calls for it (interestingly, and counter to what one would expect, my brief foray into the realm of linguistics taught me that ‘thou’ was actually the common term used to refer to others, whereas ‘you’ was reserved for address to those of higher rank. But I digress).

The important message to grasp from my elaborate comparison of synonyms is this: as philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein so rightly pointed out, in the early 1900s, “the limits of [one’s] language mean the limits of [one’s] world.” In other words, it’s not just a matter of electing one word over another, one’s choices in terms deeply reflect his/her thought processes. Further, as we all know from our adoption of “professionalism” at job interviews, the way in which we express ourselves, verbally and textually, serves as a signifier of the groups to which we belong.

Carrying on from last week’s discussion of the misuse and abuse of words of great significance, an elaboration on modern society’s general “bastardization” (pardon my French) of the English language seemed merited. While discourse scholars would argue that my stance is that of a conservative “prescriptivist” (ie: one who is incapable of accepting the so-called natural evolution of language, and so makes it his/her mission to instruct others on how to speak/write properly in an attempt to resurrect the dead aspects of a given dialect), I’d like to pose a personal challenge to said individuals to be able to come up with 101 (at least!) unique MODERN ways to describe love and/or the beauty of a woman as eloquently and as effectual as Shakespeare, “the man” himself. Any takers? No, I didn’t think so!

While both my spoken vernacular and scribbles have, at times, been labeled “verbose” (no doubt a consequence of my passion and therefore derived influence from literature of times gone by), I’ll have you know that never once have I received criticism in regards to my elocution. In fact, quite the opposite is true… I’ve oft been characterized as one with a strong command of my mother tongue; something I chalk up to the fact that yes, as a child, I used to read the dictionary as a bedtime story.

So while I don’t (and for that matter can’t) expect a restoration of the “word-smithing” practices pervasive during the Elizabethan era, I do have some suggestions as to how to improve the proficiency of your own dialogue, be it written or uttered:

1) Cut Back on Cussing

Though I admit this is a problematic area for me, as well, particularly when I’m immersed in casual social arenas (undoubtedly a consequence of touring trashy bars and hanging out with punk rockers for so many years), the excessive use of profanity in one’s speech ultimately makes said person sound ignorant. Just like love, the “f-bomb” should be reserved for when you really mean it, and by that I mean NOT as an interjection into your sentences every second or third word. If you’re really parched for terms of equal emotional connotation, I suggest taking a gander at that old dusty thesaurus that is peering out, desperately waiting to be noticed, on your bookshelf. He and you could become the best of friends, if only you’d just give him a chance. While you’re at it, givewww.dictionary.com’s Word of the Day FB app a go – you won’t be disappointed.

2) Revisit the Rules of Syntax

Any ESL student can tell ya that learning English, because of all of its irregularities, requires substantial dedication and skill. However, that does not give us native speakers (who have lifelong exposure) an excuse for laxness when it comes to clause formation, especially not those of you who are currently enrolled at a post-secondary institution.

I largely attribute the blame for students’ inability to construct grammatically correct essays to computer programs such as MS Word, with their spell-check and auto-correct functions. I mean, how can one ever learn that his/her way with words is incorrect if an electronic application can/does do all the work for him/her? But, even then (and as much as society would love to promote technology as the solution to all of life’s quibbles), such programs are never foolproof (ie: they often miss subtle grammatical errors such as when it’s appropriate to use their, there, or they’re)

3) Proofread, Proofread, Proofread!

Though your profs have likely been instructing you to do so for years, I’m sure there are several of you who fail to give your work a once over, after your inkjet has spewed out the pages. While editing throughout the process of working on assignments is an absolute must, I can tell you from personal experience that you will not catch the most glaring of errors until, quite literally, you read aloud a hardcopy of your report to yourself, your imaginary friend, and/or someone who is frankly “lucky” enough to be exposed to your genius.

In all seriousness though, the act of proofreading is a much neglected practice that not only affects scholarly tasks detrimentally when poorly executed, but as well, can create serious rifts in your personal life (resulting from miscommunication), that could have been entirely avoided had you bothered to take those few extra seconds to ensure that what you’ve written is what you actually want to say. In two words: slow down!

The instantaneous nature of the net, and personal devices like Blackberrys, has gotten us all caught up in a world that is constantly on the move. While you can always take back the words themselves, remember that the emotions the recipient(s) of your poorly and/or inappropriately worded messages experienced aren’t erasable, to the same extent. For that reason, if you have something truly important to express I suggest either a) doing it in person or b) composing a letter via pen and paper (yes, I know it seems so passé, but I assure you being penpals, at one point, was all the rage!)

For those of you courageous enough to take the next leap with your lexicon expansion and authorship endeavours, I suggest purchasing yourselves a nice hand-crafted silver-tipped quill and inkwell; the art of calligraphy is good fun. One final thing, do yourselves (and your English profs!) all a favour: learn the difference between a simile and a metaphor. Oh yeah, and a true student of the English language is well aware that the age of “Old English” did in fact NOT correspond with Shakespeare’s life and times.

Vol #1, Col #2: Choose Your Words Wisely, They May Just Be Your Last

A single word can change everything. Take the “L” word for instance (and no I don’t mean lesbian).

About a month or so ago, I met who I thought was a really great guy. Now, just so you don’t get the wrong impression, let me make clear from the get-go that our relationship was entirely one of a professional nature. While I think it was likely apparent to both of us that we shared a sense of attraction towards each other (our personalities were very much complementary), the circumstances (and well, likely the fact that both of us are admittedly naïve when it comes to that sort of thing) prevented the situation from heading in the romantic direction. Although like I said, I thought fairly highly of the boy, I had come to terms with this, and was quite content with simply having him in my life as a friendly acquaintance… that was until he dropped the love bomb as part of his signature in one of his correspondences to me.

While I’m not now (nor was I then) so ridiculously out of touch with reality to believe that he was actually professing his innermost desires via this slight (yet highly noticeable from a women’s stance) interjection, I must admit it frankly, for lack of a better word, “weirded” me out! Being that I’ve been in significant relationships before, it’s not as though this was my first exposure to said term. However, I am a firm believer that the word love (well, almost all four letter words), because of the connotations with which it is associated, should be used highly selectively, moreover, only when in fact you a) mean it and b) are prepared to deal with the consequences of uttering it.

The problems between us started when I attempted to point this out to him in what I thought was a clever, humourous and non-threatening manner. I never heard back. To “save face”, I wrote him again apologizing for my “overreaction”, but I maintained I was not comfortable with his usage of that term in my general direction. Though he likely didn’t view the situation as one that was worthy of eliciting a panic attack, and despite our return back to the seemingly normal conversations we conducted prior, I couldn’t shake it – I was still really bothered by the fact that he signed his letters to me in this way (and it certainly didn’t help that he kept up this behaviour, even after I pointed out to him how awkward it made me feel!).

Because he and I both work within the entertainment biz, I could (and can) completely understand if he used this sort of tactic to reel in fans, but from a professional standpoint, I not only felt (still feel) that it was highly inappropriate, and extremely peculiar, but as well, judging by my own reaction (and yes I know I have some relationship hang-ups, but upon hearing this story, my fellow female friends have concurred), could quite possibly get him into a precarious predicament.

The easy justification would be to sum up his misuse of this term to either cultural or gender differences, but again, even taking these factors into consideration, his actions still prove bizarre. Case and point: we are both of a very similar ethnic background, and I can’t picture myself ever using the “L” word so candidly towards someone with whom I wasn’t really all that well-acquainted. In regards to the latter excuse, after imparting this story to my male friends, and asking them how they’d feel about the situation had it happened to them, and the roles were reversed, they likewise informed me that they would view it as strange.

So, what does all this have to do with being old-fashioned? Well, strict rules of conversational etiquette and decorum largely became pervasive during the Victorian Age. Advanced into contemporary society by both “Mommy Knows Best” sayings, as well as by the work of language philosophers such as Paul Grice, I think the above-documented story is good enough proof as any to indicate that clearly these rules require revisiting (moreover reiteration).

According to Grice’s Conversational Maxims, the reason for my offense, confusion, and curiosity regarding the use of the “L” word in the aforementioned situation is because my acquaintance broke the “maxim of manner” which explicitly states that in order to ensure agreeable, steady, and neutral discussion, “one should NOT use words he/she knows his/her listener(s) won’t understand and/or say things he/she knows could be taken in multiple ways.” More simply put, the moral of this week’s story is this: don’t employ words that are laden with significance, unless you truly mean them, and further, if words can be misinterpreted, they will be.

Seeing as we are now in the age of “txting” and Facebook where friendships are increasingly forged and maintained via electronic means through which the addition of emotion to (and the intention behind) one’s words is not possible, the potential for miscommunication is greater than ever before. Therefore, a return to “proper” and considerate dialogue is an absolute must. Above all, “know your audience.” While we’re on the subject of conversational etiquette, I’d also like to point out that a clever rabbit once advised his deer friend quite well when he uttered that, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, you shouldn’t say anything at all.”

Though hippies made a habit of using terms like peace, and love rather freely (mind you this was while they were often experiencing acid trips), and so resultingly, in the eyes of some, these words have lost their affective imputations, and therefore can rightly be designated as having a place in everyday casual discourse, I think it’s pretty safe to say that this view is not only inaccurate, but as well leads to problematic circumstances (to say the least!).

Unfortunately, in my final attempt to resolve things with my acquaintance, I somehow managed to only make the situation that much worst. When I merely raised the query as to why he felt it was appropriate to use said term with me, he immediately got defensive, and it seemed that everything and anything I said beyond that point would only be taken as a personal attack. Ah, and you thought intimate relationships were hard! Guess that will teach you all never to sign a letter to me with “love” and if you do, you better wash out your mouth, shortly thereafter, with soap!

Vol #1, Col #1: The Age Old Tale of the Birds & The Bees

I hate being single. It’s not about me missing the affection, the couples’ activities or the ring on my finger (though those are all good things) - no it’s really more about all of the b.s. that goes along with being a woman of untaken marital status. The whistles, the cat calls, come on, give me a break – it’s 2010 already! But above all that, my biggest problem is, undoubtedly, that I’ve been out of the game for so long (since I was 16!) that, quite frankly, I don’t even know how to act around someone who strikes my fancy, nor for that matter if “the rules” I was indoctrinated with as a child/teenager even apply anymore.

Not only is it becoming increasingly impossible to meet someone in a respectable venue (let’s face it both gyms and bars alike have become akin to “meat markets” and even online dating, well one of the first responses I got to an ad after signing up was, “give me five reasons I should date you,” – right…enough said), but further all of today’s contradictory information regarding, “the art of seduction” is downright confusing making it difficult to decipher who, if anyone, really has it right. Should we listen to women? Men? Are there truly any universal laws of applicability or is everything situational? These are just some of the questions that women (and I’m sure men) contemplate when it comes to relationships. Beyond said queries, women and men also try to characterize and justify the dating behaviours of the opposite sex.

For example, women often wrongly misread male disinterest as shyness and/or apprehension based on the fact that they have yet to receive the green light. Yet movies such as The Ugly Truth posit that NO male on earth possesses such qualities, rather they take what they want and are unapologetic about such things. While I’m debating stereotypes which are overgeneralizations that can’t possibly be applied to all situations, I’d like to remind you that stereotypes do find their basis on some kernel of truth (albeit exaggerated).

And then of course, there are the many ways in which men and women attempt to “save face” to avoid rejection. Honesty and upfrontness, in the world of dating, seem to be rare commodities to come by, indeed.

I guess what I’m trying to get at is this: it seems to me that things were simpler when dating roles (and rules) were more black and white. While I’m not suggesting that we revert to the idealized vision of the 1950s housewife and her breadwinning husband (unless of course that’s your preference) as there were clearly deep-seated issues with this relationship dynamic beyond its apparent sexism (namely, that in many cases, it wasn’t the reality at all). In my view, I do believe that men (and/or those in possession of the more “dominant” personality type) should be the ones weighted with “the pursuit” for the simple reason that women have more to lose: we get more emotionally invested (and at a quicker rate), and sex for us not only leads to more health risks, but as well the potentially slight inconvenience of pregnancy (note the sarcasm). On top of all of this, when women “take the lead”, it really adds unnecessary complication to the equation.

We spend (read: waste) too much time overanalyzing the actions of men - trying to justify why they haven’t called, why they don’t find us attractive, and why they slept with us only once despite proclaiming their undying devotion. Essentially, what I’m saying is that ladies, for matters of self-preservation and emotional well-being, it is in your best interest to play the part of the mysterious object of one’s affections, rather than the initiator in the art of seduction.

I mean, I’m a feminist so approaching me like some piece of meat with a lame pick up line ain’t ever gonna work on me, but I’d at least have respect for the gent who came up to me and declared quite blatantly, “Hey, I noticed you from across the room, and I find you very attractive. Would you mind if I had a seat? I’d like to get to know you better.” But no, that’s apparently not how “the rules” are played, and god forbid I go for a sincere connection over entertaining superficial interests and small talk too soon – that would render me “high maintenance.”

Despite my ex being an asshole, I did find a comfort in not having the additional anxiety in my life provoked by these trivialities. For those of you who get completely wrapped up in this kind of stuff like I’ve found myself, as of late, I have but two suggestions:
1) get a hobby (mine's writing, couldn't you guess?!)

2) focus on improving yourself/pursuing your dreams so that you don’t feel
the need to have a mate in order to make your life complete.