This evening we tried an experiment in the group I tutor. Thanks to na for the idea. I asked for volunteers, and one of the students agreed to take the group.
It created a lot of enthusiasm. She did the job beautifully, although she was the least experienced student present (5 terms I think). It really got the message across, including to me, that the teaching has nothing to do with the personality of the tutor. Once I had stopped feeling responsible, I started to feel really close to everyone there. People, including me, began to explore some very intimate questions. It was a great experience. We need to experience these things, not just think or talk about them.
I think His Holiness speaks somewhere about love as "decontrolling one's assets, physical and subtle" ... well, for a tutor a group, and his or her position, can be an asset. I'm sure "decontrolling" is a classic Jaiswal made-up word, but for me at least it somehow it does the job.
Incidentally the student who took the group took the opportunity beforehand to question me about whether "the School is really as great as it seems". I wasn't sure what was coming, but what she wanted to know was why it was such a middle class white thing; and why we didn't send money to support the ashram. I suppose behind that is a feeling that we're keeping the goodness to ourselves somewhat.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Decontrolling Major Tom
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This is fascinating - did you pick up exactly why you all started to talk about intimate things - which is, after all, a sign of confidence?
Having a tutor is a Good Thing but it does lead to a 'them' and 'us' situation.
As an illustration, my group arranged a Christmas dinner at a restaurant and one student found herself sitting next to the tutor. Highly articulate and confident, she had a moment of panic, 'What am I going to talk to him about?'
This 'moment of panic' can go all the way up the School. There is no student so senior that he or she may not experience dread in the presence of a tutor - simply because he or she is an authority figure. We either live with this or decide to familiarise the authority.
As to white, middle-class -yes, this is certainly so -and the odd thing is that the white, middle class, married, three children, are almost completely oblivious to how off-putting this can be, especially when they act in concert.
In the senior School this societal pattern is the norm so there is nothing to remind them otherwise.
There is nothing wrong in white/middle class/married/3 children - and much right. It's the glue that holds society together and provides much sustenance and stability.
But sometimes it ain't half irritating! The Smug Marrieds as Bridget Jones calls them.
The intake of the School has changed over the years. At one time it was all of the above, now at entry level half the intake is foreign. That's quite a change.
But it doesn't last very long. Gradually over time new groups more and more resemble their tutors.
I don't think there's much to be done about this. It is parochial and limiting to that degree, it is controlling, and there does seem to be a mix-up here between what is socially necessary and what is spiritually necessary.
In a junior group recently there were some wise words about the need for family, and family being the desirable way to live. The next week one man told us he was homosexual - and we haven't seen much of him since.
There are all sorts of ways of alienating people and the extraordinary thing is that those within the 'circle' have quite forgotten the extent to which they've closed ranks and excluded others who don't quite fit their criteria.
Look to it white middle class!
Yes, and I know of at least one otherwise happily married man who doesn't appreciate the recent requirement to attend group weeks away with his wife.
Seems he enjoys the occasional break from domestic felicity!
This 'togetherness' can manifest itself in odd ways. At one time - several years ago now - there had obviously been an instruction that married ladies should take their husband's arm when out and about.
So there was the interesting spectacle at Art in Action of wives hanging onto husbands' arms. To see a flock of them - with the 'singles' fluttering on the outskirts - was a bit sad.
If you take it back to a fundamental belief that you 'never stop learning' then this sharing is most appropriate. This is also linked in to the discussion about the possibility of questions being answered (or not).
Well, I'm still the tutor, which means I'm responsible. But the responsibility includes getting people to stand on their own two feet. Not creating a dependency, either in myself or in them.
Ubuntu, I appreciate the irony of "Good Thing", but how can it be good if it leads to them/us?
After years in the School people can still be enthusiastic, but only if they are learning different things.
Last night I witnessed a former member of the Friday Group & Branch Leader ... tutoring without a tie. He seemed really chuffed about it. So everyone can have a new experience.
A friend of mine recently told me she had come to realise that love was incompatible with power. She experienced it in personal terms - she found she couldn't love her man while, at the same time, wishing to exercise power over him.
On the face of it, it seems simple enough. Love requires a sacrifice while power requires an acquisition.
In the context of 'decontrolling your assets', spoken of here, power gives way in favour of love.
Does that make sense?
Post a Comment