Theories on human relationships.
Thats quite a broad category.
Considering that we see countless amounts of people everyday, some regulars in our lives, some constants, but many, many new and fleeting. Personally, I get on the train every single day and see new people. Remarkably, I see very few familiar faces in my commute, even though I've been making the same commute for 5 years now. There is something odd about that. We are all New Yorkers, and we've seen most of the city, far and wide as it is, and yet we know that there are at least 8 million other people in this city. We all have our regular spots; for me they're union square, my neighborhood, or my friends' neighborhoods.
I know that in human relationships, there is a vast amount of complexities. There are social do's and don'ts, a disturbing variety of ways that things can fuck up.
I think at its most basic level, we all want to be loved. We are selfish creatures at heart, and only seek acceptance and belonging.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Hw 50
Gatto's "against school" paper demonstrates the disconnect between teachers and students; students are interested in what they are interested in, and for the most part, teachers are only interested in what they are teaching so far as it carries them to a paycheck. He goes on to talk about the virtual imprisonment of school, where students are herded together for hours on end, day after day, for over a decade. He asks the important question that so many are afraid to consider; is school necessary? He points out that historically, it hasn't been. There have been a number of successful people in American that gained success without ever graduating from a school. He emphasizes that schooling was put into effect by adults who had essentially gone without schooling themselves as a form of control over youth. What better chance would there be to manipulate children en masse? Schooling as a system is a way for the administration of a country to force-feed the upcoming generation all their own values and concepts, barring any kind of change or true progression (as opposed to the 'progress' the officials declare.)
My own response to this has to start with agreement. Gatto knows precisely, from a first-person account, f how school is a system put in place to bend the student's will to the will of their handlers, the teachers and ultimately, society. However, due to school being seen as a right of passage by now, no one has stopped to question the system and possibly seek to change or abandon it. People make movies out of schooling, make quasi-mockerys of the system, and sometimes totally tear on it. however, for all of this, school remains a solid, virtually unopposed system of control. Why? because with all of the media focused around it, it is fairly common to register any opposition as comical and misguided at best. Of course school is good for you, it prepares you for life. If you try and counter that with historical evidence of people adequately prepared for life without any school, you are battered with ridicule for naming 'special cases' and the supposed fact that not everyone can do as others have done. I would argue that this only true because we've had it beaten into us that we can't. Truth is that people are scared. Society is such a large construct focused on schooling that it could make it unbearably difficult for you to live without schooling at this point. Realistically speaking, money controls most of everything we need. Shelter, food, water. To get a job that can keep you afloat in this day and age requires, for most, a diploma.
Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" focuses on the teacher-student relationships in schools. He speaks of how teachers are simply narrators preaching to a receptive choir, stating that schooling is a kind of "depository system", where teachers are the depositors and students, the depositories. Studnets are taught to memorize and retain information, accepting what they are told as knowledge. Freire argues that in this form of learning, hwere students are not encouraged to question, to be curious, they cannot be human. The focus of knowledge, true knowledge, is "invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other."
Freire's text has a more focused depiction than Gatto's, but follows similar lines. The teacher is the god in the classroom, and the students are made to be worshippers. Teachers are supposedly infallible and all-knowing, making us students mere vessels for their heavenly knowdelge. Schools consciously focus that kind of thinking into classrooms in order to have obedient, orderly students. By allowing now room for questioning, the schools accomplish what Gatto has already stated- breeding new lines of "perfect citizens" who don't defect from societal preaching. If someone is taught to accept and never challenge, they are easy to manipulate and sway, meaning that those in power can stay in power, and those without never question the authority of those with it. A resigned populace is the most dangerous, because they provide manpower for the elite to stand behind. If everyone is bred into submission, then they never pose a threat to anyone above them.
The interview with Lisa Delpitt contains some very good points. This is one of the few people in the world that seem to be taking the fight against schooling to a new front, establishing coalitions to free the minds of students and encourage genuine thinking as opposed to repetition and recital. Her focus on the arts as a way of discovering a child's inherent brilliance is a delightfully refreshing way to approach a child's interests and strengths. If a student finds interest in what they are doing, they are more likely to focus more energy on it and therefore demonstrate their abilities better. Delpitt also speaks about how it is necessary for a teacher to be open with their students, to be emotionally available. I'm not entirely sure how effective that might be; the student would certainly be more interested in their classes when they feel personally connected to their teacher, but at the same time, they wind up leaving that teacher as they move up in grade. They may take with them a newfound appreciation for learning, but they would have to reconnect with every new teacher along their way.
My own response to this has to start with agreement. Gatto knows precisely, from a first-person account, f how school is a system put in place to bend the student's will to the will of their handlers, the teachers and ultimately, society. However, due to school being seen as a right of passage by now, no one has stopped to question the system and possibly seek to change or abandon it. People make movies out of schooling, make quasi-mockerys of the system, and sometimes totally tear on it. however, for all of this, school remains a solid, virtually unopposed system of control. Why? because with all of the media focused around it, it is fairly common to register any opposition as comical and misguided at best. Of course school is good for you, it prepares you for life. If you try and counter that with historical evidence of people adequately prepared for life without any school, you are battered with ridicule for naming 'special cases' and the supposed fact that not everyone can do as others have done. I would argue that this only true because we've had it beaten into us that we can't. Truth is that people are scared. Society is such a large construct focused on schooling that it could make it unbearably difficult for you to live without schooling at this point. Realistically speaking, money controls most of everything we need. Shelter, food, water. To get a job that can keep you afloat in this day and age requires, for most, a diploma.
Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" focuses on the teacher-student relationships in schools. He speaks of how teachers are simply narrators preaching to a receptive choir, stating that schooling is a kind of "depository system", where teachers are the depositors and students, the depositories. Studnets are taught to memorize and retain information, accepting what they are told as knowledge. Freire argues that in this form of learning, hwere students are not encouraged to question, to be curious, they cannot be human. The focus of knowledge, true knowledge, is "invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other."
Freire's text has a more focused depiction than Gatto's, but follows similar lines. The teacher is the god in the classroom, and the students are made to be worshippers. Teachers are supposedly infallible and all-knowing, making us students mere vessels for their heavenly knowdelge. Schools consciously focus that kind of thinking into classrooms in order to have obedient, orderly students. By allowing now room for questioning, the schools accomplish what Gatto has already stated- breeding new lines of "perfect citizens" who don't defect from societal preaching. If someone is taught to accept and never challenge, they are easy to manipulate and sway, meaning that those in power can stay in power, and those without never question the authority of those with it. A resigned populace is the most dangerous, because they provide manpower for the elite to stand behind. If everyone is bred into submission, then they never pose a threat to anyone above them.
The interview with Lisa Delpitt contains some very good points. This is one of the few people in the world that seem to be taking the fight against schooling to a new front, establishing coalitions to free the minds of students and encourage genuine thinking as opposed to repetition and recital. Her focus on the arts as a way of discovering a child's inherent brilliance is a delightfully refreshing way to approach a child's interests and strengths. If a student finds interest in what they are doing, they are more likely to focus more energy on it and therefore demonstrate their abilities better. Delpitt also speaks about how it is necessary for a teacher to be open with their students, to be emotionally available. I'm not entirely sure how effective that might be; the student would certainly be more interested in their classes when they feel personally connected to their teacher, but at the same time, they wind up leaving that teacher as they move up in grade. They may take with them a newfound appreciation for learning, but they would have to reconnect with every new teacher along their way.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Homework 49
I think that the film produced in class was a little unclear. Without enough time to flesh out the scenes, something gets lost in the translation. Being the writer, I feel like I should clarify what was the intention of the film, what the message was meant to be. We have the super-teacher, Mr. C, who manages to relate to students enough to keep them mostly placid. This comes at a great personal cost, however, as we see that his lessons are largely lost on the class. Something not shown in the film is the teacher's personal life, where he is fairly happy and normal, spending much time with his girlfriend and being generally very social and well-rounded. The death of his girlfriend was meant to push the teacher over the edge, showing the watcher his immanent mortality, and demonstrating the frailty of human spirit when brought to a life-altering reality.
The teacher's in-class breakdown shows the blending of personal and professional elements, where something that is socially rejected publicly but emphasized privately becomes a public affair. Kids who were once rowdy and hard to control become timid, unsure. The change in dynamic between the struggling class powers isn't something that the students are used to, and so they find it difficult to come to terms with. Even the wise-cracking teenage 'rebel' is at a loss for words when the teacher begins his rant, decimating the students one by one.
In comparison to films like Freedom Writers and Dangerous minds, where teachers win over the hearts of even the most unruly students in order to teach them and help them rise above their intellectual ditch, this film takes an entirely different approach, where the teacher is initially a good teacher who relates to the students but eventually is forced to acknowledge what he believes to be a hopeless situation. This film is more like Hamlet 2, though with much less tongue-in-cheek dialogue and without the happy ending. The teacher in Hamlet 2 has his wife leave him and his hopes largely dashed by fate, but instead of Mr. C from "The Teacher" who became deeply depressed and turned to alcoholism, he went on to direct the play to major success.
The film we prepared in class made a point to mock the concept of an all-knowing super teacher by making the teacher human, with all the human problems and things that go with it.
The teacher's in-class breakdown shows the blending of personal and professional elements, where something that is socially rejected publicly but emphasized privately becomes a public affair. Kids who were once rowdy and hard to control become timid, unsure. The change in dynamic between the struggling class powers isn't something that the students are used to, and so they find it difficult to come to terms with. Even the wise-cracking teenage 'rebel' is at a loss for words when the teacher begins his rant, decimating the students one by one.
In comparison to films like Freedom Writers and Dangerous minds, where teachers win over the hearts of even the most unruly students in order to teach them and help them rise above their intellectual ditch, this film takes an entirely different approach, where the teacher is initially a good teacher who relates to the students but eventually is forced to acknowledge what he believes to be a hopeless situation. This film is more like Hamlet 2, though with much less tongue-in-cheek dialogue and without the happy ending. The teacher in Hamlet 2 has his wife leave him and his hopes largely dashed by fate, but instead of Mr. C from "The Teacher" who became deeply depressed and turned to alcoholism, he went on to direct the play to major success.
The film we prepared in class made a point to mock the concept of an all-knowing super teacher by making the teacher human, with all the human problems and things that go with it.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Scene 2
Mr. C has his head down at his desk, the bottle almost done lying next to him.
The class he is supposed to be teaching is completely silent.
Eventually one of his students comes up to him and timidly taps him on the shoulder.
He stirs and looks at the student.
Student: "Sir, are we having class today," she asks somewhat shyly.
Mr. C nods and waves her off, then gets up heavily, grabbing the bottle with him. He stumbles to the middle of class and takes a swig from the bottle, nearing depletion. Through a subtle slur, he begins ranting at the class.
You know what, yeah, yeah, we can have class now. Why not? I figure I can teach you kids a few things about life. Important things! Things they won't teach you in math or history, but stuff you need to know anyway! Who wants to learn!?
The class is silent.
He turns around a few times, then goes to an empty seat next to one of the smarter kids who pays attention in class.
You! You've got your life in front of you, don't you? 4.0 GPA and life's a fucking charm, huh? Well, let me tell you one thing (he takes another drink) about life. It sucks. You can be as good as they come, the best even, and then life will still come around with misery in tow. You think it's hard now, but you're in high school? What do you know?
He notices a couple of students talking across the room and stumbles over to sit next to them.
Yeah, yeah, gossip all you want, talk about your bullshit prom and johnny from down the hallway who was making eyes with you last period. Look at you. Vain and simple, and you know what? No one cares. No one will ever care. The only thing you'll ever be good for in life is filling space. So keep on keepin' on, girlie, it doesn't get much better than this!
He finally stumbles over to the rebellious kid and finishes the bottle.
Mr. Hot shit himself. You want to run this class, well go ahead. You think you can do it, every day, dealing with shit like you? You don't have a goddamn clue. Have fun in prison, lowlife. Say hi to my pops for me, will ya?
With this, he leaves, slamming the door as he goes out.
The class is quiet for a minute, but quickly resume its chatter.
The class he is supposed to be teaching is completely silent.
Eventually one of his students comes up to him and timidly taps him on the shoulder.
He stirs and looks at the student.
Student: "Sir, are we having class today," she asks somewhat shyly.
Mr. C nods and waves her off, then gets up heavily, grabbing the bottle with him. He stumbles to the middle of class and takes a swig from the bottle, nearing depletion. Through a subtle slur, he begins ranting at the class.
You know what, yeah, yeah, we can have class now. Why not? I figure I can teach you kids a few things about life. Important things! Things they won't teach you in math or history, but stuff you need to know anyway! Who wants to learn!?
The class is silent.
He turns around a few times, then goes to an empty seat next to one of the smarter kids who pays attention in class.
You! You've got your life in front of you, don't you? 4.0 GPA and life's a fucking charm, huh? Well, let me tell you one thing (he takes another drink) about life. It sucks. You can be as good as they come, the best even, and then life will still come around with misery in tow. You think it's hard now, but you're in high school? What do you know?
He notices a couple of students talking across the room and stumbles over to sit next to them.
Yeah, yeah, gossip all you want, talk about your bullshit prom and johnny from down the hallway who was making eyes with you last period. Look at you. Vain and simple, and you know what? No one cares. No one will ever care. The only thing you'll ever be good for in life is filling space. So keep on keepin' on, girlie, it doesn't get much better than this!
He finally stumbles over to the rebellious kid and finishes the bottle.
Mr. Hot shit himself. You want to run this class, well go ahead. You think you can do it, every day, dealing with shit like you? You don't have a goddamn clue. Have fun in prison, lowlife. Say hi to my pops for me, will ya?
With this, he leaves, slamming the door as he goes out.
The class is quiet for a minute, but quickly resume its chatter.
HW 45
Between Hirsch and Sizer, the debate seems to stress what the content of classes should truly be about. "Students should be able to read and know basic number facts by the end of the first grade." Hirsch argues that students should be prepared with common knowledge early, and that they should stress the student's ability to retain and recite necessary information. Hirsch maintains that this kind of number-crunching and basic understanding of literacy will be adequate preparation for the concrete, regimented workforce.
Sizer would argue that this basic information is necessary up until high school, where Sizer says "Students should leave school as well-informed skeptics, able to ask good questions as a matter of habit." Sizer's entire point is that students should not only know things but be able to understand them and question what makes them tick. Sizer's main argument with Hirsch is that his form of education is to focused on simple knowledge, with not enough focus on understanding and questioning.
1. Do these theories contradict each other? Intellectually, emotionally, practically? In what ways do they? Could they be adapted to work together?
I think that in a practical way of thinking, Hirsch's method of schooling benefits the student greater when they are trying to join the workforce and when they work jobs that require less broad thinking and more repetition and recalling fact. I also think that this method is more emotionally draining, as the students are just forced to crunch information and recite and repeat as they are told. There is little room in this method for dreaming and growing intellectually. Sizer's method of thinking of things as developmental and curious benefits the student's natural wonder for things, and urges the students to push deeper and really marinate in their thoughts, always rethinking and re-imagining why they are taught what they are, and how it can ultimately benefit them.
2. Which of the two theories do you find more resonant in your own experience? Has your education at one of Sizer's schools (he not only inspired SOF, he also came and visited) taught you to use your mind well, to be intellectually alert, to be able to think about important aspects of your life and society? Have you had any teachers that seemed inspired, now that you know about it, by Hirsch? For instance, would you say that the chemistry class's focus on molarity and ions and the periodic table of elements create an emphasis on knowledge?
I can clearly see the general Sizer method that we have in place at SOF. We are told to think, to question, to seek insight and meaning in our work. I feel that this is mostly prevalent in our history and english classes. We have a lot of work that involves reflecting on our own work, and even much of that is pushed to be creative in terms of how we present it. Even our exhibitions are Sizeresque. We employ the habits of mind to draw as much meaning from source material as possible. Point of view is one of the biggest concepts we learn to use in papers and presentations, and is useful information to carry with us into real life outside of school.
I used to go to a catholic school, and now that I know these methods, I can see clearly how my old school was a Hirsch dream school. We had everything regimented. The seating order, the material, and the pace at which we moved in our lessons allowed little forgiveness for kids who needed extra help or kids who were ahead of the curve. Hirsch's narrow focus on basic information only really appeals to students in the middle 50 percentile, whereas the top and bottom 25%s get left out.
3. What additional points does reading these theorists make you think of, about your own education and philosophy?
I think that if I had been offered the choice between the two methods of teaching when I was young, I ould certainly have picked Sixer's approach. Sizer seeks genuine learning and understanding of topics, and allows for thought in the classroom. I feel the Hirsch does the opposite. Of course, I am naturally inclined to think so because I go to a Sizer school, and there are many people who would disagree with me, but I feel personally it is more beneficial for me to be allowed to dream and rationalize my own thoughts in my own way.
Sizer would argue that this basic information is necessary up until high school, where Sizer says "Students should leave school as well-informed skeptics, able to ask good questions as a matter of habit." Sizer's entire point is that students should not only know things but be able to understand them and question what makes them tick. Sizer's main argument with Hirsch is that his form of education is to focused on simple knowledge, with not enough focus on understanding and questioning.
1. Do these theories contradict each other? Intellectually, emotionally, practically? In what ways do they? Could they be adapted to work together?
I think that in a practical way of thinking, Hirsch's method of schooling benefits the student greater when they are trying to join the workforce and when they work jobs that require less broad thinking and more repetition and recalling fact. I also think that this method is more emotionally draining, as the students are just forced to crunch information and recite and repeat as they are told. There is little room in this method for dreaming and growing intellectually. Sizer's method of thinking of things as developmental and curious benefits the student's natural wonder for things, and urges the students to push deeper and really marinate in their thoughts, always rethinking and re-imagining why they are taught what they are, and how it can ultimately benefit them.
2. Which of the two theories do you find more resonant in your own experience? Has your education at one of Sizer's schools (he not only inspired SOF, he also came and visited) taught you to use your mind well, to be intellectually alert, to be able to think about important aspects of your life and society? Have you had any teachers that seemed inspired, now that you know about it, by Hirsch? For instance, would you say that the chemistry class's focus on molarity and ions and the periodic table of elements create an emphasis on knowledge?
I can clearly see the general Sizer method that we have in place at SOF. We are told to think, to question, to seek insight and meaning in our work. I feel that this is mostly prevalent in our history and english classes. We have a lot of work that involves reflecting on our own work, and even much of that is pushed to be creative in terms of how we present it. Even our exhibitions are Sizeresque. We employ the habits of mind to draw as much meaning from source material as possible. Point of view is one of the biggest concepts we learn to use in papers and presentations, and is useful information to carry with us into real life outside of school.
I used to go to a catholic school, and now that I know these methods, I can see clearly how my old school was a Hirsch dream school. We had everything regimented. The seating order, the material, and the pace at which we moved in our lessons allowed little forgiveness for kids who needed extra help or kids who were ahead of the curve. Hirsch's narrow focus on basic information only really appeals to students in the middle 50 percentile, whereas the top and bottom 25%s get left out.
3. What additional points does reading these theorists make you think of, about your own education and philosophy?
I think that if I had been offered the choice between the two methods of teaching when I was young, I ould certainly have picked Sixer's approach. Sizer seeks genuine learning and understanding of topics, and allows for thought in the classroom. I feel the Hirsch does the opposite. Of course, I am naturally inclined to think so because I go to a Sizer school, and there are many people who would disagree with me, but I feel personally it is more beneficial for me to be allowed to dream and rationalize my own thoughts in my own way.
Flashback scene
Script for teacher film
In class flashback
Teacher: You see, much of early american writing largely focused on man's basic need for his fellow man,
Disruptive student: Yo that's mad gay! (laughter)
Teacher (continuing): Early american poets like Walt Whitman chose to exemplify the basic understanding for one another that people have by simply walking alongside them on a crowded new York city street. Whitman wrote many 'walking poems' in which the concept was that everyone is connected, separate only by our innate awkwardness.
Rebellious Student: That's full of shit- I think that insights from dead poets dont relate in our current context where we have things like cell phones, AIM, and other shit that keeps us totally connected to our friends, the important people in our lives. Whitman had nothing better to do than walk around the city, so of course he wanted to make it sound more interesting.
Teacher: That's a fair point- there isn't much to be said for interpersonal communication when people have all these multimedia devices keeping them synced into one anothers lives all day long. But think about it. When you are texting or calling whoever it is you talk to, you miss out on everything around you. The only way to make any new friends is to spend some time away from the old ones. Go outside and talk to people for once. In fact, the odds are that you're too afraid to do what these dead poets have done, and you feel much safer with your cell phone security blanket.
Class: Ooooooooohhhhh!
In class flashback
Teacher: You see, much of early american writing largely focused on man's basic need for his fellow man,
Disruptive student: Yo that's mad gay! (laughter)
Teacher (continuing): Early american poets like Walt Whitman chose to exemplify the basic understanding for one another that people have by simply walking alongside them on a crowded new York city street. Whitman wrote many 'walking poems' in which the concept was that everyone is connected, separate only by our innate awkwardness.
Rebellious Student: That's full of shit- I think that insights from dead poets dont relate in our current context where we have things like cell phones, AIM, and other shit that keeps us totally connected to our friends, the important people in our lives. Whitman had nothing better to do than walk around the city, so of course he wanted to make it sound more interesting.
Teacher: That's a fair point- there isn't much to be said for interpersonal communication when people have all these multimedia devices keeping them synced into one anothers lives all day long. But think about it. When you are texting or calling whoever it is you talk to, you miss out on everything around you. The only way to make any new friends is to spend some time away from the old ones. Go outside and talk to people for once. In fact, the odds are that you're too afraid to do what these dead poets have done, and you feel much safer with your cell phone security blanket.
Class: Ooooooooohhhhh!
Monday, April 12, 2010
Homework 47 - Ideas
I think that to address the idea of the super-teacher without being to dry and too cliche, we need to stir up the original formula so that it's still appealing, but at least a little bit more....colorful.
1.) For shooting, since we are already filming at amateur status, we can accomplish the idea of a somewhat grainy, low-level feel to the setting and tone.
2.) I really like the idea of switch lighting. By that I mean that we should begin in a dark place, dimly lit (by sunlight through windows to send the message of being partially separate from 'the light') and with a low, somber tone. Scene switches can work through flashbacks to better days, where the light will pick up, and thus the tone as well.
3) I think the teacher needs earthly flaws that will ultimately exemplify the good characteristics of his, well, character. Alcoholism, while cliche, shows the mortality of the protagonist and the demons he/she deals with.
4) Nothing draws audiences closer to the character than empathy. I want to play up that concept- there has to be some major tragedy in the life of super teacher. Perhaps his fiance dies, or his wife, or his best friend. I really feel like it has to be a genuine tragedy, which means death, or some kind of finality. It can't be cancer, because while tragic, cancer patients have some small hope of recovery, or remission. Death is the way to go, which in turn can drive him/her to alchoholism.
5) Several key students. We have had the rebel student exemplified in every movie we've watched, and while he typically has a good supporting cast, he obviously leads. I want class rivalries between dynamically opposed characters. Conflict is key/ we can't have a dull script.
6) Teacher social life. If the teacher has friends and people to meet and be with, he's like us. He goes out on friday nights to do as he pleases, and he has things to do that are important to him. If he has a booming social cirlce, we all like him more. He can't be sop devoted to his class that the social conflict comes from lack of attention to the important people in his life.
1.) For shooting, since we are already filming at amateur status, we can accomplish the idea of a somewhat grainy, low-level feel to the setting and tone.
2.) I really like the idea of switch lighting. By that I mean that we should begin in a dark place, dimly lit (by sunlight through windows to send the message of being partially separate from 'the light') and with a low, somber tone. Scene switches can work through flashbacks to better days, where the light will pick up, and thus the tone as well.
3) I think the teacher needs earthly flaws that will ultimately exemplify the good characteristics of his, well, character. Alcoholism, while cliche, shows the mortality of the protagonist and the demons he/she deals with.
4) Nothing draws audiences closer to the character than empathy. I want to play up that concept- there has to be some major tragedy in the life of super teacher. Perhaps his fiance dies, or his wife, or his best friend. I really feel like it has to be a genuine tragedy, which means death, or some kind of finality. It can't be cancer, because while tragic, cancer patients have some small hope of recovery, or remission. Death is the way to go, which in turn can drive him/her to alchoholism.
5) Several key students. We have had the rebel student exemplified in every movie we've watched, and while he typically has a good supporting cast, he obviously leads. I want class rivalries between dynamically opposed characters. Conflict is key/ we can't have a dull script.
6) Teacher social life. If the teacher has friends and people to meet and be with, he's like us. He goes out on friday nights to do as he pleases, and he has things to do that are important to him. If he has a booming social cirlce, we all like him more. He can't be sop devoted to his class that the social conflict comes from lack of attention to the important people in his life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)