Dear Habermas Logo A Jeanne Site

Pass? or Prepared?

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Latest update: April 26, 2000
E-Mail jeanne
E-Mail Susan

Rudiger Appel's Figurine and Link to his site.Modern and Postmodern
and the Story of the Whales

Go to Martin Ryder's "Affordances and Constraints of the Internet for Learning and Instruction" (Internet) See particularly the Stone story of Dr. Laurel's whales. Under Modern to Postmodern, about a quarter of the way down the file. Good, clear explanation:
"This encounter is a vivid contrast between modern and postmodern thinking. The modernist presents the truth, just as it was nailed on the door at the church of Wittenburg in 1557; just as it was introduced to American children in six complete volumes for most of the 19th Century, just as it was represented on the 1950s television quiz show "the 64,000 Question". The postmodernist offers multiple perspectives from a complex world, including, perhaps, the modernist conception of truth (Wilson, 1994)."

  1. How did Dr. Laurel conceive of the whale story?

    Answer: Dr. Laurel imagined the whale story as an interactive project in which the viewer could select different perspectives. This means that Dr. Laurel was willing to acknowledge many perspectives, that of the Inuit aborigines in Canada whose existence depended on the whales for most of their history, that of the environmentalists who saw the whales as part of global ecology systems, and that of fishermen who depended for their livelihood on whaling. This recognition of truth about the whales as context dependent is typical of postmodernism.

  2. In what way does Dr. Laurel's decision to let the reader put together his/her own ordering of how the story is told reflect interatctivity?

    Answer: Different readers will come to the story of the whales with different questions, different concerns. Perhaps a student of ecology will want to know most about the ecological concerns over whales. Perhaps he/she saw the Star Trek movie on whales and wants to know to what extent it was based on reality. If links and navigation are clear, hopefully that perspective will lead the reader to investigate the other perspectives.

    Note that this kind of presentation permits the viewer to investigate according to his/her own priorities. Dr. Laurel leaves that decision and control to the viewer. She does not impose her own priorities.

  3. How does this ceding of some control to the viewer fit with postmodernism?

    Answer: Dr. Laurel's willingness to let the reader choose his/her priorities in discovering information on the whales recognizes the many different special interests that lead us to seek information. That recognition of our many different interests and perspectives is typical of postmodernism, and incidentally, typical of good science.

    To presume that our own interests represent the totality of any concept or issue is to privilege our subjectivity. Good science demands that we use triangulation, or as many different perspectives as we possibly can. This is an example of how sometimes we get so caught up in taking ourselves seriously that we agree with each other at the "top of our lungs," screaming each of us that we are the ones who are right. Even though the concept of acknowledging different perspectives is identified with postmodernism, and other "posts," it is also typical of a well-defined and well-done positivist study.

  4. What do you think Van Doren meant by ""Encyclopedias don't present viewpoints," he said, biting off the words. "Encyclopedias present truth." ?

    Answer: I think his statement that encyclopedias present truth suggests that he believes that there is some overriding truth about whales that should take precedence over the different ways that whales fit into the many different social contexts. I suspect that that means that he thinks his understanding of whales is more important and more "right" than the Inuit's understanding of whales. I think that is unfortunate for him, and marks him as a poor scientist by any philosophical position we might take.

  5. How does the story of the whales relate to our ability to listen in good faith to those who hold different perspectives from us?

    Answer: If I am an Inuit, and you are Mark Van Doren, I am going to find it difficult to relate to you in good faith. I am going to feel frustrated and angry that you not only have no knowledge of the role of the whale in my culture, the pain of my world resources having been used up by those who usurped my land, and your incorporation of the whale into your corporate profits from whales. I will find it difficult to listen to your arrogance in good faith, and I may find it difficult to respond peacefully to the structural violence of your imposition of sovereignty on me and people.

    If I am an Inuit, and you are Dr. Laurel, if will find it easier to relate to you in good faith, for you have heard me in good faith. But if your power turns out to be controlled by the Encyclopedia Britannica, which seeks to make profit from the "knowledge" as represented by Mark Van Doren, then I may come to believe that though you are listening in good faith, the sovereign nation of which you are a part, is not. If I see you as the "zero-signifier," the Center, of the structure which has oppressed me, like the "white male" of imperialist history, then I may cease to hear you in good faith.

    Recall that many of the Indian scouts and the frontiersmen dealt in good faith with the Native Americans. But treaties were not honored. What does tham mean for "good faith"?

    (See Charles Lemert on the zero-signifier and the "white male." I will put up more on that if you remember to nag me. jeanne)

  6. How does the story of the whales relate to criminal justice?

    Answer: The story of the whales reminds us that each of us has a story, a local narrative, within the context of which the "evidence" about us, just like the "evidence" about the whales, must be understood. Within the criminal justice system, we need to discover, and listen in good faith to, each of the perspectives. That means that in juvenile justice we need to hear the youth themselves, not decide arrogantly that we "know." Within the corrections system, we need to hear the "criminals" themselves, those whom our system of corrections acts upon. Perhaps Paolo Freire says this best: when the teacher, the corrections officer, the citizen, decides that he/she "knows" what must and should be done, and no longer listens in good faith to the person on his behalf they are interceding, they are no longer interceding in good faith. They cease to fulfill their real obligations.

    Perhaps this means that we are saying that you cannot engage in even corrections work without doing so in a spirit of love, in the sense of a good faith hearing to all validity claims. And that, if you do engage ins such work without love, you are violating the ethics of your responsibilities.

    BACK to Questions on The Story of the Whales.

    Figurine by Rudiger Appel. Notice that you can see three effects in the animation. Either the Variation on the Kandinsky figurine appears to turn in a clockwise direction, or in a counterclockwise direction, or it appears to open and close. Can you see all three effects? Try. Fascinated? Link to Appel's site and then link to the background he provides. Scroll down until you find a link to background.

    Chantessy's Page Chantessy's Mardi Gras Alphabet was originally used on this page. We changed it because it was too distracting as eye candy. Chantessy was the first contributor to our Kids' Site when we began Dear Habermas. Visit her page. Check out the sliders puzzles on her fun page. Or check out her candy box and send a friend a posty. Non-violent ways to respond to structural violence in the academy! It's great fun.