Global Village: Progressive or Detrimental?

In a 1995 article "Do We Really Want a Global Village?" the author Talbott paints a very non-Utopian picture of the global village. The author feels as though the sharing of information and "cooperating in purely technical undertakings" too easily perpetuates the "village paradise" as a less visible communal dissociation. Talbott also feels as though the global village would slowly destroy the inner-world of people known as culture. One simple example of this would be sending the newest laptop technology to a third world country that doesn't even have electricity, which would create further confusion and disparity.

In my eyes, the global village is more of the way the people of the world connect. I don't see global village as something that we must force on people, but instead perpetuate to those who desire it or are interested in contributing. This poses a problem, as the intentions of some of the villagers may not always be morally sound or rooted in worldly progression, but instead individual power. I see the global village as a subtle blending and understanding of cultures, not the creation of one new and unified culture.

I found one idea expressed by Talbott as particularly interesting. Being a fan of the Star Trek Series, Talbott echoed in his writing the Prime Directive that all Federation members upheld. As worded by Talbott, "Technological change should be introduced only so far as it serves the natural, consciously chosen evolution of a people." The global village should still serve the greater good, but not interfere with the natural progression of a culture.

Within this context, the building of a global village could be a positive thing, but to try and conform the world to a central set of norms and ideas I feel would be a detriment to people and culture as a whole. Ideally, I'd like to see a melting pot that still has individual ingredients. This is similar to how I run my classroom. Even though I have a class full of students who need to be educated, I also have students with race, religion, culture, gender and many other individual baggage that needs to be recognized.

For the K-12 classroom, the idea of a global village will be a tough thing to realize. As the technological advances grow exponentially, the way teachers are trained, students learn, and education evolves will be vital to the extent of how far the global village manifests. Technology can make the Utopian idea of a global village a quicker process, but it also could make it progress in ways that maybe the world doesn't expect or even desire. Probably the best thing the K-12 classroom can do is discuss this idea of global village, discuss why or how it could progress, and create an open dialogue to prepare our students for the possibilities that exist within the global village context. Give them a more worldly view of things so they too can begin to see the forest for the trees. After that preparation we can only hope that they make wise choices to positively effect the future of society and culture.

The "Invisible College"

Even though I have chosen not to talk about Critical Theory and the 1994 article by Yeaman about C.T., I found his idea of the "invisible college" very interesting. If you look closely at some of the descriptors of the college, you will see some close similarities to our ISU MEd cohort:

•distance network of collaboration
•encourages discussions of problems in the field
•building positions and a shared agenda
•critiquing understanding
•generating solidarity
•explore new territory, name things, and map ideas

Scary.

Moral Philosophy's and its Purpose

In his 1995 article "What is Moral Philosophy?", the author Pojman discusses 5 purposes of morality:
•To keep society from falling apart
•To ameliorate human suffering
•To promote human flourishing
•To resolve conflicts of interest in just and orderly ways
•To assign praise and blame, reward, and punishment and guilt

These purposes are based on the definition of morality being the customs, precepts, and practices of a people and culture. And even though moral precepts are concerned with norms, much like religion, law and etiquette, there are some inherent differences despite their obvious similarities.

Much of the ideological theory presented by Pojman sounds very Utilitarian in nature, even though the author does not totally agree with the idea of the greatest good. I tend to agree with most of the ideas Pojman presents, but putting them into practice becomes very complicated. To uphold the purposes he outlines requires me to have more of a worldly outlook on life, even if those around me do not. I become an agent of morality and must do my part to fulfill these purposes, which many times makes me a target for those with a will leaning more towards power rather than social conscience.

For instance, in his 1994 article "Searching for Moral Guidance about Educational Technology", the author Nichols references the author Rorty in his definition of solidarity. Rorty believes that solidarity is the ability to see more and more traditional differences such as race, religion, etc. as unimportant when compared with similarities in respect to pain and humiliation. To put that into practice, I need to look beyond how my students are different and see them for how they are similar. But as an educator, I am constantly making adjustments for the differences in my students in order to make their understanding of knowledge more similar. Do I strive for the "greater good" of the collective society, or do I acknowledge the obvious differences in power and the struggle of societal members to attain that "power?"

The question of agreeing or disagreeing is a difficult one to answer emphatically. On many levels, I hope that my place in society reflects a purpose of morality, but there are times where morality is set aside for lack of reciprocity by society. One thing is for sure, as a teacher in this society, I am definitely seen as a moral agent, both internally and externally.

Educators in modern society are seen as more than just conveyors of knowledge. They have a much bigger role as providers of basic needs such as food and clothing, disciplinarian due to lack of parental guidance at home, teachers of social skills and etiquette as well as leaders in development of moral rights and wrongs. This role, wanted or not, has been placed upon the shoulders of education. Couple this with the internal instincts inherent in good teachers to be just and right in their role in society, and you reveal a teacher to be one of the bigger agents carrying the banner of morality.

Despite all of these "hats" the educator is supposed to wear in order to better educate our learners, we are still obvious targets whenever one or more of these needs is not being met. Whether it is getting along with classmates, performance on standardized tests, poor communication skills, or any other job the educator is "supposed" to accomplish, they are easy targets for blame, especially by parents or community members who feel as though the "power" that the school holds is not being adequately dispersed to certain people (i.e. their child.) Despite small exceptions, the mass majority of educators are moral agents, are looking out for the greater good of society and are not in the business for personal power. Many times these experts in their respective fields could easily enter the private sector, make much more money, and not be such an obvious moral target, but they have decided that teaching is much more rewarding and proudly take on that role.

To this point, I have not explored the complications that technology brings into the moral philosophy of educators. The many facets of this topic make educators, especially those well-versed in educational technology, even more of a moral agent. This topic can get quite lengthy, but I will save that for another entry. I will say that the addition of technology in the discussion of morals make things more complicated and adds even more pressure to the moral educator in modern society.