Figuring things out--in two parts

Evening, September 27, 2010

I need to write--so much has happened, I don't want to let it get to far away. I definitely need to talk about school--the travel stuff is fine and good, but it's the work with the students that is rejuvenating. I've been working with the first and second year ToK students for the past two weeks and the students have responded beautifully. Some students are starting to come out of the woodwork and are more engaged than when I first met them. Finally having the questions and talks after class. One student whose parents are in the film industry here is pulling an essential Indian cinema collection together for me. Sudha and I have different approaches to lessons but we are really starting to click (Sudha--I know you sometimes read this blog so feel free to leave a comment/correction) and I have enjoyed the conversations we've had about the kids and the craft. The school has been a good pairing and I am really enjoying working with her. We tried out a Paideia seminar on the second years (Montaigne's "Of the Art of Conversing") and it worked really well--100% participation (which was remarkable--there are students in there who utter next to nothing) and the two young women in class got that their whole discussion was a conversation like Montaigne described. They want to do more of these and I was so proud of how they met the challenge of reading a really hard piece, trusting me, and how they embraced the technique. The seminars work really well in my American classes and I guess that I was both surprised and not surprised at the outcome. I've watched a few classes and the students do interact with each other and the teacher differently than in an American classroom. But in class they were pros, and they enjoyed themselves. Does this just tell us something about adolesence in general--they crave independence and want to interact with each other. They can be coached in behaviors and they can meet challenges if properly prepared. This school is new to IB so it's not that the traditions of the program have been instilled (this is the first group to go through the curriculum). Perhaps I've come as far away from home as is humanly possible to find out what good teachers knew all along--know your students, give them a voice, hold them to standards, have high expectations, and coach them in what you want them to do. The setting doesn't matter and in this case the technique transcended culture. Maybe I'm simplifying it, but nonetheless it worked. We're going to try using discussion board/blog software next to connect the M. Ct. M. students with the MHS kids next. The students here are really excited about the potential and have a lot of questions. They want ot know about values and beliefs and interests and what the American high school experience is really like. They really would like to do an exchange. I think that both groups would really benefit--especially if we set them up correctly and really build an awareness of culture and help foster a curiousity and openness to new ideas. As a team I think Sudha and I can really make this worthwhile--and I think having a person on the ground from the other institution really helps. It puts a face to it, a personality, a connection that can answer questions and offer up stories. Would they be so enthusiastic if we were doing it a different way? My gut tells me no. My school runs an type of correspondence program between schools, but this is more intense and connected to a specific group of students and a class. It's really fascinating to think about the effects that this could have on understanding and where this program could go. It's sort of a rush--the conversations and connections that are being fostered here have a lot of energy behind them and I am not entirely sure where this might go in the future, but it feels like there is some profound potential. I wake up some mornings and wonder about what to do with this--how far can we go?

I got some insight into my nickname mentioned in my last post. I went to lunch at my usual spot met up with the manager again--I had to ask about the name (Sudha made a face when she heard it and asked why I had been given it). When I broached the question, he told me that it identifies you as part of the community--the self never changes but the label may when you are here. In America you are Kennedy, if you were to go to Saudi Arabia you may be Saleem, but here in India you are Gopal. Always the same person but the location changes. My name also means Krishna, he told me, you see we are all linked, one all-encompassing religion. The differences don't matter, it is just God. I told him that in my tradition using the name of God casually is condemned. He commented that people here use it all the time, it doesn't carry the same stigma. Children are named after God because to invoke the name is to connect with the divine. We talked a bit about the ashram that I'm going to this week--about the self, about peace, about letting go of anger and understanding human relationships. I'm not sure if I fully understand why this name and maybe I'm looking too much into it wanting to find some significance. Maybe I can just be Gopal when I'm here--one degree away from being entirely foreign. One step closer to understanding this culture and community. I am still myself and all my Western quirks and predilictions--but maybe the self can expand to allow others and their world in to live side by side. Maybe the taking of a name can be symbolic--a walk in two worlds. This is something I know that so many people in my country do everyday (pulled between the culture in their home and the one they encounter in school or at work), and I know that I can easily shut it off when I go back home. I know that it's different because I can choose--it's not a concession or a trade-off that I have to make. There's not conflict of identity--the self is the same, the definition or content is just wider than it was before.