Explorations in Pedagogy and Society

We spend a great deal of class time discussing ways to facilitate critical analysis through a process of applying various criterion.  I think there’s a great deal of relevance in this process, but I also think it’s important to refine our efficiency in applying this skill-set to external and internal agents; however, it often seems that people have an easier time being critical of others’ models than their own, and certain beliefs are very deeply imprinted.  For example, if I were to suggest that most of us are as deeply enslaved as pre ‘War Between the States’ ‘negroes’, most responses would be less than sympathetic.  However, I think if we are methodical in our application of critical analysis – internally and externally – we are forced to confront paradox and hypocrisy.  Contrary to the assurances of the propagandists, Western Civilization is not free or just.  Unfortunately, it can be difficult to convey this understanding when the citizenry has been collectively misled.

radical:

1. (botany, not comparable) Of or pertaining to a root (of a plant).
2. Of or pertaining to the intrinsic nature of something.
3. Thoroughgoing.

   The spread of the cancer required radical surgery, and the entire organ was removed.

4. Favouring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter.

   His beliefs are radical.

5. (linguistics, not comparable) Of or pertaining to the root of a word.
6. (chemistry, not comparable) Involving free radicals
7. (slang) Excellent.

That was a radical jump!  (Wiktionary)

It’s unfortunate that ‘radical’ has come to be derogatory in modern society, but it speaks volumes to our collective delusion. For those who recognize some value in radical critical analysis of social institutions, online documentaries offer a fantastic medium for subverting culturally pervasive assumptions and superstitions. To that end, the producers of 2007’s ‘most-watched Internet documentary of the year’, Zeitgeist, have been especially successful. “Zeitgeist” suffered from a number of iffy suppositions, but most of them center around the ‘scholarship’ of Acharya S. Nonetheless, the sequel, “Zeitgeist Addendum” has just been released, and I feel it’s worthy of your attention.

Zeitgeist: Addendum
Saturday, 4 October 2008

A confession: despite being one of the most popular internet movies of all time, I’ve never watched Zeitgeist. I’ve tried on a few occasions, and always been turned off — and physically turned off — within a few minutes by the apparently portentous and pretentious nature of the film. Maybe it gets better? Who knows.

It was therefore with some trepidation that I approached Zeitgeist: Addendum, which was released yesterday. Thankfully, the arty guff that I found so off-putting in the first film only lasted 3 or 4 minutes, before the movie proper started.

Addendum kicks off into one of the best short descriptions of how the monetary supply and FRB works that I’ve seen for a while. Having illustrated the stupidity of this system, the film moves on to look at the activities of ‘economic hit-men’, and how the CIA and the ruling political/corporate elites have worked to undermine legitimate foreign regimes who have had the temerity to put the interests of their populations before those of transnational corporations. The entirely accurate view painted of how institutions like the World Bank, WTO and IMF have conspired to screw over developing nations for corporate benefit will, I’m sure, raise the hackles of neoliberal shills everywhere.

The film then takes a somewhat major swerve into the left field. Having identified some of the problems apparently inherent in any monetary-based economy, there’s quite a long look at how a resource-based economy might be preferable (necessary?) for humanity. The movie then brings the two threads together, by explaining how the norms and values of our current society — and the institutions within it, both secular and religious — conspire to create an ‘intellectual materialism’; a mindset that unthinkingly accepts the status quo, and leads us to act as sheep. Needless to say, the last portion of the movie is of the uplifting “it doesn’t have to be this way” variety; something that I’m never going to knock anyone for suggesting.

My major criticism of the film is possibly an invalid one: lack of depth. I suspect that the target audience is people new to the topics presented, and a fairly shallow skim through some areas was the film-makers intent. Having said that, and acknowledging that most of the readers here will be familiar with much of the factual material already, I found the movie a perfectly reasonable way to spend a wet and windy weekend evening. (link)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uZuK-PTCH8[/youtube]

The complete documentary is viewable here. It’ll be two hours well-spent, and the thesis holds special relevance to us as Social Studies educators.