Link to Archive of Weekly Issues Stories to Share with Young People

Dear Habermas Logo and Link to Site Index A Justice Site

The Li'l Red Hen

Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP

Caliifornia State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: September 24, 2001
Latest Update: September 27, 2001
E-Mail jeannecurran@habermas.org
E-Mail takata@uwp.edu

jeanne's Li'l Red Hen

Little Red Hen Holds Up Hope of the World

by Laura Wright, CSUDH. September, 2001. CSUDH

Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Laura Wright and Individual Authors.
"Fair use" encouraged.

Why, he wonders, am I the only one holding up the world with hope? Can't my fellow hens see the sludge of aggression sliding onto us? Why are they flapping on about retaliation even as the evil engulfs them, too? I must hold my resolve, no matter what!

"I hope," he said to himself, "there are enough of us to make a difference."

Sharing

"Let's give peace a chance . . ."

by By Susan

On Wednesday, September 26, 2001, Susan responded:

when i saw the painting, i was thinking "hope" too! yes, it seemed the sky was falling down but there is hope. after all, that's why the site is called Dear Habermas because Habermas is optimistic and hopeful. we sure do need that now. and it seemed like the sky was falling down when the twin towers fell. but in the same spirit as fellman, kohn and others, "let's give peace a chance."

"yikes, she's not on my class rosters anywhere!"

Journal entry by Susan

On Thursday, September 27, 2001, Susan wrote:

didn't get to the acjs stuff at all today. with richard and elise home, there were so many interruptions but i guess, that is a good thing, after all. but i'm up late and will be logging off soon. but guess who my last email was from? laura wright!! (at first, i thought, "yikes, she's not on my class rosters anywhere!" i've been so buried into answerng my students' emails.) at any rate, it was neat to hear from her. we shared the same vision in the painting that's up. isn't that the chicken little piece, the sky is falling? (boy, did the sky ever fall in NYC!!)

it's late and i'm tired.

susan

On Friday, September 28, 2001, jeanne responded:

Now isn't it fun to have two teachers to tell you you've done a good job? Sorry, you thought Laura was yours for a while, Susan. Soon, you'll be getting getting e-mails from our Japanese students.

love and peace, jeanne

"The Li'l Red Hen can't do it alone."

Journal entry by Tyshae Jefferson

On Thursday, September 27, 2001, Tyshae Jefferson wrote:

Subject: Li'l Red Hen
Tyshae Jefferson
9-27-01

Hi Jeanne,

The interpretation I gathered from the painting is a little different from the other two students, and I must say they were good observations. Yes, it's quite obvious that the Li'l Red Hen is different from the other chicks. It appears that the other chicks are looking up to her for guidance and help to save them from the falling sky. Which is what we all do in a time of crisis, look to our leaders for help and the right answers. But reality is, The Li'l Red Hen can't do it alone. The chicks that are standing waiting for a miracle to occur need to help, because a battle cannot be fought alone. Even if hope does not prevail, at least effort was put forth.

take care,
Tyshae:)

On Friday, September 28, 2001, jeanne responded:

Tyshae, that's a very good point that ties to constitutive theory, or the interdependence of agency and structural context. The Li'l Red Hen misunderstands agency. She (or he, as you wish) is responding as though she/he was empowered to stop the sky from falling. That was the original concept on which I considered the Li'l Red Hen unclear: our confusion that we are either absolutely empowered and responsible, or that the situation is absolutely controlled by the structural context, in this case, the collapse of the sky.

Fact is, in New York on September 11, the sky really did fall in. And there were lots of firemen and police who tried to hold it up. We didn't dismiss their effort as vain and foolish. We understood that through their example of heroism and selflessness they gave the rest of us the strength to carry on in face of this disaster. They didn't have the power (agency) to stop the Twin Towers from collapsing. But they did alter the events through using that power and agency they did have to begin to change the structural context. Passengers crashed one of the hijacked planes. They died. But they did alter the total outcome, didn't they?

Empowerment doesn't mean you win. Like good faith doesn't mean you agree with the argument of the Other. Just as good faith means you listen to the argument of the Other in a genuine attempt to understand the Other's validity claim, empowerment means you recognize that you do have some agency, though limited, and that through that agency your actions do have a bearing on the outcome.

The important point that you make, Tyshae, is that empowerment, like agency, like good faith, requires collaborative work. We've got to help each other out. A single human is a very small creature against catastrophe. But as we join together our voices and our actions, we are empowered. We can alter the outcome. I think Fellman would say that no particular outcome is inevitable.

Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald wrote: "You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard. . . . I know my people, as you, I think, do not. What I know reassures me. It also causes me to tremble with dread of the future." Pitts wrote that just after September 11. We can hear war and thunder and threat in his words, as we can hear them in President Bush's words: "and those who did this will hear all our voices." But we can also hear an understanding of the danger of violence for all of us. Pitts "dreads" the violence the future is wont to bring. Bush calls for a day of prayer. Without such awe of our own wrath, we do, indeed, tremble.

The fear, the trembling before the horrible potential for violence comes of our respect and recognition that we can and must change the intended outcome of the terrorist attack, and that we must do so together. Unlike the terrorists, as we presently interpret their actions, we do not seek the death of innocents. If we remain sober before killing and torture, we can call on the heroism and patriotism on which Pitts and Bush base their challenges to the authors of this tragedy without fear that we will become like the terrorists themselves. This will take diligence and intense commitment to self reflective understanding. I have faith that we as a people can manage that critical understanding, and that the willingness to exercise such constraint is as much a part of our American character as is will to protect our way of life.

Once again, I would remind all of us in the social sciences that we must listen in good faith, that is, with a genuine effort to lend all our skills to understanding the validity claim of the Other, to all that Americans are feeling just now. Patriotism is easier to express than restraint. We have flags to wave and churches, temples, and mosques to gather us. But we also have an unending sense of social justice, once we understand the situation. So for me the key is understanding, education. And that is the role for which every social scientist is equipped: the role of the public intellectual. The Li'l Red Hen must understand how to use her/his social science learning and understanding to spread such understanding and restraint in her/his community. She/he must remind us to think clearly and in good faith, and to share our thoughts in public discourse. That, I believe, is the source of Habermas' faith that there is hope for our future. That, I believe, is the role that Edward M. Said sees for all of us as "public intellectuals." And of that role we can all be proud, understanding that it is the safeguard of our agency.

Discussion Topics

  1. Do you think the little red hen is wise or foolish?

      jeanne's notes:

    • Is he wise or foolish for holding on to hope?
    • Is he wise or foolish for not giving up?
    • Do you think the little red hen could be both wise and foolish at the same time?

      Theory: The arrogance of "knowingness" and the interdependence of agency and structural context. Even though the situation may appear hopeless humans do have choices within the constraints of the structural context, and their actions are interdependent with that context. (constitutive theory)

  2. Is a hen a boy or a girl? Does that matter?

    jeanne's notes:

    • Do you think we sometimes change the gender of a character in the story to fit our gender beliefs?
    • Do you think it matters whether the little red chicken is a boy or a girl?
    • Try to make the story fit:
      • A little red boy chick.
      • A little red girl chick.

      Theory: Inclusion and exlusion, and the difference of gender in our normative expectations.

  3. The story doesn't have a very certain ending, does it?

    jeanne's notes:

    • Could you write an ending in which the little red chick gives up hoping?
    • Could you write an ending in which the little red chick changes the world by hoping?
    • Does the story have to have an ending?

      Theory: The interdependence of agency and structural context and the concept of process, always becoming. And postmodern insistence upon the right of the local narrative.

  4. Do you think the little red hen is right that his fellow chicks just want to fight whoever made the sky fall instead of helping to hold up the sky?

    jeanne's notes:

    • Have any of the chicks had much time to think about how the sky got into this shape?
    • Might the other chicks still be frightened and not had time to gather their thoughts?
    • Could the other chicks be angry and want to lash out at whoever made their sky fall, but still want to help the little red chick repair the sky and whatever made someone want to bring the sky crashing down on them?
    • Has the little red hen asked his fellow chicks to help hold up and repair the sky?
    • Has the little red chick tried to lead his fellow chicks to help with the sky?
    • How could a leader get the other chicks to help?
    • If you were one of the other chicks, would you help the little red chick to hold up the sky, if he asked you? What would it take for him to convince you to help him?

      Theory: The interdependence of agency and structural context and the concept of process, always becoming. We can change the direction of dominant discourse. Situational leadership could help. Chances are that many influences are at work, and whichever influence has the greatest exposure for persuasion, will dominate the other influences.