Awww, I feel all warm and fuzzy now. (I looked for a "warm and fuzzy" style emoticon to stick in here, but the closest I found was a butterfly or a bizarro Etch-a-Sketch smiley - so use your imagination) Seriously, I appreciate the openness and willingness to have a conversation about some of this stuff. The board has picked up some steam in the months since I participated semi-regularly, and it appears to be all systems go towards resolution of the St James/Vedast issues, which is at least constructive.
I don't want to appear that I'm ignoring ADG by responding to posts after her, but I've spoken privately to her before, and I'm sure she'll understand if I address her after I get into the other issues. Thanks for the WB, btw.
Janneke wrote:So as long as you keep your wits and common sense about you, you'll be fine, I'm sure. Just make sure you don't start believing that anyone you come across is "better" than you, for being more senior in the School. This is a danger. Or maybe this happened to me because I grew up in the School, and couldn't as a child make the distinction between 'being respectful' to older people for their age on the one hand and believing they were better on the other.
To me, this statement by Janneke sums up my thoughts on the running of the adult schools. The philosophy given in the material you are presented with at group can be interpreted by the group member (and the tutor) in quite different ways - this is true of an English course, a Modern History course, a Fine Art course, as well as SOP/SOPP/SES stuff. We're possessive beasts, and mentally insular ones, and we like to think that we have a handle on things "objectively" even when the material we're dealing with is supposed to be filtered through experience and refined. You think "Oh, I know what that's about", before you actually try dealing with it, or putting it into practice. Even after you try dealing with it, or practising it, you often fail to notice the influence your own personality has had on what you've "learned". Tutors at the SOP/SES are guilty of this as well as students, and everyone else on the planet.
Many of the complaints here about tutors and authority figures in the SES (I'm just going to call it the SES from here on in unless I'm specifically talking about the Brisbane SOP) don't recognise this - or if they do, it's seen as a damnation of the organisation because its members are subject to human frailty. Yes, an organisation is its members, but when you're dealing with an organisation whose purpose is the distillation and transmission of information from many static sources, human error and subjectivity comes into play bigtime. By "static sources", I mean from people who are dead and not open to argument on what they've written. That's not the only source of material, but it's a large part.
This might not go down so well, but having a tutor to bounce things off can also make you realise how self-indulgent and delusional you're being about something. I doubt that everyone posting on this message board thinks they're always right about everything. Having a semi-formal situation where you discuss your ideas and experiences with a tutor, in front of a group, sometimes does allow you to see where you're getting all wrapped up in your own (sometimes odd) ideas about what's what. It's not a case of brainwashing, because the idea is for you to talk, and the tutor to listen and ask questions - not lecture you about what your ideas should be. It's like having a best friend who never thinks about nipping off for a cigarette or a cup of coffee while you're talking.
The school I attend has several people who are generally "unlikeable". Their personalities are such that they manage to alienate a good proportion of the school membership. Personally, I think this is a pretty good advertisement for the school - "difficult" people are accepted as easily as "pleasant" people, y'know? The idea is to get past your reactions to these people, and see the message they're delivering (or the humanity they represent), rather than their (sometimes annoying and even ignorant) way of delivering it. If you're unsure about their interpretation, go to the leader. The post (was it NYC?) about the registrar saying "That doesn't concern you at your level" is an example of this. I cringed when I read that, but I have no doubt it happened. If the person in question wasn't trying to bolster herself by feeling superior, she probably thought she was upholding a necessary structure within the school, and trying not to scare someone off by saying "Yes, the women doing second-line work are asked to wear long skirts." Not everyone in the school is a Communications/Psychology major, and not everyone is pleasant, tactful, or even particularly confident. It's absolutely crucial to remember that the tutors are students themselves - sometimes only a year or so "ahead" of the students they're tutoring, often many years ahead, but students nonetheless - with their own tutors.
There is a hierarchy, and as far as I can tell, it's for ease of management and flow of communication. The school I attend is pretty young (about 11 years old), and the school leader is fairly easily accessible. I also know this to be the case at the Sydney school, though, which is considerably older, so if you don't get a satisfactory answer, take it as far as you need to. As Janneke said, someone presenting themselves as "better" or more senior and therefore impenetrable, is only as effective as you allow them to be. The philosophy you hear is the ultimate end-point, not the people you encounter on the way. The hierarchy spares the school leader from getting a million questions about why so-and-so was mean to them in group, or why the noticeboard is looking kinda shabby. It's not supposed to prevent you from communicating as far "up" as you need to go to get satisfaction, but it is supposed to share the load and delegate as much as possible.
Re homophobia: The SES' view on this is similar to the Dalai Lama's, AFAIC. The purpose of sex is reproduction, or celebration of the union of complementary forces (yin/yang, prakriti/purusha etc.). Sex outside this framework is seen as unneccessary and distracting. This includes sex outside marriage and excessive masturbation as well as homosexual sex. Call it puritanical if you like, but it's not singling out homosexual couples as worthy of notice by themselves. By the way, the sexual conduct thing is really only an issue for people in a position of authority within the school, and even then, it depends on your school leader. It's very similar to a Buddhist approach, in my estimation.
Re sexism: Yes, women wear long skirts and men wear suits. No bodies or bottoms to be seen, by jove. Again, this is the case with many Buddhist branches, but you don't often hear such vocal complaints about them. Yes, there is a distinction made between the feminine nature and the masculine nature, and it bears out in practice, in my experience. Child psychologists and behavioural therapists are still arguing this issue, and there are at least as many proponents of the gender difference theory as there are of the equality theories. Anyway, SES embraces the gender difference theory, and uses it in their presentation of a "refined" appearance - a non-provocative, respectful appearance which is evocative of the essential qualities of both genders. By the way, several years ago, I wore jeans to serve tea and coffee because of time constraints, and didn't have a word directed at me. This (dress rules) is something that is said to students considering second-line work (service type activities), but nobody is going to burn you at the stake if you can't manage it sometimes. If you can't manage it EVER because of personal beliefs, then don't do second-line work. Simple.
This is turning into a thesis, and there is still much to be said, but I'll have to knock it off for now, and respond to more later. Oh, one more thing - regarding the education of female children about obedience vs. stranger danger...I have a friend who was schooled in the Sydney day school, and she was educated as to how to say "no" to people making physical demands on her. Sex education at the SOP day schools includes lessons on how to manage abstinence and effective rejection of advances, and frankly, I think that's sadly missing in a lot of sex ed programs operating in other schools.
Eeek, one more addendum to NYC: the response I got when I mentioned this website was what you would expect from any rational person. It was suggested I give my own experiences, as objectively as possible. The allegations of abuse are not being ignored by the SES-afiliated schools, but there's not much me OR anyone else who wasn't there can say to make it any better or clearer. The distinction between international schools and their histories/perceived answerability is probably greater than many people expect.
