Category Archives: Issue 28

The Musical Experience

Dylan Fields

Beethoven. Bach. What if these legendary musicians were put into today’s era? Would they be better? Would they be worse? I would argue they would be better at what they do today than they were in their day. They might not be as popular today simply because orchestral music is not popular today, but they would have more tools and more feedback than they had in their day. With the amount of technology they would be able to access today, the quality of sound these musical geniuses would be able to create would be absolutely incredible. Being able to write your music down and hear it as soon as you write it is a tool we have today. If these composers had this tool at their fingertips, they could produce more music and better music as they could fix any and every flaw. With this we would now have more music to enjoy from these great composers today.

Music has been changing for centuries: for better or worse is the issue. Before I explain my thesis I need to define a key term. The phrase “musical experience” means anything directly pertaining to music, such as buying and selling, listening, and the making of it. Music started all the way back in Bible times as we can see from King David being a skilled harp player. Now with more recent advances of music such as the birth of iTunes in April of 2003, we play music out of a speaker. Music has developed into a predominately but not exclusively electronic base as opposed to the acoustic installments that have been used for centuries before us. This change is important because it is going to change the way music will be made and how we will listen to music for years to come.

My thesis states the experience of music is at its all-time high. I will confirm three reasons why this is true: listening to music has never been easier, music is more diverse than ever; and the recording process is better than ever. I will also refute two counterarguments: first, digital music has decreased revenue for musicians, and, second, music is too perfect.

My first argument to prove the musical experience is at an all-time high is listening to music has never been easier. In the 1950s if you wanted to listen to a certain song you would have to buy the entire album on vinyl, unless of course it was a single. In order to listen to the song you want to hear, you would have to look for and change the record to what you wanted to hear next. Now let’s say after you listened to the song you wanted to hear, you want to listen to a song from a completely different album. You would need to take that record off, put it into its case or sleeve, and then put the other record onto the record player. You would start it and find the right song. The whole music listening experience was just a hassle compared to nowadays, when I can have ten songs from ten different albums on one playlist and not have a single second of downtime in-between each song. Now, all we have to do is click what song we want to listen to and our phones, laptops, iPods or mp3s will play the song for us. We can create playlists with songs from any album from any band or artist we choose and can listen to the songs as many times as we want without having to touch the vinyl player at all. For example, if I was doing my homework, and I wanted a compilation of my favorite Rolling Stones and Beatles hits, then I would have to frequently stop my homework and change the song. This is not as convenient as if I could make a playlist or even just click a button and change it in a matter of a couple of seconds.

Another reason listening to music has improved is the means by which we actually listen to it. The first pair of headphones were released in 1881, long before Sony Walkmans or iPods. Although they were revolutionary for their time, they weighed over ten pounds. That is ten times the weight of Dr. Dre’s Beats headphones today,as some editions of beats weigh less than a pound. Another invention that changed how we listen to music today is the wireless power of Bluetooth. Bluetooth gives us the ability to listen to music not only without cords hanging out of headphones but away from the source of the music. I had used headphones with cords my whole life until recently. My first iPod cracked because I forgot it was hooked into my headphones, and I walked away from it, pulling the iPod and sending it crashing to the ground. Bluetooth eliminates that threat altogether, because we all make careless mistakes like that. Also, I can stand all the way across a room and be playing my music on a speaker or headphones on the other side of the room. For example, when I am working out, I use my Beats headphones that are Bluetooth. I set my phone down on the table across the room and have my headphones on. Working out with a cord hanging out of your pocket is extremely difficult because many times you will get caught on the cord and your phone will rip out of your pocket or your headphones will fall off your head. Another example is when I am training for baseball. I can hit in a batting cage with my phone twenty feet away from me while I have my headphones on. Hitting a baseball with headphones with a cord connecting to a phone would be nearly impossible. This is why Bluetooth is so great. This Bluetooth feature also comes in handy when your device needs to be charged. You can charge your device on one side of the room while wearing your headphones on the other side of the room, or even in a completely different room.

Listening to CDs and radios in cars were both huge steps in the past, but now the next big step is listening to our phone, iPod, or mp3 on Bluetooth or an auxiliary cord. This is better for multiple reasons. Now we can go from what we were listening to before we got into our cars, plug our phone or mp3 in, and continue listening. In addition, we do not have to keep a thousand different CDs in our cars. This feature also gives us the ability to listen to whatever we want while in the car, even beyond music with things like podcasts or sermons. For example, in my morning routine I listen to music all morning. When I’m ready to leave my house, I get into my car and, with the Bluetooth system I have installed, my music automatically goes from playing on my phone to playing on the speaker system in my car.

My second argument is music is more diverse than it has ever been before. There are more types of music, more genres, and more branches of each genres. For example, country in American music was created in the late 1920s. It was more of an Appalachian folk-type music or blues, which featured instruments much more string-based such as the banjo, American fiddle, fretted dulcimer, and guitar. Today’s country music still includes the original Appalachian folk music, but now bands such as Florida Georgia Line or Sam Hunt are the top-selling country artists today. They incorporate a type of hip hop or pop element into their country music. We see this hip hop element in songs including artists in the hip hop genre such a Nelly or The Chainsmokers. This is noteworthy because this new movement of combining genres has been so successful it has become a new genre altogether. Nelly even went on tour with Florida Georgia Line as their opener on their Smooth World Tour. So now there is traditional country music and modernized country music. This sort of change of genres is nothing new, though. We have seen this in the past and it was successful as it created the types of music we listen to now. Rap has changed from Tupac Shakur’s era to big rappers like Lil Pump who recently signed a record deal with Warner Bros. for eight million dollars. The classic elements to rap are the theme of the lyrics, the rhythm, and the rhyming, as well as the bass in most rap songs. We have seen rap change. It really started with artists like Lil Wayne who changed the flow of rap introducing a that no-one had seen before, sometimes slowing it down and mixing up the beat in a unique way. Rap has split its genre so much that now they have gospel rap. Artists such as Lecrae, KB, Andy Mineo, and NF have made their marks in the rap genre from this unique branch of music.

Another aspect of music that has broken music into different genres is the lyrical sense of the songs. Staying with country music, let’s take two artists: Jimmy Buffet and Brantley Gilbert. Jimmy Buffet is known for many of his songs, such as his song with Alan Jackson called “It’s Five O’clock Somewhere,” which spent eight weeks on the top of Billboard’s Hot Country Song list. This song’s lyrics are about not wanting to work anymore, leaving work early, and getting drunk at the bar. Brantley Gilbert’s music is more of a country rock, as one of his top selling songs, “Take It Outside,” talks about “the good ole days,” where if someone had a problem with someone else they could just go outside and fight to settle things. Both artists are technically in the county genre but have completely different styles of music. Brantley Gilbert’s style is more of the “get your hands dirty” type of country music. Jimmy Buffet’s lyrics are quite the opposite, as his are more about resting and partying. These two completely different country artists represent different branches of country music.

In addition to the branches of each genre, there have been new genres created recently that have changed music, such as indie pop, alternative rock, air pop, and EDM. These genres have had huge successes and have been controlling the Billboard charts. Most of these types of music have sounds such as synthetic and computer-based sounds that have never been used as much in music as ever before due to the advanced recording and creation of music that will be discussed later.

My third argument is recording music is easier and has better sound quality than ever before. There are four eras of recording to look at: the acoustic era, the electrical era, the magnetic era, and the digital era. The acoustic era lasted from 1877-1925. During the acoustic era, people recording typically used a large conical horn to collect and focus the physical air pressure of the sound waves produced by the human voice or musical instruments. A membrane or diaphragm, located at the top of the cone, was connected to a scriber or stylus, and as the changing air pressure moved the diaphragm back and forth, the stylus scratched or incised analogue of the sound waves onto a moving recording medium, such as a roll of coated paper, or a cylinder or disc coated with a soft material such as wax or a soft metal. The next era of recording was the electrical era when they used a system of electrical microphones, electronic signal amplifiers, and electromechanical recorders, which was adopted by many music publishers in 1925. Sound could now be captured, amplified, filtered and balanced electronically. This means when you record a sound, you are able to alter the volume, pitch, or frequency of the music. This was a monumental move in the line of music at the time, but something simple enough today. We can do it better now on an iPhone, as the microphone on an iPhone is better quality than anything that had been made in the ’40s. The third era of recording music was the magnetic era, introducing features such as multi-track tape recording (MTR), when different sounds are recorded on different sessions and put together to make a cohesive whole. This was also the introduction of the disc as the primary mastering medium for sound. Fast forward to the digital age, the era in which we are living today. This is the era when digital encoding surpasses all previous recording technologies. Unlike all previous eras of recording, which captured a continuous analogue of the sounds being recorded, the digital era captures very dense and rapid and discrete samples of the sounds, which makes the sounds more crisp, taking out static or background fuzz.

Making music has never been so easy; anyone on any level of musical education can make music. All you need to make music nowadays is a laptop and a music editing application such as Logic Pro X. A few of my friends and I have been making music as a hobby, and we have more capability to record and edit the music than big name music artists had in the ’40s or ’50s. This does not mean the music we make is better than those that have come before us, but if we worked hard enough and developed our talents and abilities, we could make some quality music.

The first counterargument I will refute says the current technology trends in the industry have led to music artists not making as much money as previous artists used to make. The music industry’s profits have dropped a shocking sixty percent in the last decade as we see in charts from RIAA U.S. sales database. This is due to the loss of buying and selling of music. Music used to be put on files of polyvinyl chloride, also known as vinyl. When music was made on vinyl, it was hard to pirate or steal. As soon as it could be turned into a file, many previous listeners didn’t choose to pay for it anymore. Another factor is about a century ago it was more popular than it is now to buy and listen to entire albums. Today iTunes, the largest music store in the country, sells individual tracks listeners can mix and match in personal audio-collages.

Music has suffered a loss in revenue over the past decade and ever since the beginning of the digital era in general, but lately it has been on the climb. The RIAA (the U.S. sales database) announced sales of recorded music in the U.S. generated $7.7 billion in revenue in 2016, its highest sales figure since 2009. The growth also represents an 11.4 percent increase from the previous year, the best percentage gain since 1998. These gains, the RIAA said, are largely due to an increase in on-demand streams from services like Apple Music, TIDAL, and Spotify’s paid tier, which accounted for $2.5 billion in revenue, more than double from the previous year. Together, on-demand and free streams accounted for $3.9 million in revenue. Although music sales are not what they were in the late ’90s, we may see it there again shortly if music sales follow the 2016 trends we see on the RIAA sales charts.

The second counterargument to refute claims music today is too perfect. There is no room for error in today’s world when it comes to the element of recording music. Editing music today has to be done with almost surgical precision. They remove the types of things that often made music of the past more interesting such as idiosyncrasies, nuances, and inexactitudes. For example, compare two songs, “Louie Louie” from the Kingsmen and “Fancy” from Iggy Azalea. “Louie Louie” was recorded in one take while Iggy Azalea’s song “Fancy” was most certainly not. Another interesting thing is in one part of the Kingsmen’s song, the drummer drops his stick and exclaims a profane word I will not repeat. But nowadays there is no way that would be put into the final cut. It would be edited out so the song would sound more perfect.

Music being too perfect is not a problem to most listeners as we can see by their digitally-edited music sales. This type of digital edited music is pop music as we know it today. Music cannot be too perfect. As humans we should strive for perfection in everything we do; this includes music. If there is a flaw in the music, edit it out or try it again. Any artist in the digital era that doesn’t perfect every note or cord won’t be as successful as an artist that does. This is due to the fact this generation has grown up in the digital era and have grown used to the “perfect” music, while the older generations have grown up listening to flawed music and appreciate that aspect of the music.

Music has only developed for the better. The progression of technology has led to the progression of music, which we see through the different eras of music and time. The music recording process and distribution is easier and better than ever before. The music industry is bringing in revenue and looking to come back to where they once were. The experience of music is at its peak, and this is something to be excited about.

Bibliography

Beardsley, Roger. “CHARM.” A Brief History of Recording to Ca. 1950, 8 May 2017, http://www.charm.rhul.ac.uk/history/p20_4_1.html.

Craig. “Headphones: Then and Now.” LiGo Blog, 10 Feb. 2015, http://www.ligo.co.uk/blog/headphones-then-and-now/.

Dandridge-Lemco, Ben. “The American Music Industry Had Its Biggest Year In Nearly A Decade Thanks To Streaming.” The FADER, The FADER, 10 Nov. 2017, http://www.thefader.com/2017/03/30/music-industry-revenue-growth-2016-drake-streaming.

“Most Popular.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, http://www.forbes.com/most-popular/#4a262d707048.

“Music: Top 100 Songs | Billboard Hot 100 Chart.” Billboard, http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100.

Quirky. “Great Inventions: History and Evolution of the Headphone.” Quirky, shop.quirky.com/blogs/news/great-inventions-history-of-headphone.

Rabade, Parag. “Bluetooth – A Path Towards an IT Revolution.” Bluetooth – A Path Towards an IT Revolution, tech.af/post/papers/bluetooth-a-path-towards-an-it-revolution/details.

Thompson, Derek. “Has Technology Changed the Experience of Music?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 10 June 2010, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/has-technology-changed-the-experience-of-music/57961/.

Voice. “History of the Record Industry, 1920- 1950s – A Voice. – Medium.” Medium, Medium, 8 June 2014, medium.com/@Vinylmint/history-of-the-record-industry-1920-1950s-6d491d7cb606.

Far From the Madding Crowd

Leave a reply

Tarah Leake

Far From the Madding Crowd was written in 1874 by Thomas Hardy and would prove to be his first and greatest literary success. Hardy was a devoted reader of philosophy, science, and Greek literature. Hardy struggled to find a balance between his religious upbringing and his scientific interests influenced by Darwin. In his later years, Hardy had almost completely abandoned the Scriptures and turned to science for knowledge and meaning to life. Fortunately, when Hardy wrote the Romantic novel Far From the Madding Crowd, he still had an appreciation for his religious background and incorporated Biblical values and themes. The major themes in this novel are the rejection of society, the scrutiny of vanity, and the praise of honor and humility. Biblical values are evident in the contrasting qualities of vanity and humility, displayed by Bathsheba, Sergeant Troy, and Gabriel. An evident supporting theme is love’s ability to completely change the mind and attitude of those involved as seen with all characters, especially William Boldwood and Bathsheba. In opposition to these dynamic characters, Gabriel Oak and Sergeant Troy remain true to themselves in both positive and negative ways. The first important theme of this literary work is the rejection of society represented by the title itself.

The title reveals Hardy’s values and view of society; it carries the ideology of reminiscing the “good old days.” Hardy was raised on the English countryside and had an appreciation for hard-working people and simple farm life. As he aged, Hardy witnessed a general depression of work ethic as society became more industrial and modernized. Far From the Madding Crowd illustrates Hardy’s desire to remain separate from the modern city people around him and remain true to the roots of his childhood, which he deemed much more noble. Hardy originally extracted his title for this novel from the poem “Elegy Written in a Country Courtyard” by Thomas Gray. The poem depicts a similar notion of appreciation for a hard day’s work, capturing the typical life of farmers. It is no wonder with this same appreciation for nature and farming, Hardy was inspired by the words of Gray. The line in the poem that inspired Hardy’s novel reads, “Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife, their sober wishes never learn’d to stray; / Along the cool sequester’d vale of life they kept the noiseless tenor of their way.”

Hardy’s admiration of a virtuous life is not only evident in the title but also in the personifications of his characters. The characters depict both extremes of vanity and humility. The two main characters (and love interests of the novel) are Gabriel Oak and Bathsheba Everdene. Gabriel Oak, the hero of the novel, is a shepherd and farmer who has the greatest moral disposition of anyone. He is humble, honest, loyal, takes responsibility, and is willing to sacrifice his own comfort for that of others. He begins as a successful farmer whose love is unrequited by the beautiful mistress, Bathsheba Everdene. Even after Bathsheba refuses to marry him, Gabriel promises to drop the matter but swears “I shall do one thing in this life — one thing certain — that is, love you, and long for you, and keep wanting you till I die.” When his sheep die in a tragic accident, Gabriel knows he has lost all of his insurance and means of financial security, yet, his first thought is one of selflessness. Gabriel thanks God Bathsheba refused his marriage, because he could have never supported them financially after the accident. Hardy writes, “It was as remarkable as it was characteristic that the one sentence he uttered was in thankfulness.” Gabriel travels around looking for a job and ends up saving Bathsheba’s farmers from a fire, not knowing it is her farm. He is rewarded with an offer to work on the farm and agrees to it. As he works on the farm, he is bothered by Bathsheba’s cold treatment to her next suitor, Mr. Boldwood. Although Gabriel risks losing his job, he reprimands Bathsheba for her actions not because it benefits him, but because he truly sympathizes with Boldwood. In chapter twenty, Hardy praises the fact Gabriel knows he has no chance with Bathsheba but still restrains himself from attempting to sabotage her future relationships: “Thoroughly convinced of the impossibility of his own suit, a high resolve constrained him not to injure that of another. This is a lover’s most stoical virtue, as the lack of it is a lover’s most venial sin.”

In stark contrast to the virtue and morality expressed by Gabriel, Bathsheba is vain, cold, and self-absorbed for the majority of the novel. The first time Gabriel sees her, she is staring at herself in the mirror and Gabriel tells the gate guard the woman has one fault, vanity. When Gabriel comes to ask Bathsheba’s aunt for her hand in marriage, her aunt warns that her niece has several suitors. Bathsheba cruelly chases after Gabriel to tell him this isn’t true, which Gabriel takes to mean she is interested in him. Then she denies his proposal, clarifying she only meant to tell him “nobody has got me yet as a sweetheart, instead of my having a dozen, as my aunt said; I hate to be thought men’s property in that way.” Bathsheba goes on to say, “A marriage would be very nice in one sense. People would talk about me, and think I had won my battle, and I should feel triumphant… I shouldn’t mind being a bride at a wedding, if I could be one without having a husband. But since a woman can’t show off in that way by herself, I shan’t marry.” Bathsheba reveals the extent of her egotism by this remark; the only part she likes about a wedding is how much attention she would receive but doesn’t want the love or commitment associated with it. As if this does not wound Gabriel enough, she refutes his vow to love her forever by harshly retaliating with the statement, “It wouldn’t do, Mr. Oak. I want somebody to tame me; I am too independent; and you would never be able to, I know.” At this time, she is poor and has not yet been given the farm, yet she still carries a haughty attitude and thinks herself too independent for any simple man.

Another major suitor for Bathsheba is the eligible bachelor, William Boldwood. The name suggests his reserved, wooden persona as he is a difficult man to please; every young woman who has tried to woo him has failed. However, Boldwood’s heart is quickly captured by Bathsheba’s beauty and wealth, and when she sends him a valentine for personal amusement, Boldwood falls completely in love. Boldwood expresses how Bathsheba, without realizing it, has changed his entire mindset: “I had never any views of myself as a husband in my earlier days, nor have I made any calculation on the subject since I have been older. But we all change, and my change, in the matter, came with seeing you. I have felt lately, more and more, that my present way of living is bad in every respect. Beyond all things, I want you as my wife.”

Not only does Bathsheba unwillingly enact a change in Boldwood, but this gentleman also awakens a change within her. Instead of reacting sharply, Bathsheba’s heart “swelled with sympathy for the deep-natured man who spoke simply … She had a strong feeling that, having been the one who began the game, she ought in honesty to accept the consequences.” She even admits to Boldwood she never intended for this to happen and she is “wicked to have made [him] suffer so.” Boldwood is quite disheartened and goes away somber and lost. Hardy writes the “realities then returned upon him like the pain of a wound received in an excitement which eclipses it, and he, too, then went on,” depicting the common trend of one’s heart betraying its owner in this novel. Gabriel had thought Bathsheba’s pursuit was an act of love and Boldwood had thought the valentine one as well. These were far too optimistic notions as Hardy cynically writes, “The rarest offerings of the purest loves are but a self-indulgence, and no generosity at all.” Bathsheba begins to crack under the realization of how she has hurt so many others. She even lowers herself enough to work on the farm alongside Gabriel and asks him for his opinion concerning her conduct with Boldwood. Gabriel scolds her for having tricked Boldwood with the valentine and rebukes her character, calling it “unworthy of any thoughtful, meek, and comely woman.” At this comment, Bathsheba turns red and follows Gabriel’s insults with a few of her own, instructing him to leave the farm by the end of the week. Gabriel remains calm and promises to be gone by the end of the day. Bathsheba puts up the front of being strong and offended by his disrespect for her as a boss, but on the inside, she is deeply saddened because she cares about Gabriel’s opinion of her, even if she doesn’t want to. Shortly after Gabriel leaves, Bathsheba must completely humble herself and beg for his return because the sheep are dying and he is the only one who can heal them. At first, Gabriel refuses to help and her farmhands tell Bathsheba she must use more delicate language with him. She struggles to lower herself to him, but she cannot bear to see the innocent animals suffer (another mark of progression in her character). When she sees Gabriel riding up on his horse, she runs to him and reprimands him saying, “Oh, Gabriel, how could you serve me so unkindly!” Author Thomas Hardy clarifies, “It was a moment when a woman’s eyes and tongue tell distinctly opposite tales. Bathsheba was full of gratitude.” After saving nearly all the sheep, Gabriel rejoins Bathsheba’s crew upon her request.

The final suitor Bathsheba encounters is the reckless and proud Sergeant Troy. They have a flirtatious relationship together and Bathsheba allows him to kiss her and take her on a date, which she would have refused entirely in the past. However, Sergeant Troy is a poor person for Bathsheba to relinquish her independence to and Hardy writes, “When a strong woman recklessly throws away her strength, she is worse than a weak woman who has never had strength to throw away.” Hardy is once again revealing how the haughty rich are undeserving of love, while the honest farmer is far more virtuous. Gabriel and Boldwood know of Troy’s reckless past with the now pregnant and abandoned Fanny Robin. They are concerned and decide to confront Bathsheba about her infatuation with this undesirable man. Bathsheba is crass with Gabriel and refuses to listen to him. She attempts to fire him again, but he refuses to leave for her own safety. When Bathsheba hears others gossiping about her relationship with Troy, she is furious and orders them not to discuss her personal life. She claims she loves Troy but then proceeds to burst into tears as she realizes she has completely lost herself.

Bathsheba finalizes her feelings for Boldwood in a letter clearly expressing her disinterest in marrying him; however, Boldwood cannot let her go. Bathsheba is frightened by Boldwood’s obsession and his threats to bring misery upon Sergeant Troy. Bathsheba defends Troy’s honor and begs Boldwood not to hurt him, but Boldwood is blinded by his jealousy. Bathsheba would have once found it amusing to have men fighting over her, but she is now wrecked with worry and guilt of a possible quarrel ensuing on her behalf. Boldwood offers Troy money to leave or at least honor Bathsheba by marrying her. Troy plays along for a while but then reveals he and Bathsheba are already married. Troy has cruelly humiliated Boldwood and proceeds to lock him out of the house all night. Troy boasts about the secret marriage and patronizes the farmhands. Gabriel sees problems arising in the marriage and sympathizes with the miserable Boldwood. Troy gets all of the male farmhands drunk, demonstrating Troy’s recurring pride and lack of responsibility. Gabriel slips out and realizes there is a terrible storm coming; he is again the hero and single-handedly saves all of the crops and animals from the rainstorm. The only one who comes to his aid in the downpour is Bathsheba. Once again, Bathsheba admits her personal struggle with relationships, seeking approval and guidance from Gabriel. She confesses she did not mean to marry Troy and did so in a state of “jealousy and distraction.” Gabriel cannot form an appropriate response and asks Bathsheba to go inside and rest.

As the marriage ensues, Bathsheba is miserable due to Troy’s irresponsibility with their money. Troy reacts with the cold and immature response, “You have lost all the pluck and sauciness you formerly had.” One day, Troy encounters a woman who turns out to be Fanny Robin, alive and breathing. Troy recognizes her and offers money and shelter, but he swears to Bathsheba he has no idea who this woman is. Shortly after this encounter, Fanny gives birth to Troy’s child, but both she and the baby die in the process. Rumors spread quickly and Bathsheba desires the advice and guidance of Gabriel alone. Despite the crass whispers surrounding her, Bathsheba takes it upon herself to oversee the burial of Fanny and her child, demonstrating a huge growth in maturity and virtue. Sergeant Troy demonstrates his first moment of weakness and remorse as he looks in the coffin of his lawful wife and child; Troy confesses everything to Bathsheba. He tells her he is a bad, black-hearted man, admitting Fanny is his wife in the eyes of God and “I am not morally yours.” Bathsheba spends the night outside; Troy is gone in the morning.

The following months involve Bathsheba believing Troy drowned himself and she relinquishes the farm to Gabriel as she is weakened by the previous events. This surrendering of her main source of income demonstrates her trust and confidence in Gabriel. Boldwood attempts to regain Bathsheba’s love and again asks for her hand in marriage, proving his insane persistence in winning her love. Bathsheba goes to Gabriel for advice worried that if she refuses Boldwood again, he may lose all hope for living; she says this “in a spirit the very reverse of vain” for she is grieved and troubled by it, displaying regret of her past attitudes toward people. Gabriel tells her honestly “the real sin, ma’am in my mind, lies in thinking of every wedding wi’ a man you don’t love honest and true.” In the past, Bathsheba would have been outraged by this comment, but she now simply replies, “That I am willing to pay the penalty of.”

The story comes to a close with Boldwood hosting a suspicious Christmas party, at which he murders Sergeant Troy. Troy had meant to remain hidden, however, when he hears of the possibility of Boldwood’s proposal, he decides to attend the party in disguise. Even in his last moments, Troy is self-obsessed and physically clutching Bathsheba, claiming her as his territory. After committing murder, Boldwood goes into temporary hiding and is sentenced to death by hanging. Gabriel, once again in his infinite compassion, requests the courts to reconsider the case, which results in Boldwood’s pardon. Gabriel and Bathsheba admit their love and decide to get married. Gabriel’s humility has clearly rubbed off on Bathsheba as seen when she requests “the most private, secret, plainest wedding that is possible to have,” an obvious antipode to her narcissistic personality at the beginning of the novel. She has learned the painful price of sitting in the constant spotlight with other lives revolving around her own. Many characters failed to adapt and recognize their faults, and in Troy and Boldwood’s case, they paid the ultimate price for their stubbornness. However, the pure light in Gabriel’s heart is enough to open Bathsheba’s eyes to her sinful ways. Bathsheba no longer desires to be the talk of the town; she is content to be far from the madding crowd with the man she loves.

Redeeming Europe

Leave a reply

Emily Grant Privett

Being in the very first edition of Redeeming Pandora, I found it only appropriate to make one final contribution to the last edition. Back in 2015, I was hired to teach science at Summit Christian Academy. It’s funny how God works, opening doors you didn’t even realize existed. As a terrified college senior, I had absolutely no idea what my next move would be. I was fully reliant on God showing the path He had laid out for me. After being hired at Summit, I knew I one day would want to go on another senior trip. As some may know, my senior trip was filled with highs and lows. I had excellent opportunities to form permanent memories with my classmates, but class dynamics and drama between chaperones put a dampener on the experience. I hoped to one day get to encounter the beautiful cities of Paris, Berlin, and Rome again, but with a new positive perspective. The class of 2018 provided me with that opportunity, giving me the unique chance to travel on the Summit Europe trip twice, once as a student and once as a chaperone.

In all, this trip was awesome. I had the opportunity to build and fortify relationships with the seniors and a few of their parents. I was able to experience 3 foreign countries with my cousin, who very soon is going away to college. I was immersed in German, Italian, and French culture. I was able to eat tons of incredible foods including, but not limited to gelato, cannolis, fresh pasta, pizza, coffee, schnitzel, and German sausages. I even got to talk to and get to know Mr. Rush more in 2 weeks than I had in the entire 10 years we’d known each other. While the trip was excellent and I made memories I’ll never forget, one thing that comes to mind immediately when I think of the senior trip is that God was with us the entire time. I don’t mean this in the Christian school “God is always with us” sense of the phrase. I mean this in a literal, “I witnessed God’s hand at work” kind of way. Having led the 9^th grade trip for 3 years now, I’m well aware when things can go wrong, they will go wrong. We’ve dealt with extreme traffic, broken-down cars, lost phones, arguments, etc. There are few times in life when things have a greater chance of going wrong than when you’re traveling with a group of 29 somewhat inexperienced travelers through 3 foreign language speaking countries for 15 days straight. It was incredible to witness how, over 2 weeks, we experienced no major snags, and the things that did happen to go wrong, worked out in the best possible way.

The best way for me to sum up the Europe trip is to talk about the several providential moments God used to display His handiwork. First, the train from Rome. We were rushed after a tour from the Vatican to walk back to the convent from the train station, grab our bags, and make it back to the train station to buy lunch before our train departed, all in about 45 minutes. We had already set aside bags early that morning, so we just had to quickly collect them. Keep in mind, when traveling with 29 people, the word “quickly” doesn’t exist. Ultimately, we all made it aboard with lunch in hand. Then, we noticed one of the nuns from the convent running down the track trying to flag us down. One of our guides recognized her and met her on the platform. It turns out we had left a baseball and a cell phone at the convent. The nuns who operated the convent didn’t know exactly what time our train left, what platform we’d be leaving from, what car we’d be in, or that the items definitely belonged to us, yet somehow she managed to make it on the platform without a boarding pass and effortlessly find us to hand over our belongings before our train departed.

Our train delivered us to Florence, which brings me to God moment #2. After the mile or so walk through the heat to our hostel, we dropped off our bags and left for a tour of town, complete with a visit to Michelangelo’s David. To get into the museum one must go through security, requiring everyone to remove all personal items to go through the metal detector. Everyone passed through security and continued into the museum. After an hour or so had past, just before we were about to leave the museum, a student, who will remain unnamed, realized his/her money belt was missing. For those of you who haven’t traveled internationally in a large group, a money belt is a small, fanny pack-like pouch one can wear under their clothes that holds all valuables like passports, money, identification, etc. They’re worn to protect valuables from pickpockets, which are pretty common in Europe. Needless to say, a stolen money belt would be a major snag in the flow of the trip, especially since we were leaving the country in a matter of days. The student recognized the missing money belt at the perfect time. The student and Mr. Rush took off to find security, where the money belt was waiting for them, with all valuables inside.

We enjoyed the next few days in Tuscany. The next stop on our trip was Normandy, requiring us to fly into Paris and take a private bus to Bayeux. After a moving D-Day tour in France, we headed to Paris to visit iconic locations like the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre. After our stay in Paris we headed to Munich via train. We arrived at the train station early, but the track our train was leaving from wasn’t announced until just a few moments before it was to depart. Like I said, “quickly” doesn’t exist when traveling with a large group of people and their luggage. Needless to say, we had to rush to our train. This was made more difficult because one student had been having knee problems and was struggling to walk. We made it onto the train, found our seats, and had about 3 hours to relax before the 10 minutes we would have to collect our luggage, get off the train, find our new track, then make it onto our next train to continue onto our final destination. About an hour into our train ride, the train stopped. Our 10-minute connection became even shorter. Eventually the train moved again and an announcement was made we were now 20 minutes behind schedule, meaning we were most likely going to miss our connection. The train to Munich ran every hour or so, and we were instructed we could take the next train and there’d be cars designated for us. When our train finally arrived at the station, we no longer had less than 10 minutes to transfer trains, but instead about 45 minutes. This gave opportunities for bathroom breaks and a more leisurely walk to our new track, which happened to be the platform directly next to the one our train came in on. Suddenly, the stress of transferring trains decreased significantly, especially for the student who was limping the entire way. Then, we were given specific cars that would have open seats. We no longer had assigned seats like we would have on the previous train. We didn’t know what end of the platform our cars would be, and in the interest of making the train, we were instructed to get on the train, whether in the proper car or not, and we’d find our seats from there. When the train pulled in, the cars we needed happened to be directly in front of us, and these cars were first class cars with working WiFi. As we reached Munich, the train slowed. We all began to gather our bags as the screen on the train indicated we were approaching the Munich station. They had made an announcement, but it was in German. A fellow passenger approached our guide and said we were preparing to get off at the wrong stop. In the announcement, they stated there are in fact two Munich stations and the second was the one we’d want to take. Because of God working through that stranger we all remained on the train until the correct stop.

These sum up just a few key God moments we witnessed on the trip. On top of those specific moments, we were warned our trip was going to be “the coldest Europe trip yet.” The weather forecasted rain nearly every day and weather in the 40s and 50s. Though we did have a few days that were wet and chilly, overall, we had beautiful weather. We had two free days on the trip, one in Tuscany and one in Rothenburg. Those two free days, where we had opportunities to walk and explore the small Italian and German towns, had some of the sunniest days and warmest temperatures of the entire trip. Though some of these moments seem small, it really emphasized for me the power of God’s providence. He used the ordinary to demonstrate the extraordinary.

This trip is up there as one of the smoothest and highest-quality traveling experience of each of the 4 times I’ve traveled through Europe. Now, as the self-proclaimed resident Europe trip student/chaperone traveling expert, I’d like to give a few tips to ensure you have the best experience possible.

1. Sleep is for the weak. One thing about the Europe trip you’ll quickly realize is sleep is a rarity on the trip. You’ll probably land at 7am after a long red-eye, sleep deprived, but filled with adrenaline. The first day is the worst. Force yourself to stay awake to push through the jet lag. It does get better, I promise. That doesn’t mean you won’t take any and every chance to try to sleep over the course of the two weeks, so bring a neck pillow.

2. Nobody cares about your complaining. Everyone is cold, tired, and hungry. Your endless complaining about how you didn’t sleep well the night before is only fueling a fire of grumpiness in the group. Keep your negativity to yourself.

3. Respect the guides. This includes the chaperones. You may not always WANT to go on the tour, or you may not WANT to wake up at 3am to catch a flight, but too bad. Every step of the trip is meticulously planned to provide the smoothest experience possible. Debbie from Journeys of Faith worked extremely hard to pick out the perfect guides, select the most conveniently-located hotels, and arrange private busses to transport you from place to place, making the trip as close to perfect as it can be. No detail has gone unnoticed. Also, your chaperones are there to ensure your trip be safe and smooth. The trip is for the students, but the chaperones are there as bumpers to keep everyone in line. The rules put in place aren’t there to ruin your fun. They’re there to ensure you stay safe. By breaking the rules, you’re putting yourself and your chaperones at risk, which leads me to my 4^th tip.

4. You’re not there for you. You’re there for the group. Yes, you deserve to enjoy the trip, but ultimately you’re there with about 20 other people. Keep the needs of others in mind. The group is not going to drop everything to meet your individual desires. Find a small group that wants to do the same free time activities as you. You don’t need to spend the entire trip with the same 4 other people.

5. Go with the flow. Things are going to go wrong. It’s okay. But sometimes, even when things go wrong, they turn out better than they could have. Being flexible when traveling is key. Maybe you won’t have time to eat lunch one travel day. Perhaps you’ll miss a train. But, in the end, everything will be fine. Don’t panic and don’t complain. It’s the job of the guides to figure everything out and they’re doing the best they can.

6. Pack your walking shoes. Imagine a lot of walking, and then add 10,000 steps a day. That’s how much walking you’ll be doing on the Europe trip. Especially at the beginning of the trip, you’ll easily be walking from 8am until 10pm. Over the course of 15 days we traveled about 100 miles on foot alone, not including what we traversed on bike. The trip is non-stop. Even though it’s exhausting, you get to experience so much culture and history. So, bring insoles.

7. Don’t hate, appreciate. You will see so much. It can be overwhelming at times. When I went on the trip as a senior, I realized I didn’t take time to sit back and reflect on anything. I didn’t gain a true appreciation for what I had experienced until months later. Bring a journal. Take a few minutes each night to write about your daily experiences. Having done this for a few trips now, it’s always fun to look back and be reminded of some of the more meaningful experiences. While on the trip, allow yourself to be impacted by what you see. As Mr. Rush put it, “How are you going to let the trip change you?”

8. The trip is what you make it. Attitude is everything. If you go into the trip with low expectations and negativity, then your trip will be underwhelming. Positivity is key. Be flexible when things go wrong. Don’t get frustrated by the little things. There will be moments when even some of your best friends are going to irritate you. Allow yourself to have some space. Be reasonable. Fifteen days of travel in close quarters can become exhausting. Relax as much as you can. Ultimately, if you go in with a positive attitude, your trip will be a positive experience.

I cannot encourage you enough to go on the Europe trip. Yes, it is pricey, but the accommodations and convenience factor of private busses and tours is well worth it and you’re going to learn more than you can imagine. Several of the seniors remarked they felt they learned more in the first few days of the trip than they did in all of their time at Summit. That isn’t to discredit the quality of education you get at Summit, but instead speaks to the value of literally walking the streets Paul walked and taking steps on the beach where soldiers flooded into France on D-Day. In addition to the valuable cultural experiences and lasting memories formed with your classmates, the Summit Europe trip provides a tactile experience with history, something you can’t get from a textbook.

In all, I’m so blessed to have had the opportunity to travel on the senior trip this year. On top of making lasting memories and learning more than I can fathom, I was most impacted by the enduring sovereignty of God through every moment.

Poems

Leave a reply

David Lane

Gray

//Maybe things appear gray

Maybe that’s okay

Because when fog flutters away

Love makes its stay with colors coated in the grandeur of gray//

Tears Speak

//Tears speak

When words are foggy photographs

Let your canvas be your cheek

Hide with me until the time has past//

The dance

//An ebb, a flow

A dance so slow

Ever-moving,

Resting still

Here am I,

To abide//

Emmie

//A flame gathers my scattered gaze, she remedies the dark

Holding my sight for ransom

With an incandescent spark

Offering grace, she shows me beauty she masters the dark

Focused on her mystery, I’m guided by her spark//

My chair

//Everyone ought to have a spot.

A place characterized by thought.

Or maybe not.

It could just be a spot, to sit and rot.

But at least it is your own

A nook, a haven, a throne.

A place to be free, a place to sit and see, a spot to simply be//

Mist

//A misty mystery has my eye

Hosting heroes in severed skies

Rocky ridges steeply staring

Toward elusive elegance,

Reappearing.

I can’t see but I can trust

Beyond the mist,

In the mystery,

There is Love//

Sky’s End

//A friend beyond the horizon

Farther than the sky’s end

There, I have a rendezvous

Home bleeding through

As Hope closes in

My friend beyond the horizon//

Ahead

//Look, Wooded glades and a frosty haze, wander forth and find your place

The clearing appearing, mirroring the healing feeling of an open sky ceiling

Is it not freeing? Seeing and breathing in this spacious clearing?//

What’s in a Name?: The Semantics of ‘Ēl Theophoric Personal Names in Late Iron Age Israel

Leave a reply

Caitlin Montgomery Hubler

YHWH, the traditional God of Judaism, has a name so holy that for millennia worshippers have dared not even to speak it. Special rituals surrounded the word both written and spoken. When Jewish scribes translated their Scriptures, the divine name would not be transcribed but would be replaced by the equivalent of “LORD.” The divine name was considered so holy as to be literally unpronounceable. To this day, in many religious circles it is considered highly offensive to speak the name of YHWH. While this current state of affairs is often taken as assurance of the inherent bond between YHWH and Israelite religion, recent scholarship has called this assumption into question. Various lines of evidence seem to point to the fact Israel once shared in the polytheism of its Ancient Near Eastern neighbors.¹

Undoubtedly, there are portions of the Hebrew Bible that affirm a monotheistic understanding of God. Isaiah 45:18 proclaims, “I am the Lord, and there is no other.” In Deuteronomy 6:4, in the context of teaching the Israelites new commandments, Moses speaks, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.” In these and other passages, YHWH is taken to be one and only divine being, certainly the only one worthy of worship. Yet there are other sections of the Bible that seem to offer a quite different portrait of Israelite theology. For example, later on in Deuteronomy, Moses sings of El Elyon, chief god in the Canaanite divine pantheon, giving underling god YHWH the people of Israel over which to rule.² The Psalmist records a scene of YHWH sitting in a divine council among other gods.³ Multiple texts mention both YHWH and El but as separate figures.⁴ In general, these passages specifically affirming monotheism are typically dated later in Israel’s history, while the passages that seem to affirm polytheism have been dated earlier.⁵

Thus, in order to accurately trace the development of Israelite religion over time, we must recognize the diverse historical and theological contexts in which the various authors of the Hebrew Bible wrote. There are varying theologies in the Hebrew Bible affixed to different time periods in Israel’s history. It is through examination of such theologies and the historical circumstances in which they arose that we might begin to reconstruct the development of the religion over time. Because the Israelites were a relatively numerically insignificant people group in the Ancient Near East constantly being dominated by larger and more powerful nations, there were certain ideas about religion and divinity in the Ancient Near East that could not have helped but bleed into Israelite ideas about God. This is simply the milieu out of which Israel emerged. For instance, the idea of a divine pantheon permeated the Ancient Near Eastern religious landscape. The most powerful god in the pantheon was El: supreme god of Canaanite religion.⁶ El was conceived of as the father and chief of the divine pantheon. At least one scholar has suggested one stage in early Israelite theology, perhaps around the time of the exodus, included El as head of the pantheon directing YHWH, his warrior god based off of texts like the aforementioned Deuteronomy 32:8-9.⁷

But disparate biblical passages are not the only access the modern historian has to ancient Israelite piety. Almost all ancient Semitic names are theophoric: they convey information about the god worshipped by the bearer of that name. Often, these names are composed of a subject with a divine element (a form of YHWH or ‘ēl, for example) and a predicate (a verb denoting the god’s action). Scholars have thus been able to avail themselves of both biblical and epigraphic names in order to reconstruct the piety of ancient peoples. When carefully interpreted, theophoric names can be an important piece in a larger puzzle reconstructing ancient religion.

Perhaps the most significant ‘ēl name mentioned in the Bible is that of Israel itself. Though YHWH is the god traditionally associated with the people Israel, a closer look at the name’s meaning reveals a more complicated picture. The divine element present in “Israel” is ‘ēl, not YHWH. Though the etymology of the word is contentious, possible meanings include “May El Combat” and “El is just.”⁸ For this reason, combined with the aforementioned biblical passages that appear to refer to El as a deity distinct from YHWH, Mark Smith maintains the original God of Israel was, in fact, El.⁹ There would have been nothing preventing the adoption of a Yahwistic name, such as “yisra-yahweh,” or “yisra-yah.”¹⁰ In the absence of this, then, it is reasonable to assume Israel initially perceived El as head of the divine pantheon, and only later came to recognize YHWH as the one true God.

Indeed, non-Yahwistic names abound throughout the Hebrew Bible as well as in contemporaneous epigraphic data. The most abundant non-Yahwistic divine element is, as might be expected from Israel’s name, ‘ēl. However, ‘ēl names occur significantly more liberally during certain portions of Israel’s history, particularly prior to the time of David. Even within the biblical corpus, one is able to observe a shift around the time of David from predominantly ‘ēl names to YHWH names.¹¹ This shift appears to be concurrent with the phenomenon of pantheon reduction in Israel.¹² One is able to observe a general tendency within the Hebrew Bible wherein the worship of the whole pantheon of gods commonplace in the Ancient Near East dwindled down further and further until YHWH was the only acceptable recipient of Israelite worship.¹³ Dennis Pardee has located this major religious shift throughout the second half of the Iron Age.¹⁴

All of this is complicated by the fact much later in Israel’s history, after the exile, ‘ēl is clearly meant as the generic term for “god.” Independent scholar Ryan Thomas makes the point “there can be little doubt based on its prevalence in post-exilic Hebrew names that the theophoric ‘ēl was used as a designation for the national deity YHWH.”¹⁵ Scholars thus run into problems when making straightforward inferences about ancient Israelite piety solely based off the divine element ‘ēl in personal names. Thomas continues, stating “the meaning of the term ‘ēl is often ambiguous in personal names, since it can be used as a proper name, an appellative, or a reference to the personal god, ‘my god.’”¹⁶

Thus, at some point in the development of Israelite religion, the semantics of ‘ēl in personal names shifted. While it once referred to the Canaanite god El, father and chief of the divine pantheon, it eventually came to be used as a generic term for “god.” The question of precisely when, why, and how the semantics of ‘ēl shifted is of great interest for biblical scholars looking to reconstruct ancient Israelite religious history. For purposes of this paper, I wish to focus on the “when” question. What is the semantic meaning of the divine element ‘ēl in theophoric names at the time of the late Iron Age? Does ‘ēl refer to the high Canaanite god El, or does it function as a generic term for “god” such that, for the Israelites, it is essentially interchangeable with YHWH? Throughout this paper, I will argue theophoric personal ‘ēl names at the time of the late Iron Age are evidence of lingering fluid notions of divinity within Israel on a familial level.

Only fairly recently in biblical scholarship has it been considered ‘ēl in personal names may not be a title for YHWH. Jeaneane Fowler simply assumes in her 1988 study the both divine elements are semantically equivalent.¹⁷ Jeffrey Tigay has argued for the same in 1986.¹⁸ However, new research in the field of onomastics by Ryan Thomas does not allow for such a facile identification of these divine elements. My hope is through my presentation and interpretation of his research, what has up until this point been a comfortable consensus view within biblical scholarship will be problematized.

In the Ancient Near East, each theophoric name contains both a divine element, typically as subject, followed by a predicate. For example, the biblical name Abijah (‘abiyah) contains the YHWH divine element and means “YHWH is my father.” Scholars have long been in the practice of putting together collections of theophoric names in order to make comparisons between YHWH and other Ancient Near Eastern deities in the conception of ancient Israelite worshippers.

Recently, Ryan Thomas has combined the work of several earlier scholars to create a composite database of late Iron Age Hebrew personal names.¹⁹ Importantly, both biblical and epigraphic data are thus included in this set. Thomas points out methodological problems associated with the sole use of biblical names to reconstruct ancient Israelite religion. Uncertainty about the dating of particular texts as well as the possibility of later redaction present issues with a straightforward interpretation of personal names in biblical texts. Thomas reminds us, “In all likelihood, the names stem from disparate time periods and reflect different stages in the development of a mono-YHWHistic sensibility.”²⁰ Another strength of Thomas’s collection is its exclusion of possibly inauthentic archaeological material.²¹

When Thomas compared the predicates of the personal names, he found half of all the names occur with predicates attested with either theophoric element (YHWH or ‘ēl). That is to say at least half of the time, YHWH and ‘ēl are essentially interchangeable in terms of the actions they perform or the descriptions afforded to them. Given this evidence alone, he says, “We could reasonably assume that YHWH was the regular proper name of the chief Israelite deity during the monarchic period and later, while El was an additional title reflecting the deity’s historical development from or conflation with Canaanite El.”²²

While he acknowledges this evidence may be interpreted as an interchangeability of YHWH and El, thereby upholding the consensus view, a closer look at the data complicates this conclusion. More important than the similarities between the predicative elements are the differences. As it turns out, though half of the YHWH and ‘ēl personal names occur with predicates attested in both, this occurs with a relatively small number of predicates. The actual number of predicates able to be used with either YHWH or ‘ēl is rather low, at 21%. Many (58%) of the predicates are attested only with the YHWH theophoric, but few (20%) are attested only with an ‘ēl theophoric.²³ Because of the fact 78% of the individual predicates are exclusive to either YHWH or ‘ēl, Thomas sees reason to believe their onomastic profiles were distinct to the extent they may have still been conceived of as separate deities.²⁴

In fact, some predicates exclusive to YHWH and ‘ēl are found in multiple instances, increasing the likelihood these are part of distinctive onomastic profiles.²⁵ Thus, there are predicates occurring abundantly with ‘yah that have no equivalent in ‘ēl, and vice versa. To make things more interesting, predicates unique to each name can be grouped into particular categories, allowing us to make generalizations about the conception of each deity’s character. For example, the predicates of YHWH names tend to be more closely associated with the following characteristics: strong and powerful, warrior-like, protective, and triumphant, immanent, beautiful, engaged in the birth process, acting as a witness and intercessor, with a need to advance his claims of lordship.²⁶ In many ways, these predicates cohere with the image of YHWH as “warrior god who intervenes in favor of his people.”²⁷ Predicates attested only with El names, on the other hand, emphasize general beneficence, transcendence and firmness, judgeship and authority, force behind the birth process, and his identity as a covenant partner.²⁸ Likewise, this picture of El fits quite nicely with what we know of El as the powerful father of the divine pantheon: the elderly bearded figure who sits enthroned among the divine council.²⁹

One seemingly important difference between YHWH and El deals with the kinship terminology specific to each. Throughout the Ancient Near East, kinship terms are used alongside divine elements in personal names as “divine epithets or appellatives.”³⁰ Certain epithets, such as “paternal uncle” and “father-in-law,” are seen abundantly with ‘ēl but never with YHWH. In contrast, “brother” is attested at least 28 times with YHWH but never with ‘ēl.³¹ YHWH is, emphatically, “the divine brother,” in contrast to El whose profile is more “parental and ancestral.”³²

Based off of these unique emphases, Thomas summarizes what he takes to be the overall difference between YHWH and El: “YHWH is implied to be more of an active, young, interventionist, and warrior deity, whose lordship must be asserted, whereas El is more transcendent, abstract, and secure in his authoritative position.”³³ Thomas’s ultimate conclusion on this is we should consider the possibility YHWH and ‘ēl were actually just still separate deities throughout the monarchic period for both Israel and Judah.

There may also be distinctions made between YHWH and El in other late Iron Age epigraphic data. Kuntillet ‘Ajrud has revealed various inscriptions wherein El is praised. While it has generally been taken for granted that, in these cases, El is to be identified with YHWH, Mark Smith has pointed out this is not necessarily the case. It is equally possible El still referred to the high Canaanite god who is the father of the pantheon.³⁴

The divine elements present in Israelite personal names are clearly of religious significance, but the question remains as to what level of religious significance they occupy. We must recall there are different levels of religion in the Ancient Near East: familial, local, and national. It is not necessarily the case all three of these will cohere, though neither is it necessary they will be incompatible.³⁵ Albertz and Schmitt point to the curious absence of any official Israelite tradition in personal names. There are no references to those specific elements of the Hebrew narrative one might expect if one’s name was intended to express the official national religion: elements such as exodus, conquest, kingship, Sinai, Zion, or Bethel.³⁶ “The primary traditions of official Israelite state and temple religion are thus almost entirely absent from both biblical and epigraphic names.” Nor do official cultic activities make appearances in the predicates.³⁷ It is merely the divine element itself, whether YHWH or ‘ēl, that shows up in personal names.

This absence does not suggest a lack of familiarity or disagreement on the part of everyday Israelites with the official religious traditions of their polity. Though familial religion is distinct from state religion, this difference does not necessarily mean there is a conflict between them.³⁸ It merely reinforces the separation of religious spheres of influence present in most Ancient Near Eastern societies more generally. Albertz uses the term “internal religious pluralism” to describe this phenomenon, which may be more helpful than “syncretism” in describing the ways in which social stratification can create divisions between family and state religion.³⁹ As Dennis Pardee comments, “We may conclude that the proper names inform us of a different and broader pantheon in the popular religion perceivable in the proper names, as compared with the official religion of the Bible and of most of the extra-biblical inscriptions….”⁴⁰ It is thus safe to conclude the religious experiences that resulted in names for children were “almost entirely independent of the official state and temple religion.”⁴¹

Rather than relying on the events of their polity’s collective past, Israelite families contained their own reservoirs of religious experience from which to draw when naming a child. Names were often influenced by the religious experiences of mothers during events surrounding the birth of a child. After giving birth, mothers were mandated to spend a given period of time separated from their families as a “cryptic reflection of the intimate encounter with the divine that has happened during birth.”⁴² It was during this time the mother would come up with a name for the child, often influenced by the religious experiences they had during their period of confinement after the birth. During the joyful reuniting of the mother and new baby with the rest of the family, there was a feast during which the father would have the chance to accept or reject the name chosen by the mother.

Thus, a very robust set of rituals surrounding pregnancy and birth abound in ancient Israel. Indeed, the event of childbirth was an incredibly important time in an Israelite woman’s life, believed to be a supernatural intervention of God.⁴³ As a result, childbirth held incredibly significant events in the life of the entire family. This is substantiated by the large number of personal names that directly refer to the event of childbirth: a remarkable 25.9% of total ancient Israelite personal names contain some reference to birth within their predicates.⁴⁴ The largest subgroup of these names is composed from the verb natan “to give,” such as ‘ēlnatan “‘ēl has given [the child]” and Netanyahu “YHWH has given [the child].”⁴⁵

Thus, it is most reasonable to assume it is the religious piety of the family, especially the mother, that provides the impetus for the inclusion or exclusion of either the YHWH or ‘ēl divine element. The fact there exists such a robust onomasticon for ‘ēl, one able to be distinguished from YHWH, begs the question of interpretation. While it is theoretically possible this incongruence in onomastic profiles is merely an accident of historical discovery, and archeologists may one day unearth more epigraphic data to suggest YHWH and El were indeed conceived of more similarly, it is not likely this “incremental aggregation will dramatically alter the basic picture provided by the biblical record as well as the accumulation of inscriptional material over the last century.”⁴⁶ At any rate, we must reconstruct history with the tools available to us today and be willing to revise them should contradictory evidence come to light.

A deeper understanding of the unique ways in which Ancient Near Easterners conceived of divinity in general is helpful in interpreting these results. I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas there are clearly distinct onomastic profiles associated with YHWH and El. However, I want to challenge the idea distinct onomastic profiles automatically necessitate two ontologically distinct gods. While this is a fairly typical assumption for those of us steeped in Western civilization to make, it is problematic when applied to Ancient Near Eastern religion. Benjamin Sommer helpfully elucidates: “For Ancient Near Eastern religions, gods could have multiple bodies and fluid selves. Greek religion assumed a basic resemblance between mortals and immortals in this respect, whereas Ancient Near Eastern religions posited a radical contrast between them.”⁴⁷ Thus, worship of two differently named gods ought not be blindly taken as an expression of polytheism. In fact, Ancient Near Eastern ideas about gods are better described along a spectrum of fluidity vs. nonfluidity than one of polytheism vs. monotheism.⁴⁸

Sommer points to two sorts of divine fluidity present in the Ancient Near East, the first of which is called “fragmentation.”⁴⁹ Examples exist of multiple gods with a single name who “somehow are and are not the same deity.”⁵⁰ In this sense, one might find different “iterations” of the same god at specific locales. This sort of divine fluidity is found among gods of the same name. A possible allusion to this concept is found in the epigraphic evidence at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, which mentions “YHWH of Teman.”⁵¹ This may have been what the Deuteronomist was targeting in the Shma.⁵²

However, for purposes of conflation of ‘ēl with YHWH, I am more interested in the second sort of fluidity Sommer outlines, involving “the overlap of identity between gods who are usually discrete selves.”⁵³ He continues by describing several Akkadian texts that “describe one god as an aspect of another god,” and others that “refer to two gods as a single god even though the same texts also refer to each of these gods individually.”⁵⁴ Even with gods of two different names, this occurs. One prominent example of this concept of fluidity is found in the Babylonian creation epic, the Enuma Elish. At one point in this poem, Anu, Ea, and Enlil, the three high gods of Mesopotamia, are all equated with young Marduk.⁵⁵ However, perhaps a more instructive example for our purposes is found in this late-second-millennium hymn to the god Marduk:

Sin is your divinity, Anu your sovereignty

Dagan is your lordship, Enlil your kingship,

Adad is your might, wise Ea your perception,

Nabu, holder of the tablet stylus, is your skill,

Your leadership (in battle) is Ninurta, your might Nergal…⁵⁶

Sommer suggests an “incipient monotheism”⁵⁷ in this hymn: while it makes reference to gods other than Marduk, it reveals its writers have begun to conceive of the personalities of these other gods as extensions of Marduk rather than ontologically distinct beings. Given the rampant cultural diffusion in the Ancient Near East, it is thus reasonable to suppose even in their pre-exilic references to ‘ēl, ancient Israelites did not conceive of El as ontologically distinct from YHWH but as a manifestation of a particular grouping of YHWH’s qualities.⁵⁸

Therefore, it is possible in drawing upon the older figure of El in the naming of their children, Israelites of the late Iron Age were actually making a statement about YHWH: mapping onto him characteristics that had, up until that point, been associated only with El. The ancient Israelites were no strangers to the fact El originally referred to the high Canaanite father of the divine pantheon. This would have been a deliberate move that would have expanded rather than constricted the repertoire of YHWH.

This is reasonable partly because it is precisely the move the biblical authors would eventually fully make in explaining Israel’s prior worship of El. The qualities that once belonged to El are mapped onto YHWH in new ways that reinforce the new understanding of YHWH’s transcendence and lordship over all. For example, the Psalmist equates YHWH with Elyon, an epithet hitherto used only of El.⁵⁹ When Israel adopted YHWH as its chief god rather than El, it did not break whole cloth from previous worship traditions. Instead, as Smith states, “At a variety of sites, Yahweh was incorporated into the older figure El, who belonged to Israel’s original West Semitic religious heritage.”⁶⁰ The title ‘ēl berit, “El of the covenant,” became a signifier for YHWH.⁶¹ When YHWH first reveals his name in Exodus 3, he does so while implying Israel’s ancestors had worshipped him under a different name.⁶²

To make this statement is emphatically not to suggest YHWH and El were essentially interchangeable in the minds of ancient Israelites at the time of the late Iron Age. Again, there does not appear to be firm evidence denoting this phenomenon until after the exile. What I am instead proposing is an intermediate step between the Israelite familial worship of El as a fluid deity and the worship of YHWH as a non-fluid deity: one in which specific states of being and activities traditionally attributed to El are beginning to be thought of as expressions of YHWH’s power. Just as Adad is called the expression of Marduk’s might, so perhaps El had begun to be conceived of as the expression of YHWH’s transcendence.

There is precedent for such a fluid understanding of divinity within ancient Israel as well. Pardee comments:

Moreover, besides the name of the state deity Yahweh, there were several other acceptable divine names which could have been preferred names in one family or clan; these may even have been perceived as separate deities or hypostates — a situation comparable in some ways to the Christian trinity, which theologians have explained to acolytes as consisting of a three-fold expression of one (or the like), but which a significant number of Christians go on understanding simply as three.⁶³

These words are rich with meaning, particularly as we seek to conceive of possible relationships between ancient Israelite worship and Christian theology. Though non-fluid understandings of the divine appear to be quite foreign to many of our contemporary western and Christian notions of divinity, there may be less of this distance than is typically supposed. The concept of the Trinity, that God is somehow both three-in-one and one-in-three, has become central to Christian identity. In Trinitarian theology, it is said each person both is God and yet is not identical to the other persons. To the post-Enlightenment western rationalist, this seems to be an insurmountable illogical denial of the logical property of commutative identity. However, this understanding of divine possibility may have fit especially well in the mind of an ancient Israelite.

One God with multiple personalities, each carrying out a distinct function, can be seen as a parallel to non-fluid ancient Israelite understandings of YHWH and El. It is beyond the scope of this paper to speculate as to whether these ancient notions of non-fluidity played any sort of causal historical role in the development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. All the same, we are able to look back on such notions and see definitive parallels in contemporary understandings of a Christian God who is, in some sense, fluid. That such echoes of fluidity persist in Christian theology helpfully collapses some of the distance between the late Iron Age Israelite worship and contemporary religious practice.

The process of pantheon reduction by which YHWH assumed his place as non-fluid Lord of the whole universe was a complex, centuries-long process in Israel. Studying this process, however, is more than mere intellectual gymnastics, and is of value to the Christian theologian. For some, the fact YHWH achieved his place in Israelite history through a slow, meandering process is a threat to YHWH’s power. However, there are other theological angles from which to view this historical development. When Ancient Israelites began to transfer worship to YHWH previously offered to El, they were making a statement that reflected their evolving knowledge of God that preserved the glorious process of an evolving awareness of the totality of God’s power. YHWH is not only the immanent advocate and brother, but is also the transcendent, immensely powerful Father, enjoying power over all of creation. That God is revealed incrementally to God’s people in ways they are able to perceive is a timeless principle of Christian theology, one we would do well to remember still today.

Endnotes

¹ Smith, Mark. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 10.

² Deuteronomy 32:8-9. All biblical references are from The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. 1989. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989).

³ Psalm 82:1; 6-7.

⁴ Genesis 49:18; 24-25, Numbers 23-24.

⁵ Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 10.

⁶ Ibid., 143.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Römer, Thomas. The Invention of God. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015), 73.

⁹ Smith, Mark. The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 7.

¹⁰ Römer, 27-29. Yahwistic names most often occur with an abbreviation of YHWH as the divine element, such as “yah” or “yahu.”

¹¹Breed, Brennan. “Where Does YHWH Come From?” Lecture in “Emergence of Yahwism.” (B614. Decatur, GA: Columbia Theological Seminary, September 19, 2017).

¹² Seth Sanders, “When the Personal Became Political: An Onomastic Perspective on The Rise of Yahwism.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 4 (2015), 59.

¹³ Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 144.

¹⁴ Pardee, Dennis. “An Evaluation of the Proper Names from Ebla from a West Semitic Perspective: Pantheon Distribution According to Genre,” in Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving: Papers of a Symposium in Rome July 15–17, 1985 (ed. A. Archi; Archivi Reali di Ebla: Studi, I; Rome: Missione Archaeologica Italiana in Siria, 1988), 119–151.

¹⁵ Thomas, Ryan. 2017. “Yahweh and El in Hebrew Personal Names: Identity or Difference?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Boston, MA. November 19. http://www.religionofancientpalestine.com/?page_id=690. Accessed 12/10/2017.

¹⁶ Thomas.

¹⁷ Fowler, Jeaneane. Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 30.

¹⁸ Tigay, Jeffrey H. You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. (Atlanta: Scholars Press: 1986).

¹⁹ Thomas’s database includes previous work from Albertz (2012), Fowler (1988), Zadok (1988), and Rechenmacher (2012).

²⁰ Thomas.

²¹ In their essay “A Provenance Study of Hebrew Seals and Seal Impressions: A Statistical Analysis,” Andrew G. Vaughn and Carolyn Pillers-Dobler warn of the dangers of including material from unknown provenances in one’s research. There are “discernible differences in artifacts from known and unknown provenance and the findings suggest that there may be artifacts of unknown provenance that are not authentic.”

²² Thomas.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ Römer, 47.

²⁸ Thomas.

²⁹ Smith, 136.

³⁰ Thomas.

³¹ Ibid.

³² Ibid.

³³ Ibid.

³⁴ Smith, 141.

³⁵ Albertz, Ranier. “Family Religion in Ancient Israel,” in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, ed. John Bodel and Saul M. Olyan. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), 90.

³⁶ Albertz & Schmitt, 262.

³⁷ Ibid., 265.

³⁸ Pardee, 144.

³⁹ Albertz, 91.

⁴⁰ Pardee, 133.

⁴¹ Ibid., 269.

⁴² Ibid., 287. The period of confinement for new mothers differed based upon the sex of the baby. While the birth of a boy required seven days of isolation, the birth of a girl required fourteen.

⁴³ Ibid.,269.

⁴⁴ Albertz & Schmitt, 277.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 287.

⁴⁶ Thomas.

⁴⁷ Sommer, Benjamin. D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 12.

⁴⁸ Sommer, 30.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 13.

⁵⁰ Ibid. Here Sommer provides the main example of the goddess Ishtar. For example, “Ishtar or Arbela” and “Ishtar of Nineveh” are listed as separate deities on the same treaty, each with separate instructions that seem to presume some degree of distinction between them.

⁵¹ Römer, 163.

⁵² Römer, 202. The insistence that YHWH is “one” is likely a reflection of the fact that though at one time distinct YHWHs were worshipped at different locales, now YHWH is only to be worshipped at one location. In other words, “there is only the YHWH of Jerusalem, but there is no YHWH of Samaria, YHWH of Teman, YHWH of Bethel, and so on.

⁵³ Ibid., 16.

⁵⁴ Ibid.

⁵⁵ Ibid.

⁵⁶ Ibid. In another late-second-millennium hymn, the god Ninurta is praised by reference to the multiple gods and goddesses that make up various parts of his body.

⁵⁷ Ibid.

⁵⁸ From this evidence alone, it might be interpreted YHWH is an expression of El’s qualities rather than the other way around. However, Israel is clearly on a historical trajectory toward the nonfluid and monotheistic worship of YHWH, reflected in the fact the majority of theophoric names are Yahwistic. Thus, I believe it makes more sense to suppose the qualities are being added to YHWH rather than El.

⁵⁹ Psalm 83:18: “Let them know that you alone, whose name is the LORD (YHWH), are the Most High (Elyon) over all the earth.”

⁶⁰ Smith, 140.

⁶¹ Ibid. See Judges 9:46, cf. 8:33; 9:4.

⁶² Exodus 3:15-16.

⁶³ Pardee, 130.

Bibliography

Albertz, Ranier. “Family Religion in Ancient Israel,” in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, ed. John Bodel and Saul M. Olyan. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008).

Albertz, Ranier and Rüdiger Schmitt. Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012).

Breed, Brennan. “Where Does YHWH Come From?” Lecture in “Emergence of Yahwism.” (B614. Decatur, GA: Columbia Theological Seminary, September 19, 2017).

Fowler, Jeaneane D. Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988).

“I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. German. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006).

New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean, and Cuneiform, ed. Meir Lubetski. (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007).

Pardee, Dennis. “An Evaluation of the Proper Names from Ebla from a West Semitic Perspective: Pantheon Distribution According to Genre,” in Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving: Papers of a Symposium in Rome July 15–17, 1985 (ed. A. Archi; Archivi Reali di Ebla: Studi, I; Rome: Missione Archaeologica Italiana in Siria, 1988), 119–151.

Römer, Thomas. The Invention of God. (Cambrdge: Harvard University Press, 2015).

Sanders, Seth. “When the Personal Became Political: An Onomastic Perspective on The Rise of Yahwism.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 4 (2015): 78-105.

Smith, Mark. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

Thomas, Ryan. “Yahweh and El in Hebrew Personal Names: Identity or Difference?” Society of Biblical Literature 2017 Annual Meeting.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. (Atlanta: Scholars Press: 1986).

Zevit, Ziony. The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. (London: Continuum, 2001).

Augustinian Temperance in the Market System

Leave a reply

J. Alex Touchet

Christians have struggled for centuries over wealth; while the Bible teaches Christians should be selfless and charitable to the poor, it also teaches those who follow God will be blessed. At first, these two themes may appear to be contradictory. How may one be materially blessed (Deuteronomy 8:18), but avoid pursuing “treasures on earth” (Matthew 6:19)? Further investigation reveals these two themes are not a dichotomy but work together to provide a biblical foundation for a market-based economy through the biblical definitions of private property and stewardship. This synthesis is revealed by Augustine’s “ordering of love” in the Christian life.

Past and contemporary theologians, preachers, and others have leaned from one extreme to the other regarding the appropriate biblical perspective on individual wealth. Prosperity gospel preachers such as Joel Osteen and others are renowned for straying to one far side of the aisle, spouting proclamations such as, “God wants us to prosper financially, to have plenty of money, to fulfill the destiny He has laid out for us.” Some are not so vague: “Georgia-based preacher Creflo Dollar shockingly assured his congregation: ‘I own two Rolls-Royces and didn’t pay a dime for them. Why? Because while I’m pursuing the Lord those cars are pursuing me.’”¹ Those on the other side of the aisle might go as far as to proclaim the New Covenant has upended the Old Testament precepts of private property and trade and propose Jesus was essentially teaching a form of Communism, utilizing verses such as Acts 2:44-45 and James 5:1-6.

Augustine provides Christians with a solution to the apparent dichotomy between wealth and the Christian lifestyle. In his work On Christian Doctrine he presents the value of temperance in Christian living. Augustine explains how a Christian must objectively evaluate all things in his life and keep them in the proper hierarchy of importance:

…So that he neither loves what he ought not to love, nor fails to love what he ought to love, nor loves that more which ought to be loved less, nor loves that equally which ought to be loved either less or more, nor loves that less or more which ought to be loved equally.²

Accordingly, the Christian must love God before he loves material possessions. This understanding gives passages such as 1 Timothy 6:10 clarity: wealth does corrupt, but only when it is loved before God. If the Christian has properly ordered his loves, he is not required by his faith to abandon all individual belongings, though he should be aware of the danger of temptation. “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15, English Standard Version).

The synthesis Augustine provides also sheds light on the biblical foundations for a free-market system. Even though the market system enables, and even encourages, the accumulation of wealth, it is not inherently unbiblical; the Christian knows it is God “who gives [him] power to get wealth, that He may confirm his covenant…” (Deuteronomy 8:18). Hugh G. M. Williamson points out, specifically in the Old Testament context, that “possessions are thus not held for one’s own benefit but for the service of the God who gives in order to do his will in the care and protection of those with less or no means to represent themselves in society.”³ With the addition of Adam Smith’s conceptualization of the market’s “invisible hand,” the market system becomes a place where Christians can contribute to the distribution of wealth among society through free trade. Private property and the market system are not inherently sinful conventions; rather, they are gifts from God.

References

¹ Stephens, R. J. (2015). “Understanding the Prosperity Gospel.” Fides Et Historia, 47(2), 55-59.

² St. Augustine. On Christian Doctrine (p. 18). Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

³ Williamson, H. M. (2011). “A Christian view of wealth and possessions: an Old Testament perspective.” Ex Auditu, 271-19.

“Hamming It Up”: The Popularization of American Biblical Literalism

Leave a reply

Caitlin Montgomery Hubler

May 28, 2007 was a day many Christians across America had eagerly anticipated. Four thousand visitors flocked from all over the country to Petersburg, Kentucky for the grand opening of the Creation Museum. Judging by its appealing modern architectural style alone, the Creation Museum could be mistaken for any other natural history museum. But setting foot inside the seventy-five thousand square foot architectural feat would quickly reveal it was not like other museums. Inside the Planetarium, creationist cosmological models are depicted in opposition to the Big Bang model. Over 52 videos guide visitors through the exhibits, covering everything from the scientific plausibility of a worldwide flood to the societal consequences of belief in evolution.

The mastermind behind it all? Australian-born American Ken Ham. Despite holding only a Bachelor’s degree in applied science, Ham has spent his career persuading Christians and non-Christians alike of the dangers of belief in evolution. Founder of Answers in Genesis, the creationist ministry responsible for the funding of the Creation Museum, Ham is an influential speaker and key voice in the Young Earth Creationism movement. Central to the group’s identity is a rejection of biological evolution based on the belief the biblical book of Genesis dictates a literal history of the origin of the world. Because Genesis outlines a creation that occurred in six days, proponents of Young Earth Creationism also reject the age of the earth held by modern scientists (approximately 14 billion years) in favor of what they believe to be the biblical model (6,000-10,000 years).

Despite the virtual consensus among credentialed biologists regarding the explanatory power of evolution, the museum has been a success economically: Answers in Genesis estimated in 2013 approximately 1.9 million people visited the museum, with at least 250,000 visitors annually. Furthermore, a 2013 Gallup poll revealed the beliefs espoused by the Creation Museum are far from marginal: 42% of Americans reject evolution in favor of Young Earth Creationism (Newport). At this point, we must pause and ask the question: what term is best used as a descriptor for Ken Ham and his followers? Fundamentalist? Evangelical? Biblicist? For reasons beyond the scope of this paper, I believe there are problems with equating the hermeneutics of Ken Ham with any of these terms. Thus, throughout this paper, I will simply use the term “biblical literalist” to refer to the nature of Ham’s hermeneutic.

This intriguing example of American ideological diversity begs the question: what is the driving hermeneutical force behind Ken Ham’s interpretation of Genesis? This is a complicated question without a single, straightforward answer. In order to better understand the nature and source of Ham’s hermeneutics, one must take a step back and examine him within the larger context of American Christianity in the 20^th century. Comprehending the unique challenges faced during this time period will aid us in grasping the motivations that make Ham’s beliefs so compelling to him and his followers. In particular, a crisis of authority within American Christianity caused by higher criticism of the Bible and Darwinian evolution has contributed to the biblical literalism championed by leaders like Ham. His hermeneutic propounds a particular response to this crisis: a response whose nature is especially explicable due to the influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism, shifting scientific paradigms, and a uniquely American spirit of religious entrepreneurialism.

Higher biblical criticism’s rising prominence in the 18^th century began to shape new attitudes toward the Bible that were troubling for some Christians. The mere existence of fields such as “redaction criticism” had troubling implications for certain biblical scholars who equated the authority of God’s word with particularly modernist views about its transmission. To suggest there had been alterations to a divinely inspired text, in the minds of modernist American Christians, was to suggest the unthinkable: that God was a liar. For Protestants in particular, for whom Scriptural authority largely replaced ecclesial authority, the discovery of the messiness of the Bible posed a threat to faith’s very foundation. Likewise, Christians were disconcerted by the fact the field of biblical studies was increasingly becoming separated from theology. For those who saw the Bible as God’s special revelation of Godself to humankind, the idea an entire lifetime could be spent studying it without professing faith in God had to be indicative of a failure in method.

Furthermore, historical criticism seemed particularly at odds with Protestant ideals of the perspicuity of Scripture. When years of study in Greek and Hebrew are necessary before one can arrive at a realistic picture of “the world behind the text,” the Bible becomes impossibly complicated for the layperson to interpret. When scholars claimed this esoteric knowledge was not only useful, but necessary for a true interpretation of the Bible, the relevance of Scripture for the common person was challenged.

An equally threatening phenomenon was concurrently taking place: the rise of Darwinian evolution. In addition to the radically different timetables between Genesis and evolution regarding the origin of humanity, Darwin’s insights opened new doors into the history of humankind, threatening certain traditional religious ideas about the nature of humans. Rather than being specially set apart from the rest of creation, as seems to be indicated in Genesis, according to Darwin’s theory, humans were simply more evolved forms of primates. It forced Christians to rethink what it meant for humans to be created “in the image of God.” If humans were merely the product of natural selection, it becomes more difficult to claim humans were intentionally set apart from the very beginning to be like God, as Genesis claims. Moreover, humans only came about by the cold, heartless means of squashing other species and “beating them out” for survival over millions of years of suffering. Is this really what the “image of God” means?

Christians were compelled to respond to these threats. With the rise of higher criticism and the growing popularity of Darwinian evolution, Christians found themselves at a crossroads in the mid-20^th century. Cultural tides were shifting as well. With the advent of the 1960s came the Civil Rights Movement, the “Sexual Revolution,” events in Vietnam, and rising levels of religious pluralism, each accentuating the need for an immutable source of truth from which direction could be gleaned for a changing world (Beckman). In this vacuum of authority, Ken Ham saw two choices: jettison the Bible as culturally authoritative, or stand ever firmer in defense of its truth. His choice was clear.

Ken Ham’s most enduring work, The Lie: Evolution, explores the effect he believed the acceptance of evolution would have on various aspects of American society. To Ham, salvation itself is at stake in the question of how to read Genesis properly. Ham’s hermeneutic is essentially one that privileges the “plain sense” of the text. This view takes the Bible at the face value for the reader. Ham believes this ought to be obvious: “If you cannot take what it says to arrive at the meaning, then the English (or any other) language really becomes nonsense” (Ham 89). The argument amounts to a reductio ad absurdum: if Genesis does not “mean what it says,” we have no way of arriving at a meaningful interpretation of the text. Therefore, Genesis must mean what it says. Any suggestion otherwise is noted as a rejection of the text’s authority. Indeed, perhaps the most important aspect of Ham’s interpretation of Genesis is he does not consider it to be an “interpretation” at all. In one of Ham’s many television appearances, this time for commentary on PBS’s Evolution series, Ham is pictured confidently stating, “I don’t interpret Scripture; I just read it (Stephens 48).”

The ideological currents surrounding the crisis of authority perhaps aid us in understanding why Ham responded to it in the way he did. Specifically, with a fuller understanding of the influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism as represented by Thomas Reid, the scientific paradigm shift from Baconian to Humboldtian science, and the American spirit of religious entrepreneurialism nurtured by the 2^nd Great Awakening, the popularity of Ham’s hermeneutic is explicable.

In response to the empiricism of philosopher David Hume, Thomas Reid played a large role in the Scottish Enlightenment of the 18^th century, particularly in his advancement of Common Sense Philosophy. Advocates of the new Common Sense philosophy rooted themselves in the belief humans are “naturally implanted with an array of common sense beliefs and these beliefs are in fact the foundation of the truth.” Whereas Hume’s philosophy prompted skepticism of any belief for which one did not have direct sensory or experiential evidence, Common Sense philosophy instead encouraged confidence in one’s innate cognitive abilities to deliver the truth about the world.

According to one advocate, James Oswald, common sense is “that power of perceiving and judging peculiar to rational beings” and can be trusted to deliver the truth. Oswald is convinced “men of sound understanding” will essentially agree on primary truths if they are indeed utilizing common sense. Any disagreement in interpretation is ultimately explicable by the fact one party must not be using common sense. In fact, Oswald argued common sense ought to hold even more authority than knowledge gleaned through senses. While sensory knowledge is available to any creature capable of sensing, common sense is a quality unique to rational beings held in addition to these beings’ sensory capacities. It is a higher faculty altogether, and for that reason commands a higher degree of authority.

Of course, what happens in Scotland does not stay in Scotland. For a significant period of the mid-nineteenth century, the philosophy of Common Sense was arguably the single most powerful intellectual influence in educated circles in America. 18^th-century philosopher of science Thomas Reid, another key proponent of Common Sense Philosophy, was best known for developing a scientific epistemology based on the dominant scientific paradigm of his lifetime: Baconian science.

Developed by Sir Francis Bacon centuries earlier in his 1620 work Novum Organum, the Baconian paradigm privileged inductive reasoning as the only method by which responsible scientific conclusions may be drawn. This mentality encouraged scientists to realize the limits of their knowledge and to draw conclusions only for which concrete evidence could be offered. Generalization beyond what “the facts” themselves demonstrate was unscientific, because according to Baconian science, “abstract concepts not immediately forged from observed data have no place in scientific exploration.” The work of Sir Francis Bacon was incredibly influential in both British and American thought even centuries after his lifetime, causing many to refer to him as “the father of science.” Reid’s Baconian epistemology privileged common sense and the validity of sense perception, and became widely influential as a rebuttal to Hume’s skeptical empiricism.

Such a philosophy grounded in induction and common sense principles is easily detected in biblical literalism. In the mid-nineteenth century, transcendentalist J.D. Morell drew a salient parallel between the process of induction encouraged by Baconian science and his view of Christian theology: “Just as the facts of nature lie before us in the universe, and have to be generalized and systematized by the process of induction, so also the facts of theology lying before us in the Bible, have simply to be moulded into a logical series, in order to create a Christian theology.”

This attitude, in which the Baconian method of induction is essentially commandeered to apply to the realm of constructing theology from the Bible, has been referred to as “the naturalization of Scripture.” The motivation was clear — to find such a straightforward way of reading the Bible that one’s theological conclusions could be as certain as those a scientist could draw from a science experiment. This claim was further explored by J.S. Lamar, theologian and pastor in the Disciples. We might therefore say with the prevailing Baconian philosophy evolved what might be called a Baconian theology as well.

Years later, an emphasis on common sense as a means of establishing truth led many Americans like Ken Ham to believe the correct reading of Genesis 1-2 was not in fact an “interpretation” at all, but was instead simply the only common sense reading of the passage. For biblical literalists, part of what it means for the Bible to be God’s Word is the gap between ancient document and modern reader is either nonexistent or unimportant. The idea their own common sense could not be trusted to interpret the Bible was not only to insult their intelligence, but a denial of God’s ability to stand in the gap and make Scripture comprehensible to the modern lay reader. In this sense, common sense is an incredibly reader-centric hermeneutic. Because Genesis 1 outlines creation as a seven-day process, and because the modern western reader most often hears the word day as a literal 24-hour day, Genesis 1 must have been describing creation as seven 24-hour days. Naturally, this attitude manifested itself in an anti-intellectualism that tended to downplay the importance of being trained in the arts of interpretation, often accompanied by a distrust of academia. Academics were those people who wanted to take their Bible away from them — far more trustworthy were the intuitions of other everyday people who were not corrupted by the liberal, atheistic bias of academia.

Naturally, the belief Scripture counts as “empirical data” as much as does scientific data led to a conflict of interest between Darwin’s theory of evolution and Genesis. Although the denial of evolution has been criticized by many as anti-science, historian George Marsden argues for a more nuanced approach: that we consider anti-evolutionism as a clash between two scientific paradigms. A common misconception about the nature of science is it is essentially a body of facts growing with each generation. What is actually the case is science is a series of revolutions, in which new bodies of knowledge continuously supplant one another. With the advent of each new scientific paradigm comes new base assumptions and presuppositions about experimentation and methodology not present in the previous one.

This was precisely the case when Baconian science faded out of the field of biology. Inductive inference was a key tenet of this scientific paradigm. One was only justified in claiming something scientific could be believed if one had actually observed such an event happen empirically, and could reasonably generalize the event’s occurrence. However, when it was replaced by Humboldtian science, which instead privileged deductive reasoning, such an inductive method was no longer necessary for a theory to be presumed scientifically likely. Many biblical literalists who opposed evolution referred to it as “religion” because the experiments used to support it never reproduced its effects in the way Baconian science would have necessitated. It is important to understand this was not a rejection of the scientific method entirely, but a rejection of a certain scientific paradigm.

Finally, Ken Ham’s actions make sense within the framework of American entrepreneurialism nurtured since the early 19^th century. The political refrain of America being a “land of the free” in which hard work and ingenuity pay off had manifested itself not only politically but religiously as well. In particular, the Second Great Awakening brought a rush of spiritual energy that channeled itself into the creation of several new off-shoots of traditional Protestantism, including Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism, and additional denominations of Protestantism. Everywhere, people were being encouraged to reject corrupt belief systems and return to the true nature of “pure Christianity” (much of the same impetus for the Reformation a couple centuries earlier).

Ironically, this drive to return to the pure and essential elements of Christianity led people to consider themselves authoritative on religious matters, and in the case of Ken Ham, hermeneutics. Naturally, when many people from diverse backgrounds all try to conceive of a “pure” Christianity, the ideas are as multifarious as the people. Regardless, this might explain why someone like Ken Ham would have felt he had the authority, as a layman, to call people back to the “true reading” of Genesis. Indeed, his lack of professional biological training, far from being a setback, is arguably one of his main selling points to his audience of biblical literalists, who are more apt to trust the intuition of the common person over the morally bankrupt over-intellectualization they observed in the universities.

Ken Ham’s hermeneutics did not arise in a vacuum, sociologically, culturally, or historically. A fuller knowledge of the context out of which this hermeneutic arose is helpful in at least two ways. Firstly, comprehending the depth of the crisis of authority that led to Ham’s literalism might aid in producing the empathy necessary for productive conversation with his followers. Secondly, it accomplishes the practical goal of providing a starting point for conversation with biblical literalists regarding hermeneutics. During a time of such unprecedented polarization as we now face in America, many doubt it is even possible to have productive conversations with those who we deem ideologically “other.” But the need to empathize and engage with such perspectives is a duty of those engaged in the work of religious studies. Rather than respond with flaming rhetoric, we can use the tools given to us to pave the way for genuine understanding between vastly disparate belief systems. May we rise to the occasion.

Bibliography

Armstrong, Christopher and Grant Wacker. “The Scopes Trial.” National Humanities Center. October 2000. Web. 30 March 2016.

Beckman, Joanne. “Religion in Post-World War II America.” National Humanities Center. October 2000. Web. 30 March 2016.

Ham, Ken. The Lie: Evolution. Green Forest: Master Books, 1987. Print.

“Higher Criticism.” New World Encyclopedia. 22 February 2014. Web. 31 March 2016.

Lee, Michael J. The Erosion of Biblical Certainty. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.

Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture. New York: OUP, 2006. Print.

Newport, Frank. “In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins.” Gallup. 2 June 2014. Web. 18 December 2015.

Stephens, Randall J. and Karl W. Giberson. The Anointed. Cambridge: HU, 2011. Print.

“Westminster Confession of Faith of 1968.” Presbyterian Church of America Administration Committee. 2015. Web. 30 March 2016.

Technology Overuse

Leave a reply

Savannah Cartwright

Imagine walking into work one day and being told by your boss a computer has been programmed to replace your job, you are no longer needed and you can go home. You go home and worry about supporting your family and having an income to support yourself. Imagine being escorted into the operating room and no surgeon is waiting for you, a robot is. The nurses tell you you are in good hands and this robot will perform your surgery flawlessly, yet you’re worried about how this will turn out. Imagine your children growing up lacking communication skills and not knowing how to maintain a simple face-to-face conversation. There are some cases where parents don’t know what to do because they don’t want to take away something such as their phones because it will make them upset, yet they want to see them interact normally with people around them. Our world is becoming more like this each day. These are the results when advanced technology and robots have stepped across human boundaries and into everyday lives. It has become a social norm. No one thinks anything of the ever-growing number of self-checkout stations. Not enough attention is brought to robotic surgeries and robot-performed operations. It is normal to see teenagers and young adults not able to get off their phones and have a real conversation with their friends and family. This has become part of our society. It will continue to become more common and progress if technology is not used properly. While technology is not bad in itself, the line needs to be drawn, the line of where technology helps humanity behind the scenes and is not so obvious. The awareness of the line separating the two extremes (using no technology or excessive use) needs to be known in order to practice a healthy (a balanced lifestyle concerning technology) amount of technology use in society. The line relating humans and technology is when technology starts to become the focus over the human race. It is when automation is valued higher than man. And just like technology advances and changes, society will as well, and the ones who care about the future of the world we live in must see how technology is affecting and even hurting it. To monitor this and prevent society from going too far, people need to recognize the effects and should be aware of it in their personal lives. Technology appears good, helpful, and progressive and these exact characteristics are what society seeks. But as the Roman playwright Terence said, “I hold this as a rule of life: too much of anything is bad.”

While technology is continuing to grow exponentially, knowing how technology has grown in the past is important in understanding how we should respond to it. Humans have a tendency or a desire to have something better and newer all the time. As Christians, we know the reason for this is people who do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ are constantly searching for something higher, whether one knows it or not. Also, as humans have turned more toward man and not God, there is a need to search for something better. One way human beings do this is to create and experiment with new technologies, ideas, and advancements. Doing this takes many hours of work and because of man’s ingenuity, many helpful creations created by mankind for mankind have occurred. Many areas have been advanced because of the hard work and time spent on creating something new and more efficient to help the human race. An example of this is cars have obviously progressed since around the late 1880s, when cars were invented. The level of expertise and knowledge has significantly increased because man has continued to work on and experiment with cars. The first computer was made around the mid-1930s; computers have gone from huge boxes to tiny, slim laptops that take up almost no room and can perform hundreds of advanced operations. Animation, the Internet, and entertainment have progressed as man has learned new things about technology and have made it a profession, a hobby, and an area for experimentation. Cell phones have similarly improved since the early 2000s. And because of how technology has progressed, misuse has occurred and negative effects have stemmed from this misuse. The future growth of technology is bound to happen and predictions have been made discussing the growth of robots and technology. The concern today is where technology can grow from here and how fast can it can be done. The answer to these questions lies in the patterns of growth in society and similarly, technology will continue to expand and predictions have been made concerning the rise of the robots for example, and how it will hurt the workforce and the individual. Although these human productions may not always be accurate, man is always learning something new and can look at technology’s growth as a basis for what is to come.

I will now define some terms that are key for understanding my thesis. The following definitions are from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Technology is “a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge.” By technical processes, I mean performing a task through technology or with the aid of technology. Overuse can be defined as “to use (something) too much: to use (something) excessively or too frequently.” In the context of my thesis, I am applying this definition to mean the excessive use of technology, phones, robots, etc. Also, the overuse of technology occurs when noticeable effects have become known to society that stem from when technology no longer holds a supporting role. The term workforce means “the workers engaged in a specific activity or enterprise” or “the number of workers potentially assignable for any purpose” depending on what level is being discussed: a particular business’ or the nation’s workforce. For my thesis, I will mainly be discussing the workforce as a whole, but will draw some conclusions to companies as well.

Understanding the effect technology can have on society is important if one cares about the future path society is on. If humans decide not to regulate the use of technology and let robots run the individuals, workforce, or even society itself, the human race will continue to see a detrimental change in many aspects of life, especially in society as a whole. If one cares about how society functions, how and why it exists, and the future of it, the use of technology must be considered and kept at a moderate usage so it is not the dominating force it could become.

In order to raise awareness of the consequences of the misuse and overuse of technology in our culture, I will confirm two main arguments: technology overuse harms the workforce and overuse of technology negatively affects the individual. I will then refute two counterarguments: technology saves companies money and time, and technology is primarily the new beneficial means of communication.

Technology overuse harms the workforce in three specific areas: the overuse of technology and robots in the workforce destroys communication skills, it can harm specific areas of the workforce such as the medical field, and it replaces opportunities for jobs. Technology overuse can destroy the communication skills of the individuals, and therefore, affect the business or workplace. Technology replaces the practice of speaking and communicating face-to-face among coworkers, employees, and employers. After exposure to using technology (for example, online communication or robots) instead of direct communication, one can lose the ability to read body language and respond properly to others. Robots are replacing face-to-face communication by how people have accepted this new idea of communicating as superior to discussions in person. Technology such as “Siri” and the Internet provide a wide range of information on thousands of topics and make it easily accessible. Because of this, problem-solving skills can be harmed and laziness is encouraged because of the ease of accessing a plethora of sources and information in seconds. The ability to solve “problems” ourselves is beneficial because one is not solely relying on another source (in this case, technology) to do it for them. When technology is used properly to aid human processes and researching information, it can benefit processes instead of cause harm because it is still playing the role it should: behind-the-scenes and not the controlling force. This can debilitate the workforce by technology replacing the aspect of conversing business-related topics amongst one’s coworkers. This affects the business overall because when relationships are not as deep, information relating to the task at hand is not communicated clearly; the overall state of the business can decline because of the lack of face-to-face discussion and clarity. People and work-related topics can still thrive under the proper use of technology. This is because humans are social beings and need to be constantly socially involved with others, on a causal level and a more formal level (Popova). While productivity is a forefront of a workplace’s goal, face-to-face interactions are still needed to have clarity throughout the workplace.

Cell phones, email, texting and social media have largely replaced face-to-face communications. One short meeting or conversation can eliminate multiple text messages, phone calls or emails. The ability to choose the people you interact with, as on Facebook or Twitter, isn’t an option in the workplace, whether dealing with fellow workers or with clients. Interpersonal communications, critical to building business relationships, are more complicated and require courtesies and listening skills not necessary in social media. Too much reliance on electronic methods of communication not only can increase unnecessary traffic, but can decrease vital personal interaction (Nestor-Harper).

A study performed by Forbes Insights who surveyed more than 750 business professionals showed eight out of 10 respondents preferred face-to-face communication in the workplace over technological ways to communication inside the business. One respondent said face-to-face communications “build stronger, more meaningful business relationships.” “Respondents overwhelmingly agreed face-to-face communication is best for persuasion, leadership, engagement, inspiration, decision-making, accountability, candor, focus and reaching a consensus” (Fusion). In its proper use, the workplace has plenty of opportunities for technology to be of use such as opportunities for research and experimentation, but as social human beings, the practice of face-to-face communication should not be forgotten.

A more specific workforce technology overuse has damaged is the medical field. While the negative aspects aren’t well-known among society, patients are the first to understand the faults. The medical field has implemented a growing number of robots with the goal of replacing jobs to help save money and save time. While this decision seems ideal, it has resulted in harming many patients, unnecessarily spending money, and wasting time training people to perform functions they should be doing without robot assistance. From 2000 to 2013, robots killed 144 patients during surgery, hurt 1,391, and malfunctioned 8,061 times during procedures (Thomson). These statistics show only how surgery has been negatively affected by the use of robots, let alone other medical procedures involving robotics. A specific case in which robots negatively affected the patient during surgery is the story of Teresa Hershey. Hershey was told by her doctor she should get her hysterectomy done by a robot yet guided by a surgeon. Hershey agreed to the notion because she was told the recovery time is significantly shorter because the surgery was going to be performed robotically. Teresa Hershey felt fine after the seemingly successful surgery and was able to go home the next day, but that night she felt a severe, stabbing pain in her stomach and was rushed to the hospital. A week of tests yielded no answer to the problem. A diagnostic surgery discovered the technology used for the hysterectomy poked a hole in her bowel. While there was a surgeon guiding this robot, the physical robot itself was the problem: the tools needed for this robot was the reason it poked a hole in her bowel. In attempt fix this problem, Hershey had ten corrective surgeries done. Even today, Hershey still cannot do some simple tasks such as taking out the trash (this simple action causes swelling and hardening in her stomach) because of the damage done.

Hershey along with many others have filed a suit against Intuitive, the company who provided the robot and trains surgeons how to use them (Baron). The robot used for this surgery is called a “da Vinci,” and it costs approximately 1.5 to 2 million dollars. Intuitive, just one surgical robot company, is facing many lawsuits, and there is a growing number of related reports against such companies. It isn’t necessary to spend up to two million dollars on a robot that sometimes is controlled by an actual surgeon when it could malfunction any second and injure a patient. Although human surgeons make mistakes as well, it is unnecessary to spend money on this robot that is an added threat to the safety of patients. A surgeon should perform the surgery, as is a surgeon’s job description, and let technology only aid in processes such as these and help research in the medical field. In the Hershey case, the robot used is not aiding the process because the robot performed most of the surgery, with a small level of control from the surgeon. Although the statistics of robots, for instance, killing patients in the middle of a surgery are not high enough to make this a well-known argument, there is simply no need to have robots try and become a controlling force in the medical field. These robots do more harm than good and should not be use for these purposes. Using technology properly in the medical field can save surgeons’ jobs by not replacing them with robots and continue to leave opportunities open for future surgeons. The ideas and the work ethic behind getting a degree, being educated, and working toward the goal of being a surgeon is a great motive (especially the idea of success, through helping and serving people, school and training), and companies who provide robots services are ruining this highly-valued motive. By this I mean people have respect for surgeons and professionals who worked to get to where they are. Although there is risk with any and every surgery, and human surgeons have made thousands of mistakes, replacing trained, adaptive human surgeons with pre-programmed unthinking machines, and spending millions of dollars in the process, is not beneficial.

Patients’ personal privacy is also at risk when too much technology is involved. Dr. Deborah Peel wrote in her article “The Future of Health Privacy,” “Health information privacy is an individual’s right to control the acquisition, uses, or disclosures of his or her identifiable health data” (Rotenburg, Horwitz, and Scott 174-175). The current use of computer systems and reliance on computers in the healthcare workforce is abusing patient consent for their information and control over personal health data. For example, personal health data in the United States are bought and sold millions of times a day by health data hackers, without the knowledge of the patient (174-175). This happens because the healthcare workforce now relies too much on keeping personal, patient-related information such as their record on computers and servers that can be hacked. While keeping records and patient information on computers, servers, etc. is not innately wrong, more attention and effort must be drawn to keep this information safer. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has spent millions trying to protect patient information, but it still occurs. Trust is lost and people will not go to the doctor as often or there will be a decline in desire to see doctors if people don’t trust them. A society of unhealthy people who won’t go to doctors because of a trust issue is a bad society to have. Reliance on such flawed technology in the medical field to the point safety of patients is threatened demands awareness raised in order to prevent the medical field from being subverted by robots and computers.

The third area technology has harmed the workforce is opportunities for jobs, especially in the recent past. Ironically, we experience a huge political concern of trying to lower the unemployment rate, yet owners of businesses and higher authorities in the workforce push employers to get rid of jobs by replacing people with robots. The future of job security rests on this. Shigeo Hirose, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, states, “Robot technology should not be used to interfere with natural human relations and deprive people of their pride and jobs, but should instead be the silent force behind the scenes to support the life of people” (Wallace 87-89). This quotation emphasizes robots should not be taking over the workforce yet should only aid humans in daily processes. Matt McFarland, a CNN technology writer and reporter, predicts 7.5 million jobs in America will be replaced within the next decade (McFarland). Yet already, in America, robots have made their appearance by replacing retail jobs, cashiers, fast-food workers, and more. Cashiers have been replaced by self-checkout stations and computers have replaced many jobs such as factory workers, assistants, bank tellers, and more that do not require a high-level degree. While self-checkout stations are productive, the amount of cashiers who have lost jobs from inventions such as these is high enough for awareness to be raised when talking on a national or global scale. Even further, according to Daily Mail, 38% of US jobs overall will be replaced by robots by the early 2030s. An example of a country who has dealt with this issue is China. China lost 15% of their manufacturing workforce, 16 million jobs, due to the use of robots. The main problem with technology and robots taking over jobs is the lack of total available jobs that could be given to those who do not have a college degree or simply need a job. If this idea continues, there will be a generation of more unemployed youth than the world has seen before and can lead to a higher crime rate and more opportunities for problems caused by the youth. Also, the idea is bad for the workforce because is shows how society values the machine over man. Society was not meant for automation to be valued higher than man, but it will become something different if this idea continues. This shows just how detrimental the overuse of technology can be. If is not regulated by companies investing time in researching the real benefits of robots in the workforce, the manufacturing workforce in America will suffer greatly.

If America cares so much about the unemployment rate, the ever-growing population of robots replacing people working in the fast food business, driving businesses, and most jobs that do not require a higher education, should be recognized by society. This can be done by owners, CEOs, and high authorities in the workforce conducting more research on how this issue will affect their business or company in the long run and what the real benefits are.

While the idea of automation and robots appeal to businesses, companies can still thrive while continuing to give opportunities for jobs even though humans cannot work around the clock. Companies need to realize that trying to take over the “no-education” workforce causes more harm than good for themselves and society. The overuse of technology can negatively affect the workforce more than people realize, and it is happening faster than most people know.

My second confirmation argument focuses on how the individual is negatively affected by the overuse of technology. One area where this has been a problem is young children. Parents who care about the well-being and development of their children should be mindful of the use of technology in the household for many reasons. The first is the actual wiring of the human brain. The human brain does not stop developing until around age 25 and when too much screen time is allowed, it actually changes the way the brain is wired (DeLoatch). “Too much screen time” can be when a child is “addicted” to gaming devices or the Internet, for example. This is detrimental to the child because the changing of the wiring of the brain can further affect other skills such as attention span and memory. Also, it is detrimental because if technology can change the actual wiring of the brain, it not developing naturally. The average child from age 8-12, according the CNN, spends four and a half hours a day on devices or technology. “Too much screen time” is when the average time spent on technology or devices is four and a half hours a day, a significant portion of a child’s day. Hours a day can have these negative effects (brain requiring constant stimulation, decreased attention span, and more) on a child in the long run. The development of a child to a teenager to an adult is affected by the side-effects multiple hours a day spent on devices brings to the brain and throughout the body.

Second, the distractions, constant movement, and high-level stimulation technology brings and requires affects a child’s attention and memory span in general. The quick flashes of light, ads, pictures, videos, etc. on devices such as phones, tablets, televisions, and the Internet cause thought processes to come to a halt, focus to be lost, and attention span to be shortened because of the constant distractions. When the constant ads and pictures are changing on the screens of devices, the brain changes to seem to need more stimulation more frequently. In the classroom, the distractions tablets and computers bring, take the children’s focus away from what it should be on, primarily, their schoolwork and their teacher. This has become a problem for the teacher and the students’ learning opportunities. The child in a learning environment, who is struggling to concentrate or learn, can affect the learning environment for the class, stunt their individual, overall learning capability, and make it difficult for the teacher to be able to respond appropriately to the needs of the child.

Third, when children become “addicted” to their devices, the natural childhood actions such as playing outside and being active are greatly reduced because there is a developed desire in the child to watch TV or play video games instead. One of the main reasons this is detrimental is the lack of exercise for children. “One of the biggest differences in the way that children live today is that they don’t get as much exercise as they used to.…Child obesity rates have risen drastically over the past several decades. In 2012, the child obesity rate was measured to be 18 percent, which is an 11 point difference from the obesity rate in 1980” (Patel). This article goes on to say when a child spends time outdoors, the child is overall healthier because of the exposure to Vitamin D, which aids in the process of keeping the skin healthy, fight infections, and keeps one’s sleep cycle regulated because it influences the body’s production of melatonin (which maintains the body’s sleep rhythm). And following this, the child isn’t cooped up in the house watching TV or on the Internet, and therefore, getting good exercise.

About one-third of American children and teenagers are overweight or obese, making childhood obesity the leading health concern for parents in the United States. Not so coincidentally, the American Academy of Pediatrics has estimated that the average child spends upwards of seven hours watching televisions, browsing the Internet and playing video games each day….As children spend more time sitting in front of the TV or computer, they spend less time outside running around and burning off calories and energy. Over time, combined with an increase in snacking, this can lead to significant weight gain.

This quotation by Elle Paula shows some evidence on how excessive use of technology contributes to weight gain and obesity. Parents should encourage children to go outside and play, set limits for how long children can spend on technology, and show them the negative effects it can have if rules aren’t set in place. Therefore, parents should limit the technology use for their child in order to not stunt or change the brain’s development, expand their attention and memory span (positive, focused learning environments), and help children get the amount of exercise needed to remain healthy.

Too much screen time negatively affects adults as well. Self-control is a huge factor concerning the technology usage in one’s life because if technology and devices are used in moderation in one’s life, people can continue to thrive and not experience most of the negative aspects of technology. Not becoming “addicted” to one’s devices and technology is the way to remain healthy with it. One of the negative effects on an individual is how the constant notifications of an e-mail, text, or someone liking a picture on social media cause distractions and makes it harder to fall asleep, therefore affecting the quality and time of sleep. An article from Michigan State University states, “our biological and nervous systems react to the light levels produced by these devices — particularly when we use them before bedtime. Our bodies can also react to the electromagnetic signals used with cell phones” (Olsen). These signals unnaturally affect our nervous systems, which does not benefit the body. A Dr. Becker mentioned in this article says sleeping with or by a cell phone means our bodies take in the electromagnetic signals produced by phones, which negatively affects the quality of sleep. Electromagnetic signals were not meant to be received by the body on a daily basis, so when this happens, brain tissue is negatively affected (Raz).

Another place where technology such as cell phones and tablets can debilitate the individual is the constant distractions and interruptions. This leads to everything taking longer and affecting one’s attention span. “Some research has shown that the excessive use of texting and time spent on-line contributes to mental fatigue and increased problems with memory, attention, concentration, and learning — particularly learning at a deep level” (Olsen). By “learning at a deep level,” the article means focusing on something time-consuming and needing to learn information at a deep, intellectual level. When the constant pull of notifications on cell phones takes our attention away from what it should be (work, school, daily tasks, etc.), focusing becomes harder on a more regular basis. Processing information is another area in which the individual can be affected. “The ways in which we take in information on the Internet are different from “traditional” types of reading. When we take in information on-line, we encounter a variety of visual and auditory information (words, videos, hyperlinks, ads, etc.). As a result, we read in a nonlinear way and may not process the information as deeply” (Olsen). Time spent on-line may not be as high quality as reading a book or journal, especially in an environment without distractions, an opportunity the Internet does not give. Also while skimming media headlines and information on technology, we sometimes don’t take the time to meaningfully process and analyze the information before we move onto something else. This shows the overuse of devices negatively affects the individual because it harms the way one processes information on a daily basis; a balance needs to be created between time spent on-line and other types of processing information in order to maintain a normal state of taking in information to the brain.

Relationships and human interactions are also areas of life that can experience the negative effects of the misuse of technology. Humans are made to be social beings, be in constant communication with one another, and build relationships. Ecclesiastes 4:9-10 says, “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up!” As Albert Einstein said, “Without the sense of fellowship with men of like mind, life would have seemed to me empty” (Popova). The importance of fellowship and relationships is shown in these two sources by how the Christian faith and even Einstein believes in constant fellowship for the better of a human being. Neuroscientist Matthew D. Lieberman declares our brains are physically wired to connect with one another. Lierberman says, “The neural link between social and physical pain also ensures that staying socially connected will be a lifelong need, like food and warmth” (Popova). This evidence shows the social aspect of our lives is just as important as our physical (reason for stating the “neural link,” an actual brain function). Our brains are wired, and even desire, to create relationships with one another as humans, and if technology and the distractions (social media, constant ads, etc.) it brings, are not monitored by keeping technology as a supporting role, the need for real interaction is no longer met as it should be. In addition to the idea humans need to be in fellowship with one another, deeper-level relationships are also important areas of life susceptible to technology’s deleterious effects. Technology also seems to lower one’s level of empathy. Thriving relationships, especially between adults, need to have some sort of face-to-face conversation. When there is no balance between the on-line aspects and in-person aspects of a relationship, the relationship will not be as strong and deep. Cell phones and social media have a tendency to focus on “me” and how “I” appear to other people on-line. This becomes a barrier for empathy in a relationship. When two people sit down, have meaningful conversations, and truly engage in each other’s lives and emotions, a healthy relationship thrives and levels of empathy and happiness are felt for the other person. This cannot happen through texting or on-line communication alone.

The first counterargument to my thesis is technology saves companies significant money and time. Many companies believe technology, especially robots can save the business and workforce significant amounts of money and time. Businesses becoming more efficient through robots is the new idea. The notion of the availability of robots and the fact they do not need a salary to sustain them is appealing to business owners. Robots do not need a salary to buy food, pay a mortgage, provide for children, etc; they have maintenance, repair, and updating costs, but do not get a salary. After the robot or technology is purchased, the money factor seems to disappear for most companies. Therefore, when companies are considering an investment to try something new, “modernize” their company, or are struggling financially, adding technology to the business seems attractive and helpful. For example, the average initial cost for a manufacturing robot is 250,000 dollars, plus maintenance and updating cost which can be at least 10,000 dollars a year (Conway). Many companies see this and believe this is cheaper than hiring an employee, when there is no significant difference in the price. Also, if a company is struggling to continue paying a certain number of employees, the consideration of robot technology is an appealing notion. A company could purchase a robot to do some simple jobs and fire several employees. For example, McDonalds has implemented, in some of their locations, screens and kiosks to order food instead of an actual person taking one’s order. This automatically gets rid of the amount of cashiers a company needs to maintain the business. One reason this was done was the concern over the fight for a higher minimum wage. Ed Rensi, the former McDonald’s CEO, stated, “I have said that robots are going to replace people in the service industry going forward,…And a self-service kiosk is nothing more than automation taking over people” (Wisner). This article goes on to say Ed Rensi agreed with the decision Wendy’s made of implementing self-ordering kiosks in over 1,000 stores by the end of 2017, because it would be cheaper for the company overall.

Yet while companies think they are completely benefiting from decisions like these, the cost and money factor is not as beneficial as it seems. The cost of a robot or technology alone is very expensive (average cost is $250,000 for an industrial robot) and maintaining and updating the technology is expensive as well. Ed Rensi also said it is cheaper to buy a 35,000 dollar robotic arm to bag fries instead of an employee. It is wrong to spend this much money on technology that is constantly needing updating, replacing, and maintaining because this portrays the idea that money is more valued than people. The business owners are the only ones who are benefiting from this because they are paying fewer employees. The employees are also being hurt by this because robots are replacing their jobs and are closing doors around the whole manufacturing workforce for jobs similar to the ones they had. The overall negative point coming from the recent spiked interest of robots is the idea that society and the workforce has moved away from valuing the people over non-reasoning machines. People are more important than profits and CEOs should care more about people because they are human beings, just like the CEOs themselves. The well-being of society depends on the well-being of individuals and if the workforce continues to implement the automation, the well-being of society can be negatively affected.

The “da Vinci” robot mentioned earlier used to help perform surgery costs about two million dollars. This robot that performs surgery is not worth the two million dollars that a company is spending, just for it to do a part of the procedure (in most cases, there is an actual surgeon operating the robot). A better way this money could be spent would be to aid in research processes for medicinal purposes and provide a safer way to keep patient information safe. The only ones who are benefitting from replacing jobs with robots are the employers because they are paying fewer people; it hurts people who need jobs, goes against the fight to create more jobs, and negatively affects society by closing job opportunities. The idea of the overuse of technology becomes a real problem when automation is put before the well-being of the people. Society is not in a good state if the importance and recognition of the ability of robots is valued higher than the functions and daily lives of the people who live in it every day.

Many companies also think the factor of robots “saving work” is so beneficial to the point where robots and technology are wanted everywhere. It is unnecessary and a waste of money to invest thousands to have a robot, for example, to transport medications and samples from one room to another in a hospital, when a person could easily do that. Businesses are only paying attention to the little things robots could do to help out a business and letting these be the deciding factor to invest thousands into automation for their company. While there are positive factors of how robots could help companies save some time and money, companies need to realize and conduct more research before letting their business be run by expensive robots who could malfunction and take away a person’s job. For example, researchers from John Hopkins University say, “Robot-assisted colon operations are significantly more expensive than minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery with no better results.” Also, “What we have found is that the robot is no better than laparoscopy and it costs more. It has no benefit” (Desmon). This quotation explains that while this technology is new and expensive, it is not necessary for better results over a laparoscopy, a procedure done by an actual surgeon. When companies can realize how to use technology in a way to help and not harm the company, technology can be used in proper proportions.

The second counterargument to my thesis is technology is primarily the new beneficial means of communication. As technology has exponentially grown over the past several decades, communication has advanced in many areas. One example of this is cell phones. Cell phones make it simple to access people and relate information to other people quicker than other means. Parents can have easy access to their children through cell phones. Cell phones make it a lot easier for children to text parents and tell them that their practice time has changed or provide a quick ability to call 911 in case of emergency. Technology can also help friends and family stay in touch through social media. Social media provides opportunities for an individual to share one’s life with others through photos or messages. “Before this technology, it would be next to impossible for you to find all your old friends and interact with them on an instant, share life and your past on instant. It would even be difficult to get new friends from other countries. But now that barrier has been removed by social networks” (Ramey). E-mails are another beneficial technology improvement to communication, especially in the workforce. However, Emily Drago, a writer in the Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications says, “Little by little, technology has become an integral part of the way that people communicate with one another and has increasingly taken the place of face-to-face communication. Due to the rapid expansion of technology, many individuals fear that people may be too immersed in this digital world and not present enough in the real world” (Drago 13). The emphasis on “real world” catches one’s attention because the digital world is not “real” in the ways words are said through technology, pictures and videos are heavily edited, and dangers of addiction to technology. Many people do not even realize how technology has affected “real life” even today. Drago goes on to say, “Recent advancements in communication technology have enabled billions of people to connect more easily with people great distances away, yet little has been known about how the frequent presence of these devices in social settings influences face-to-face conversations” (Drago 14).

Devices and cell phone interaction lowers the level of empathy in a person. A study by Przyblski and Weinstein from the University of Essex shows people who had conversations without the presence of a device had a higher level of empathy than those who had conversations with a device present. Having a higher-level of empathy is good and beneficial in order to grow the relationship and build trust between two people. Clarity across cell phones in particular is also a concern. In-person conversations and interactions have much more opportunity for clarity and understanding, whereas many things could be wrongly taken when they are stated over a text or social media. The main fix to this is to balance communication (not all communication over the phone). This idea is similar to how, most of the time, “long-distance relationships” are normally not as strong because of the lack of face-to-face communication and lack of clarity. While technology can help people stay in touch, the balance between screen time and real life experiences is always better for quality, lasting, healthy relationships and, of course, the individuals in those relationships.

The problem with the idea that technology only advances communication is that technology and devices are moving in the direction of replacing communication, not enhancing it. Technology, specifically social media and cell phones, are erasing the motive of calling someone (hearing one’s voice), let alone talking to someone in person, face-to-face. Because of technology, teenagers and young adults are not properly equipped with the communication skills needed to have a solid and sturdy relationship with someone. By solid relationship, I mean one that is founded on face-to-face interactions, not through text messages or Instagram. When technology is used to enhance and help communication, and not as the only means of conversing with someone, relationships can continue to thrive and not experience the negatives of misuse. Relationships will never be perfect, but when they are based on face-to-face interactions, they can thrive under proper use of technology. When possible, cell phones and social media should not replace face-to-face communication.

Yet when technology becomes “addicting,” it can be misused. An example of technology misuse regarding cell phones and social media is how teenagers can sit in a room together and not have much to say to each other but are on social media and sharing things with each other through their cell phones. Another example that is recognized is how couples go out to a restaurant and use their phones the whole time and hardly talk to one another. This shows how their cell phones are replacing true communication, not enhancing it. One can use technology to enhance a relationship by staying in contact when away or means of quick communication. This is not hurting a relationship because it is not replacing communication, it is helping it in a small way.

Another way technology does not solely advance communication is its inability to enable people to have tough or sensitive conversations through text. Tones and emphases can be taken wrongly and people can be hurt unintentionally. Also, texting allows people to intentionally hurt, bully, or threaten others, which is bad and causes many problems for kids, adults, and society. In this way, people are misusing technology and because of this, the relationship can falter. This happens because ideas are being communicated over a cell phone, and clarity is sometimes lacking. While technology, phones, and apps like FaceTime are nice to have when used correctly, people, especially young teenagers and young adults, need to understand that cell phones and social media can quickly become something detrimental, not beneficial to a relationship. There is a need for balance. Face-to-face communication and conversations are very important in a relationship because interaction builds trust, shows care and interest in the relationship, and always has an opportunity to strengthen the relationship. When these aspects of communication are practiced, technology can play the supporting role it was meant to play. The balance of technological and face-to-face interaction provides the foundation for a strong, healthy relationship among people: siblings, friends, spouses, etc. Learning how to use technology appropriately and learning how to create a balance between in person relationships and over technology is an important skill to acquire in society today.

Technology can be used properly in order to keep society running the way it functions best: where technology plays a supporting role throughout our culture. As citizens of a society that heavily influences the world, parents should start to address this rising problem by regulating technology’s use inside their homes. This will show their children the negative effects excessive use of technology can have on their personal lives and how much their parents care about them by keeping them healthy and developing properly. Another way society can control its use is if employers, CEOs, and other heads of businesses do further research on whether their businesses are really benefiting from technology’s extensive use. CEOs should value the individual over the machine and automation because they are human beings just like them who could benefit from having a certain job. “Too much” occurs when it is not a controlling force in the workforce and is closing many opportunities for jobs. Also, as Christians, work is viewed as one of our responsibilities in life. Genesis 2:15 says, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” Therefore, Christians understand the idea of work and should use technology correctly and moderately to help us in our work. Because of this, Christians should understand the effect having automated robots could have on society and how the overuse of technology can negatively affect everyday life. A third way we can prevent technology’s misuse is by not letting cell phones and social media, for instances, become addictive or prevent further growth in relationships. These are just three examples of how individuals can aid in this process of not letting technology be the controlling force in society today. The concept of controlling technology’s use in society is easier said than done because it is already so integrated in many areas of life, but I believe doing so will help people keep their jobs, help people maintain healthy physical and social lives, and help society continue to function with the human race in control of technology, not the other way around.

Works Cited

Baron, Ethan. “Robot surgery from from Sunnyvale facing lawsuits, reports of death and injury.” Ethan Baron, 22 Oct. 2017. Web. 13 January 2018.

Bhattacharjee, Puja. “How does your child’s screen time measure up?”. Puja Bhattacharjee, 15 Nov. 2017. Web. 18 February 2018.

Conway, David. “Robots Will Save Manufacturing Billions”. David Conway, 8 Aug. 2014. Web. 18 February 2018.

DeLoatch, Pamela. “The Four Negative Sides of Technology”. Pamela DeLoatch, 2 May. 2015. Web. 12 December 2017.

Desmon, Stephanie. “For colon surgery, robots cost more but aren’t worth it”. Stephanie Desman, 20 Dec. 2013. Web. 19 February 2018.

Drago, Emily. “The Effect of Technology on Face-to-Face Communication.” The Elon Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, 2015. pp. 13-16, http://www.elon.edu.

Ford, Martin. Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. New York: Basic Books, 2015. Print.

Fusion, Jenn. “Face-to-Face Communication in Business”. Jenn Fusion. Web. 11 March 2018.

Liberatore, Stacy. “Watch out America, robots are coming for your jobs: Report finds 38% of US jobs will be automated by 2030”. Stacy Liberatore, 24 Mar. 2017. Web. 15 January 2018.

McFarland, Matt. “Robots: Is your job at risk?”. Matt McFarland. 15 Sept. 2017. Web. 30 November 2017.

Nestor-Harper, Mary. “The Disadvantages of Technology in the Workplace”. Mary Nestor-Harper. Web. 11 March 2018.

“Overuse.” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com.

Olsen, Janet. “Digital Technology and mental health”. Janet Olsen, 25 Jan. 2016. Web. 27 November 2017.

Patel, Dhruvin. “Will Technology Ruing Your Children’s Development?”. Dhruvin Patel, 4 Mar. 2017. Web. 15 January 2018.

Paula, Elle. “Obesity in Children and Technology”. Elle Paula, 14 Aug. 2017. Web. 18 February 2018.

Phillips, Fred. “Technological Forecasting and Social Change.” ELSEIVER. Web. 17 December 2017.

Popova, Maria. “The Science of Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect.” Web. 13 January 2018.

Ramey, Karehka. “The Advantages and Disadvantages of Technology in the Workplace.” Karehka Ramey, 25 Feb. 2013. Web. 22 November 2017.

—. “Technology and Society-Impact of Technology on Society.” Karehka Ramey, 12 Feb. 2012. Web. 28 January 2018.

Raz, Amir. “Could certain frequencies of electromagnetic waves or radiation interfere with brain function?”. Web. 19 February 2018.

Reddy, Chitra. “Robots in the Workplace: Types-Pros and Cons.” Chitra Reddy, 2016. Web. 7 December 2017.

Rotenburg, Marc, Julia Horwitz, and Jeramie Scott, eds. Privacy in the Modern Age. New York: The New Press, 2015. Print.

Stibel, Jeff. Breakpoint. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.

“Technology.” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version, Study Bible. Crossway Books, 2011. Print.

Thomson, Iain. “Robot surgeons kill 144 patients, hurt 1,391, malfunction 8,061 times”. Iain Thomson, 21 Jul. 2015. Web. 2017.

Wallace, Mark, ed. The Way we will be 50 Years from Today. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc, 2008. Print.

Wisner, Matthew. “Former McDonald’s USA CEO: Robots to Replace People in the Service Industry Going Forward”. Matthew Wisner, 1 Mar. 2017. Web. 27 January 2018.

“Workforce.” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com.

Education Reformation

Leave a reply

Sarah Mertz Silva

Daily life is constantly changing: the way we interact with others and an ever-growing collection of knowledge about the world we live in, while we have retained complacency with our education system. Every day, children attend school from pre-school to 12^th grade. The current American education system has not changed significantly in almost two hundred years, and the education system we have now is practically the only system America has ever had. The way students are taught publicly or privately has an enormous effect on America’s ability to grow. Education is a means to the future. Proper education leads to a flourishing society and advances in different aspects of life, while poor education leads to slower advances and a struggling society. I would not suggest the current education system is completely failing, however, there are clear signs there is something inherently flawed in our system. In order to pursue genuine education as Americans, the education system must be reformed.

Before the Industrial Revolution, education was centered on virtue, religion, and family. It became compulsory for parents to teach their children to read in 1642. In 1647, towns with 50 or more households were required to hire a teacher to teach in a schoolhouse (“The History”). The Bible was the most common book used for teaching. Students weren’t divided by ages and grades (1^st grade, 2^nd grade, 3^rd grade, etc.) until the Industrial Revolution. The concept of teaching subjects by grade was also an industrial age concept. The current education system, modeled after the Prussian education system, characterized by the use of standardized testing, grade-based curriculum, and specialized education for teachers, comes from the Industrial Revolution, which will be discussed in the confirmation. Most states now use Common Core as the educational standard, a standardized system that designates which subjects must be learned by graduation in order to prepare for the future. All states share very similar standards, even those that don’t follow Common Core. It is important to note it is not the United States government who determines educational standards, rather the state governments do. It is difficult to reform the education system because for almost every aspect of the education system that needs reforming, another aspect must be changed first, or another aspect is a barrier to the change, e.g., the grading system and standardization poses an enormous flaw in our education system, however the need for grades and standardized tests to meet college requirements remains a barrier to possible change.

I will now define key terms and ideas in order to clarify the arguments discussed within my thesis. The first key term is the “education system.” The “education system” refers to the Prussian Model of Education that most 1^st-12^th grade schools in the United States, public and private, adhere to. The education system also refers to the basis for subject-learning, meaning by what point in time a student should have learned a specific subject, e.g., most students should have taken biology in or before 10^th grade. In contrast, the true purpose of education and learning is to better know the God who created it and to better understand His biblical truth. Isaac Moorehouse, the author of “The Future of School,” says there are six “indispensable elements” that must be implemented into one’s life within the transition of childhood to adulthood: confidence, experience, universal skills, network (“a relational Rolodex of people with a wide range of knowledge and resources”), abstract thinking, and special skills (for which I will instead use “real-world” skills) (Moorehouse 7). Real-world skills are skills such as filing taxes, money management, writing checks, understanding insurance, etc. The practical purpose of education is to promote those “indispensable elements” in order to positively prepare students for their future. In this thesis, I will focus on the effects of the current education system on middle and high school students.

A complete reform of the education system is not an easy task. It would likely take years for anything to drastically change, especially considering it has seemingly taken centuries for anyone to realize it should be changed. The first step is asking yourself what role you play in the education system. If you are a parent, you send your children through the education system from around four-years-old to around 18 years-old. In that time, your student is shaped and modeled by the information they are given, no matter how it is given. As parents, you must be concerned with how your students are being educated in order to properly prepare them for adulthood. If you are a teacher, you experience first-hand the difficulties of educating students in an environment that is so terribly limited. You see these students every day and you have been given the task of equipping them for the future. Students, you are the ones being educated. You are the future, and you of all people should be concerned about the American education system. The second step in reforming the education system is acknowledging that the system is flawed, and pinpointing which aspects are harming advances in the system, which I will do in this thesis.

To prove the necessity of a reform in American education, I will confirm three arguments: the American education system is too outdated, standardized tests and grades only hinder students’ desire to understand and learn, and the education system lacks a foundation for teaching students real-world skills. I will then refute two counterarguments: there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with the education system, rather the reason students have such a difficult time with school is they choose to participate in too many extracurricular activities, and being a student is one’s job until he or she graduates, so neglecting sleep is worth the long-term benefits of ample time spent in the classroom.

My first confirmation argument is the American education system is too outdated. The current education system began during the Industrial Revolution in the late 18^th through early 19^th centuries and has not significantly changed in almost two-hundred years. The Industrial Revolution marked an extremely important shift in America and Europe. Countries that were once agriculturally based became urban, with factories and mass-production drastically changing social, economic, and cultural experiences across the globe (“Industrial Revolution”). This industrialization affected almost every facet of society, including education.

In the 1800s, Horace Mann traveled parts of Europe to find a school system he thought was best. During that time, schools were usually run by the community or families, and Horace Mann felt as though America needed a standardized education system, where everyone had equal opportunities to learn, funded by taxes. As he traveled multiple countries in Europe, he noted the different education systems and concluded he liked the Prussian system the best. Mann strongly advocated for the implementation of the Prussian system in America (Burrus and Powell), and after his death in 1892, the Committee of Ten, a group of educators, decided on a 12-year, compulsory, standardized American educational system (Khan and Noer).

Beyond the fact the Prussian model came about during the Industrial Revolution, much of our education system revolves around preparing students to become factory workers, not doctors, engineers, artists, etc. During the Progressive Movement in the early 1900s, scientific management played a huge role in the standardization of the education system. Kevin Currie-Knight, a teacher in the Department of Special Education Foundation and Research at East Carolina University, says scientific management was an idea created by industrialist Frederick Winslow Taylor, where he wanted to figure out the best way to do every job in a factory. Kevin says, “Educators loved this idea because they thought, ‘Oh, we can use this too. We can figure out the one best way to educate so that we can make the best use of time, best use of resources, so that we don’t have to trust individual teachers, to figure out how to teach individual classes. If we can figure out the one best way, we can standardize this whole process’” (Burrus and Powell).

Author Seth Godin said, “The sole intent of the education system was to train people to be willing to work in a factory” (Next School). Isaac Moorehouse, founder and CEO of Praxis, describes the educational transition from childhood to adulthood as such: “What ought to be an organic, non-linear, highly individualized transition, much like that of a toddler from crawling to walking, is instead a formal, hierarchical, one-size-fits-all assembly line from student to worker” (3).

Salman Kahn, founder of Kahn Academy, and Michael Noer, a writer for Forbes magazine, also describe the education system as an assembly line, where children of a certain age are thrown into a bucket together and sent down the line where information is given to them at the same pace. Some students will understand the information in the given amount of time and others won’t (Kahn and Noer). Kevin Currie-Knight argues there might not be a better or best option for the school system, however, the industrial age system is not currently working well. He believes our current education system, where classes “organize into 40-minute periods per day” and students “do this for 40 minutes and then go down the hall and go in another room and do that for 40 minutes…” seems more organizational rather than pertaining to genuine teaching and learning (Burrus and Powell).

Common Core is a set of educational standards most of America now uses whose purpose is to “ensure that all students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college, career, and life, regardless of where they live” (“About the Standards”). 42 states have adopted Common Core as their educational standard; the rest use very similar educational standards with the same goal. Virginia, for example, uses SOL’s, Standard of Learning, as its educational standard, in which students take standardized tests to ensure the school is meeting the requirements for state standards. Both Common Core and SOL follow concepts of the Prussian Model, which means despite Common Core’s and SOL’s claims of preparing students for the future, they are really preparing them for the past.

There is one enormous problem with reforming the education system in a country where standards such as Common Core or SOLs exist. The majority of universities and colleges around America depend on GPA, the ACT, and the SAT to accept students, and nearly all of them require a minimum number of years of learning in select subjects, which is likely one of the greatest reasons the education system hasn’t changed. It’s just not that easy. This is not to say colleges and universities are stuck in the past also as they don’t necessarily follow the Prussian Model, however major changes in the current middle/high school system could potentially and would most likely lead to major changes in colleges as well. Let’s say Texas wanted to completely alter its method of education. Students in Texas would still be responsible for completing certain subjects by the time they graduate if they want to attend college, whether their middle/high school teaches it to them or not.

My second confirmation argument is standardized tests and grades only hinder students’ desire to understand and learn. The grading system of letters “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” and “F” has not always existed. Before 1785, students would attend lectures and participate in weekly conversation with their professors. The students had completed a course when the professor “decided they had demonstrated an adequate mastery of the subject” and rather than receiving report cards and GPAs, professors would simply write letters of recommendation to potential employers. The first recorded letter grade system was from 1897 where the letter “E” represented failure, which was any score below a 75 (Palmer). Now to decide which system works better: grades or professor-determined mastery.

It seems as though professor-determined mastery is better than grades. Both grades and professor/teacher-determined mastery can easily lead to bias, however, professor-determined mastery is more likely to allow a student to advance when they have genuinely understood the material. Grades do not adequately represent a student’s understanding of the material, and allows a student to “advance” in education regardless of whether they truly have a knowledge of certain information or not. The concept of grades also came about in the Industrial Revolution, as it was a means of measuring factory product quality, such as “Grade A” meat.

It has been engrained in my mind since elementary school that a grade lower than an “A” means I have not tried my hardest. I very clearly remember how disappointed I was in myself in the fifth grade when I received my first report card with a GPA lower than a 4.0. I remember bawling my eyes out because I made an 87 on a science test in sixth grade. Part of my disappointment had to do with my immaturity, but even now, if I know I have tried my best and receive anything lower than an A, I still feel the same disappointment as I did in fifth grade. It’s not because I think one grade defines my identity, but because I have always had impressed upon me the idea trying my best equals an “A,” and according to that reasoning if I don’t receive an “A,” I must not have tried my best. There is an issue when the sole focus of the education system is to meet requirements. I don’t think I can recall a time when any of my school work was completed out of a pure desire to learn. I have taken courses I have genuinely enjoyed and from which I have taken away a great deal of knowledge, however, the pressure from society to complete every course with flying colors has always made me hate school.

I am not the only one who thinks this way. Jennifer Crocker, a psychologist at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, surveyed over 600 college freshman three times during the school year, asking students on what they based their self-worth. 80% of the students surveyed said they based their self-worth on academic achievement, 77% said family support, and 66% said performing better than others (Dittman). Many students also struggle with competition inside of the classroom.

Students have been given the impression doing “well” in school equals attending a great college, while doing “bad” in school equals no college at all. Though partially true, seeing as one cannot attend college without certain scores and grades, the ideology behind “good grades to get into college” really only teaches students to memorize and forget because we have to, not to learn and understand because we want to. I asked a few students from different grade levels and different high schools in my area, “In what ways, if any, do you feel pressured (by society, parents, competition, etc.) to receive good grades (meaning a B or higher), and how has this affected you personally? Do you feel disappointed in yourself when you receive less than a certain grade, and why?” I received a range of answers surrounding cultural, parental, and societal expectations concerning academic achievement.

12^th-grade student: Ever since childhood I’ve felt a certain obligation to perform well academically. As an Asian American, growing up I became very focused on achieving above average grades. I became very aware of the stigma of a model minority, meaning my average had to be above average. It was a very present ideal within my family and even culture, even though it was not as outspoken and instead, just expected. The impact of the stereotype had really developed mentally into a large part of my identity. It took a long time for me to realize this does not define me, and took even longer to finally start to deconstruct that idea. Aside from the stereotype as a major part, for any case the high expectations held for myself were not healthy. I focused so much on merit and achievement to create self-worth, and in the process of doing so I completely lost developing myself. A 93 became a loss, and a B meant failure to maintain the standard.

10^th-grade student: I feel pressured to get good grades because if I don’t I feel like no college will accept me and I won’t ever be successful. This affects me because I place all my value as a person in whether I pass or not. For example I got a B- on my report card last year… I felt like such a failure and I thought I had ruined my whole future.

12^th-grade student: I feel pressured by my parents to get good grades. This has affected me in that I am more likely to get frustrated with my work and less likely to enjoy school….

9^th-grade student: At times I feel pressured to get a certain grade because I’m afraid people will stereotype me as someone who should get perfect grades. At times I do get anxious when taking a test or a quiz because I’m afraid my grade won’t be as high as my friends.

Society tells students from a young age high grades are the only way to a successful future, and that is simply not true. All parents want their children to succeed, however, grades do not determine intelligence or success. In the present education system, grades are simply a means of determining one’s ability to follow directions and memorize, an attribute valued in the industrial age. Peter Tait, headmaster of Sherborne Preparatory School says, “We lose too many talented and intelligent people by defining intelligence through tests that are wholly inadequate and constricting. We need to look wider and encourage the entrepreneur, the inquisitive, the creative and the downright cussed in our schools to make the most of who we are and to bring out the richness and diversity of thought and ideas in our society.” In “Abolishing the ACT and SAT,” Chris Streetman argues the inability of standardized tests to show any growth in knowledge:

…the ACT is used to determine a student’s potential for academic success in college as well as students’ acceptance at college. However, the ACT does not necessarily measure progress. The Oxford Dictionary defines progress as a “forward or onward movement toward a destination” or a “development towards an improved or advanced condition.” The ACT provides a single score on one test taken on one day of a student’s life, measuring only the student’s academic achievement and aptitude on that day. Likewise, the SAT measures a student’s aptitude for college but fails to measure progress.

Unfortunately, many schools receive funds on the basis of the ACT and the SAT (Streetman). States rely on Common Core and SOLs to determine not only a student’s “understanding” of material but also the teacher’s efficiency in preparing students for these requirements. It is terribly difficult to encourage students to value learning and understanding when the very basis of many schools is limited to preparation for standardized tests.

The grading system and the use of standardized tests cause more harm than good. The purpose of education is to pursue and understand the Creator and everything He has placed on earth for us as rational beings to use for His glory, not to receive “good” grades, attend college, and get a job. God certainly does not call us to meet the minimum requirements and leave it at that. He wants us to value learning about His creation. Proverbs 18:15 says, “An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” True wisdom and true knowledge come from seeking and knowing God. This is not to say there is anything wrong with doing well in school to attend college and pursue a career. Those are all things God desires for us as long as it glorifies Him. He wants us to try our hardest. He wants us to pursue our passions, and of course, He understands we have to make a living somehow, but God also wants us to have a desire to know Him. Standardized tests and grades only help students to learn at a minimum; they don’t give students the desire to learn. We must have a desire to learn about the higher things, the things God has placed on the earth to know Him better that won’t always be the pathway to a career or won’t necessarily build our resume. When we teach students on the basis of valuing knowledge because we are able to, because we have the capability of reaching out to the world around us and interacting with it, education becomes something of much more value to everyone.

My third confirmation argument is the education system lacks a foundation for teaching students real-world skills. Too often there is a disparity between what is taught in school and the knowledge needed to live in the “real world.” In some schools there are electives and optional courses for real-world skills (money management, filing taxes, paying bills, etc.) such as a personal finance class, but again, these classes are optional, and many students will only take the class because they need the credit or an “easy” A. One may ask, “why not teach this course in college when students are around the age to start doing these things anyway?” High school is required; college is not. In 2016, a little more than 30% of high school graduates were not enrolled in college (“College Enrollment and Work”). Unless it is necessary for your major, classes such as personal finance would likely be optional in college. The point is, states should require students to take a course on or involving real-world skills in order to graduate. According to EVERFI, “Only four U.S. states require at least a semester-long course devoted to the topic, and less than half of states require personal finance education to be integrated into other subject matter.” Only 26% of parents feel adequately equipped to teach their children real-world skills. More than a quarter of students surveyed by EVERFI do not feel prepared to handle finances after graduation, and many showed they had little to no understanding of basic concepts involving finance (“Survey Reveals”).

Schools spend a great deal of time teaching students information such as the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell while spending little to no time educating students about information that will be relevant for the rest of one’s life, and sometimes even before one graduates high school. No, learning about the mitochondria is not a bad thing. As I have previously stated, God desires for us to learn and understand because we have the opportunity to learn about the higher things; however, focusing all attention solely on the basics or the higher things will not benefit students in the way we would hope. There must be a balance between the basics and the higher things.

I started my first job the summer after 10^th grade. I was completely unaware of federal taxes. I had never heard of a “W-2.” All I knew was I had a job and I was making money. Fortunately, I had and have my parents to help me figure it all out, but for many students, their parents aren’t around to teach them these skills, which is why it is necessary for schools to teach students real-world skills. Though we should pursue higher education, pursuing knowledge for knowledge’s sake, I struggle to understand how it is any less important to teach students real-world skills.

The Internet is a wonderful tool students can use to learn about taxes and paying bills. Most American students have the opportunity at their fingertips to research these topics online, however, students also have the ability to research the mitochondria. They can discover the “Golden Rule” at the click of a button. The Pythagorean Theorem will pop up on Google in just 0.38 seconds, but we still extensively teach these topics in our education system. We don’t have to draw a line between teaching all of the sciences and real-world skills, or history and real-world skills, and so on and so-forth, simply because it’s “so easy” to research real-world skills on-line.

A required personal finance class would be fantastic, but it’s likely not practical in many schools. Fortunately, there may not have to be a class devoted to real-world skills to really teach things such as paying taxes and how they work. Economics is a great class to teach students how taxes work. Mathematics is another subject in which real-world skills could be incorporated into our education system. Real-world skills can be taught without forfeiting other important things.

Though the need for a meaningful education seems obvious enough, not everyone agrees on its importance or how to achieve it. The first counterargument I will refute is there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with the education system, rather the reason students have such a difficult time with school is they choose to participate in so many extracurricular activities. I would argue extracurricular activities are an equally vital part of a healthy and fulfilling life, just as homework or classroom experiences are. According to The National Federation of State High School Associations, nearly eight million American high school students participated in at least one sport in the 2016-2017 school year. That is over half of American high school students. Many students rely on athletics for scholarships to college, and approximately 480,000 students end up pursuing a sport through college (Thomas). The NCAA says,

And of that group [the 480,000 students] only a fraction will realize their goal of becoming a professional or Olympic athlete. For the rest, the experiences of college athletics and the life lessons they learn along the way will help them as they pursue careers in other fields. Education is a vital part of the college athletics experience, and student-athletes graduate at higher rates than their peers in the student body.

Likewise, I would argue the experience of high school sports teaches life lessons, encourages healthy friendships, and sometimes promotes time-management skills. Another benefit of high school sports is the aspect of exercise. Jasper Smits, director of the Anxiety Research and Treatment Program at Southern Methodist University, and Michael Otto, psychology professor at Boston University, concluded through research, “Exercise can help reduce depression and anxiety, and can be especially beneficial to people who lack access to traditional treatments, such as drugs or counseling” (Barrett). Tackling something new, such as learning an instrument, can help many students who struggle with depression (Griffin), which can be especially important considering approximately 20 percent of teens experience depression prior to adulthood (“Why Today’s Teens”). Group extracurricular activities allow for relationships some students may not be able to make inside of school, such as finding friendships in band or drama club. Considering high school is a preparatory stage for college, we must also consider extracurricular activities such as sports, playing an instrument, theater, and more play an enormous role in discovering our passions as human beings, so to ask students to cut out something they truly enjoy is completely ridiculous and contrary to God’s desire for us to explore our passions and gifts He has given us in order to glorify Him. Extracurricular activities are often required in order to attend college or pursue a specific career, such as required volunteer hours, a driving course, a nursing program, or an internship, which are never part of the standard “curriculum.”

Perhaps the issue is not the extracurricular activities, rather schools do not accommodate for extracurricular activities. On average, a high school student has 3.5 hours of school work to complete every night. In an article in the Los Angeles Times, Karen Klein says, “I’m no homework-denier. When you look at the research, it’s clear that homework, at least at the high school level, contributes to higher achievement. But I’m also in the camp that says kids, including teenagers, need well-balanced lives that include extracurricular activities, outside pursuits, physical activity, fun with friends and family, and just hanging around.” There is something wrong with a student attending school for 6-8 hours a day and still having 3.5 hours of homework to complete.

Let’s suggest a student is getting a healthy amount of sleep (about 9 hours) per night, which is above the average 7 hours high school students normally get (“CDC Reports That Insufficient”). That means in order to wake up at, say, 6 in the morning, the student would need to go to bed at 9 PM. The student is awake from 6 AM-9 PM, 15 hours, and about 12 hours is spent in school and completing homework (8 hours in school and 3.5 hours on homework). That leaves the student only 3 hours to eat dinner, spend time with family, shower, etc. without factoring in however much time is spent playing sports, attending lessons, etc. Most high school athletes return home from a game between 7 PM and 11 PM. Theater rehearsals can last for hours after school. Music lessons tend to be 30 minutes to an hour long. Chorus and band practices can last 2-3 hours long. There is something terribly wrong with this situation. Students are being asked to forfeit the things they enjoy, family time, sleep, etc. in order to achieve decent grades. As a Christian, I believe God calls us to enjoy our lives through glorifying Him. I do not think there is a better way to glorify Him than through using the talents and gifts He has given each of us, but school greatly hinders our ability to use our talents. This should not be the case. I am not suggesting getting rid of homework altogether, however, there must be some way to meet in the middle, where most of the homework completed at home can be completed or learned efficiently in school. Extracurricular activities are not the problem with our current school system.

Schools could adjust their end times or period times to accommodate for extracurricular activities. One way to minimize homework would be to use class time for discussion and interaction with the material, and home-time for lectures. In my advanced chemistry class, the only work we usually have outside of class is projects, which we rarely have. Our teacher uses class time for lectures, and then gives us class time to complete worksheets on what we have learned, which gives us ample time to complete the work, discuss with classmates, and ask our teacher questions (this usually means one week is spent on lectures and two days is spent on worksheets). This could be a potential model for many classes which would reduce work-load outside of class, and open up more time for extracurricular activities.

The second counterargument I will refute is being a student is one’s job until he or she graduates, so neglecting sleep is worth the long-term benefits of ample time spent in the classroom. Most schools start earlier than 8 AM. (Start School Later). According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 73% of high schoolers and 58% of middle-schoolers do not receive a sufficient amount of sleep. Students aged 13-18 need approximately 8-10 hours of sleep at night (“CDC Reports That Insufficient”). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “More than 4 in 5 (82.3%) of U.S. middle, high, and combined public schools require students to attend class at times earlier than recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and American Medical Association” (Start School Later). In adolescence, one’s sleep cycle shifts to a later time of 11 PM, with the release of melatonin occurring late at night and dropping during late morning, which explains alertness in teens in the later afternoon/night (Breus). On a school night, I usually go to sleep around 10:30PM-11PM, and wake up at 6:45 AM, which is less than 8 hours of sleep. Most students get less than seven hours of sleep per night. Researcher Carskadon says,

Even without the pressure of biological changes, if we combine an early school starting time — say 7:30 AM, which, with a modest commute, makes 6:15 AM a viable rising time — with our knowledge that optimal sleep need is 9 1/4 hours, we are asking that 16-year olds go to bed at 9 PM. Rare is a teenager that will keep such a schedule. School work, sports practices, clubs, volunteer work, and paid employment take precedence. When biological changes are factored in, the ability even to have merely “adequate” sleep is lost.

Students are expected to perform well in school while keeping up with everything else on a less than minimal amount of sleep. An article by the National Sleep Foundation states, “Teens spend a great portion of each day in school; however, they are unable to maximize the learning opportunities afforded by the education system, since sleep deprivation impairs their ability to be alert, pay attention, solve problems, cope with stress, and retain information” (Backgrounder: Later School). Sleep deprivation impairs one’s ability to concentrate and learn efficiently. It can also cause forgetfulness or weight gain/loss. Insufficient sleep can contribute to depression and anxiety (“10 Things to Hate”). The AASM says schools should not start earlier than 8:30 AM. The article “Teens Need More Sleep than You Think” says some of the benefits of starting school later are higher grades, improved relationships, fewer reports of sickness and tardiness, and a decrease in teen car accidents. The necessity of sleep cannot be ignored.

The best way for this problem to be fixed would be to adjust school start times by at least an hour. Class times could be shortened, as mentioned in my first refutation, which would allow for extra time at the end of the day. Summit Christian Academy, for example, adjusted the majority of classes to 35-39 minute periods for one week rather than 45 minute periods. Not only were teachers able to get through generally the same amount of material as usual, but we were left with 45 minutes at the end of the day before school would normally end. This could allow for a later start time. While Summit operates on an eight-period schedule, many schools use block-scheduling, where they may have 1.5 hours per class and half of the classes in one day. Many of these classes likely could be shortened to an hour and 15 minutes, leaving an hour that could also allow for a later start time.

The third and final counterargument I will refute is higher education occurs at a college level and is not necessary at the middle or high school level. As defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, higher education is, “education beyond the secondary level; especially: education provided by a college or university” (“Higher Education”). Higher education, however, should not be limited to the college and university level. I will define higher education as a desirable knowledge of information beyond what is deemed “necessary” to know before college. The sole reason “higher education” is considered education during college and university is because the middle and high school system limits what students need to know to whatever is standard and required by the state. Students should have a desire to understand and study beyond what is required, and the education system should promote that desire. Higher education is necessary before high school in order to promote the desire to learn and the desire to understand God. If we place the necessity and importance of education in boxes, where higher education is only necessary and important in college, we completely misunderstand and neglect the purpose of education. As previously stated, the purpose of education is to glorify God and learn more about Him because He has given us the ability to do so. Revelation 4:11 says, “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”

In order to fully understand God, we must have a desire to study His creation within and outside of what is necessary to graduate. This concept is as simple as placing much less emphasis on graduating, going to college, getting a job, and retiring. I truly believe when God is placed at the center of our lives, everything else will come to fruition. Teacher’s attitudes and students’ academic diligence will reflect the level of importance God is placed at in their lives.

One may ask, “What if I don’t believe in God? What then is my purpose in pursuing education beyond what I need to lead a ‘fulfilling’ life?” Regardless of your belief in God, the way we live our lives and understand the world relies immensely on our determination to understand it. Many of our greatest discoveries came from people who had a genuine desire to study and know more, such as Albert Einstein, Galileo, or Louis Pasteur. Without these people’s desire to understand, our lives may not look the same today. The way we live our lives is dependent on our understanding of the world around us, which is why it is so necessary to study beyond what will get us a job. Imagine if everyone in the world had the desire to learn and study the way Isaac Newton did. How much more would we then be able to discover in the world and in ourselves?

Now that I have pinpointed the flaws in the education system and refuted arguments against my thesis, there must be a third step to take in reforming the American education system. The third and final step is figuring out how to go about the reform, and then taking action. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any overt solution to the problem, but there are small steps that can help us all discover a better system than what we have now. I think the most obvious way to reform the system is to stop placing so much emphasis on grades and academic achievement. Of course, it is a difficult task. It is a change in the mentality of our parents, teachers, and students that will assist in the reform of the system. Perhaps even one teacher emphasizing the importance of learning instead of getting “good” grades could change the mentality of an entire class. It begins on a small scale, such as in my own school, Summit Christian Academy. With around 120 students, if every teacher at Summit emphasized the importance of learning over getting “good grades,” that is around 120 more students who will value education rather than grades. As stated previously, later school start times or earlier end times could immensely transform our system, benefitting student health, and likely academic effort. We can incorporate real-world skills into the subjects schools are already teaching.

Reforming the education system isn’t about students hating school or learning. It’s about how students shouldn’t hate school or learning. It’s about the need for genuine understanding, for a genuine desire to understand God’s design, and the need for our students to be healthy, energized, and prepared. Prepared not only to start their school day but to start the rest of their lives. The purpose of education has been set aside for too long. We are stuck in an education system that values standardization and trivial learning rather than genuine understanding and a desire to know more. Parents are sending their children through an education system that is not preparing them for the future. Students are stuck in an education system they are practically destined to struggle in. Though it is difficult, we cannot remain complacent. We must reform the American education system. An ever-changing society, combined with the God who “makes all things new,” has no room for complacent education.

Works Cited

“10 Things to Hate About Sleep Loss.” WebMD, WebMD. Web. 5 Feb. 2018.

“About the Standards.” Common Core State Standards Initiative About the Standards Comments. Web. 24 Feb. 2018.

“Backgrounder: Later School Start Times.” National Sleep Foundation. Web. 9 Dec. 2017.

Barrett, Carson. “How Does Playing Sports Affect Your Health?” Azcentral. Web. 26 Feb. 2018.

Breus, Michael J. “Teens Need More Sleep Than You Think.” The Sleep Doctor. Web. 9 Dec. 2017.

Burrus, Trevor. Powell, Aaron. “Why Schools Haven’t Changed in Hundreds of Years.” Audio blog post. Free Thoughts Podcast. 9 Dec. 2016. Web. 5 Feb 2018.

“CDC Reports That Insufficient Sleep Is Common on School Nights.” American Academy ofSleep Medicine — Association for Sleep Clinicians and Researchers, Web. 3 Feb. 2018. 5 Feb. 2018.

“College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2016 High School Graduates.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Web. 27 Apr. 2017. 24 Feb. 2018.

Dittman, M. “Self-esteem that’s based on external sources has mental health consequences, study says.” American Psychological Association, vol. 33, no. 11, 2000, pp. 16. Web. 10 Dec. 2017.

Griffin, R. Morgan. “10 Natural Depression Treatments.” WebMD, WebMD. Web. 5 Feb. 2018.

“Higher Education.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster. Web. 13 Mar. 2018.

“The History of American Education: 1600s-2000.” ISM. PDF. 5 Feb. 2018.

“Industrial Revolution.” History.com. A+E Networks, 2009. Web. 5 Feb. 2018.

Kahn, Salman. Noer, Michael. “History of Education.” Youtube, Uploaded by Forbes, Web. 1 Nov. 2012. 5 Feb. 2018.

Klein, Karin. “About 3.5 Hours of Homework a Day for High Schoolers? That’s Too Much.” Los Angeles Times, Web. 1 Mar. 2014. 3 Feb. 2018.

Moorehouse, Isaac. “The Future of School.” Praxis. PDF.

The National Federation of State High School Associations. “2016-17 High School Athletics Participation Survey.” 2017. PDF. 5 Feb. 2018.

Next School. “6 Problems with our School System.” Youtube. Uploaded by Next School, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 10 Dec. 2017.

Palmer, Brian. “E is for Fail.” Slate, 9 Aug 2010. Web. 10 Dec. 2017.

Start School Later. (2017.) Wake up Calls (Fast Facts). Web. 25 Feb. 2018.

Streetman, Chris. “Abolishing the ACT and SAT.” Abolishing the ACT and SAT. 12 Mar. 2018.

“Survey Reveals That US High School Students Lack Adequate Financial Knowledge.” EVERFI. Web. 24 Feb. 2018.

Thomas, D. “Probability of Competing Beyond High School.” NCAA.org — The Official Site of the NCAA, Web. 19 Sept. 2017. 5 Feb. 2018.

“Why Today’s Teens Are More Depressed Than Ever.” Center For Discovery. Web. 24 Feb. 2018.

Asian-Americans: Perspectives

Leave a reply

Melissa Yeh

Two years ago, I heard the story of a Chinese man who decided he was going to leave everything he knew and start living in America. In order to pursue this, he had to start from the bottom. He was able to arrive in the United States and did what was quite expected of most Asian immigrants; he began working in a Chinese restaurant, the small sort for late nights and comfort food. There were no former colleagues or friends when he arrived; everyone he passed was a stranger. He had no education for English. Slowly but surely, he worked hard and long enough to bring the rest of his family over, his wife and two sons. His oldest son was three years old when he left; the younger was only a year old. And yet, the man found his passage to America, not by plane or any easy means, but through small fishing boats. Without any familiarity of friends or family, not to mention he had no knowledge of the language, he raised himself from the bottom to create his own connections and opportunities. Alone, he managed all of this. For ten years, he managed all of this. For ten years, he did not see his wife and his two sons while they grew. Willingly, he went through this time in his life all for the sake of hoping his sons would be given beyond the opportunities he had. This man was my grandfather.

How do you struggle with good things people say about you? Suppose success is something you are set up to reach and exceptionally pushed toward, would there even be any issue? Above average academics, high standards in extracurricular activities such as music or other fine arts, and community involvement are all commendable goals to strive for. By all means, this should be a positive and an acceptable mentality. However, I still find myself asking, “Why do strife and broken relationships exist between parents and children despite these positive objectives? Why are self-image and worth damaged and cultural identity lost between generations? Why does the eldest child leave for college estranged from parents with a shattered relationship left in its wake? Moreover, why am I describing strangers I met from a retreat in New York? Why am I describing a student I met from St. Louis on a mission trip? Why am I describing not one, but four of the close friends that have left for college from my church? Why am I afraid I will be describing myself one day?”

For Asian-American students, the results of exposure to stereotypes and pressures of expectations are oftentimes overlooked in severity through how it affects identity and worth within Western society. The most common stereotype is known as the model minority stereotype and it is defined as a minority group who are successful in education/academics and overall quiescent in manner (“The Model Minority”). The Immigrant Bargain is defined as children recognizing the struggle and hardship their parents underwent and using it as a driving force to perform well for their parents; overall, they want to guarantee their parents’ effort in bringing the family to the states was not in vain (Bronstein and Chan 183). In knowing the trials my own grandfather underwent to allow the fortunate opportunities I have today, I bear a deep sense of respect to not waste the hard-earned efforts and comfort my family sacrificed.

This is a relevant issue, as Asian Americans across the country silently struggle with this exact problem as well as with their own cultural identity, feeling out of place for being raised differently. The loss of awareness and connection to understanding their own culture leads to misunderstandings that damage relationships between parents and children. Self worth is oftentimes dependent on merit, leading to an unhealthy mental state. Currently, another issue arises in the lawsuits claiming Ivy League schools are discriminating against Asian Americans. The problem is not so much that the schools may or may not be guilty but the fear such discrimination incites in students who are aiming for top universities. They fear with the expectation from parents looming over them, how will they overcome the odds stacked against them in college admissions? They question if their diligent efforts will ultimately prove futile. Overall, these issues affect how Asian-American students need to understand their own culture and determine self worth.

In order to prove the detrimental psychological effects of stereotypes and expectations on Asian-American students are overlooked and need to be addressed properly, I will confirm three arguments: Western stereotypes negatively influence self-image, the cultural expectations placed on Asian-American children are incorrectly based on merit, and Asian Americans lack awareness for mental health in identity and self-worth. I will refute two counterarguments: the psychological issues in Asian-American students are solely founded on the ignorance of stereotypes from Western culture and society, and the psychological issues of Asian-American students derive solely from the harsh standards in parenting and expectations.

My first argument follows how Western stereotypes negatively influence self-image for Asian American students, despite seemingly sounding positive. Upon mention of the ethnicity, Asian, the most common image that comes to mind is East Asian culture consisting of those based in China, Japan, or Korea. American society oftentimes fails to include people of Indian or Pacific Islander heritage as Asians. In addition to the assumption where one is always either Chinese, Japanese, or Korean, Asian Americans are oftentimes seen as foreigners, regardless of assimilation into society. A second or third generation Asian American will still be asked where he or she is from regardless of the fact he himself and his parents may have been born and resided in America for their entire lives (Bronstein and Chan 182). The most common Asian conception is the model minority stereotype. Though people may not connect the name, the idea has been widespread across America since the 1960s. The model minority is a minority group who has attained prosperity and is well educated and quiescent (“The Model Minority”). In essence, the stereotype will portray Asians as good at math and always achieving high-standing scores in academics. At first, these definitions may not give any appearance of insult or negative proportions. Yet if the wording were to be changed to, “Asians must be good at math and cannot afford to get anything other than high standing scores in academics,” the tone and meaning shifts. Now, these attributes have garnered urgency and have become required standards of behavior. The insult derives from associating an entire people group with one characteristic, no matter how positive it may be. The expectations in these standards rise to communicate Asian-American students must naturally have the ability to succeed in grades, especially in math and science. Furthermore, Asian Americans have begun to feel displaced or flawed for not embodying the model minority. This thinking, beginning at a young age, continues to influence an unhealthy attitude of how they view themselves. Young teenagers develop a motivation not founded on wanting to succeed and do well, but rather on the need to fill a quota to feel normal. The feeling of alienation and estrangement generates distance from identity from cultural differences (Wu and Lee 3). In addition to the insecurity created by the smart Asian stereotype, those who do not excel in academics because of disorders such as ADHD are hurt even more by this stigma (Wong). Asians cannot be naturally smarter on any level; there is no foundation for this notion. The stereotype, no matter how “kindly meant,” is hurtful and detrimental. Therefore, it must be rejected.

A second perception claims all Asians generally have an introverted demeanor, in which being quiet is misinterpreted as submissive and unassertive. When this stereotype is applied in a work environment, Asians rarely achieve high positions in careers such as CEO positions or other director/president titles in large organizations. In a study conducted by the Buck Gee, Janet Wong and Denise Peck, Asian-American executives who put together data from Google, Intel, Hewlett Packard, LinkedIn and Yahoo for a report published by Ascend, an Asian-American organization, they concluded, “In 2014, whereas 11% of law-firm associates were Asian, 3% of partners were.” Though Asians are perceived to find success in high school and gain entrance into top tier-universities, the same success is not true for life after college. A study of Fortune 500 CEOs was conducted by Richard Zweigenhaft and he found, “In 2000 eight of the five hundred were Asian-American, and in 2014 ten were, whereas the women’s tally in the same period rose from four to twenty-four. Academia, similarly, is stuffed with Asian-American professors, but among America’s 3,000 colleges there are fewer than ten Asian-American presidents (“The Model Minority”).” In this light, the influence of the stereotype is subtle but still noticeable, since Asians are known as “hardworking yet submissive” but are exploited and kept from their potential. The lack of respect for opportunities in high authority positions is less commonly recognized, and though it is not necessarily resentment, it does career limit opportunities (Bronstein and Chan 184).

The latest concern in relation to self-image and academic opportunities is the lawsuit and other concerns pending toward Ivy League Schools in racial discrimination against Asian Americans in admissions, particularly Harvard University. While Affirmative Action acts as a strong advocate in achieving balance in diversity, this is not the case for Asian Americans. These students feel they must have higher scores than other non-Asian applicants to gain admissions (Jaschik). While Harvard is being investigated and the Asian Advocacy organizations continue to push for access to records of the admission process, the effect of this issue is significant to those applying and how it alters their view on chances of gaining admissions. If the racial discrimination has been occurring in Ivy League schools, then the likelihood of entering these schools has decreased, and Asian Americans who apply are being held to an unjust higher standard. This discovery has created a newfound worry for Asian students, wondering whether their hard work and effort put into academics was worth enough. Students want to please their parents and perform well, but now the stakes are even higher than they were before. Moreover, this frame of mind can pit Asian-American students against each other in unhealthy competition. Another response from Asian-American students might conjure hatred toward African Americans and Hispanic students who supposedly gain entry through lower standards. Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz even states, “Discriminating against Asians in order to make room for other minorities does not seem right as a matter of principle” (Hartocollis and Saul). Another fear arises for the question, “If Harvard is allowing this, than how many other schools are as well?” Many different articles I have researched testify top performing students with near perfect SAT/ACT scores, academics, and extracurricular activities have been rejected without explanation from Ivy League Universities. Michael Wang had a 36/36 on the ACT, and become a finalist in piano competitions, math competitions, and debate tournaments, yet was rejected from six of the seven Ivy Leagues he applied to (“The Model Minority”). Austin Jia had a high GPA, near perfect score on the SAT and ACT, involvement on debate team, held the position of tennis captain, and participated in state orchestra, but was rejected from four Ivy League schools (Hartocollis and Saul). Evidence for whether discrimination is evident is still a matter of inquiry, but the important observation to draw is each student believed success was set up from the achievements they had worked on in high school and were confused and devastated when it was not so. With high-achieving students to compare themselves to, younger Asian-American students see themselves all the more negatively for not hitting those marks. The deepest problem occurs when the focus dwells on the perspective that since not even the best could achieve what their parents hope to see their child one day reach, there is no hope for them to even try to. The perception in which students see themselves needs change for the better.

The second argument to affirm my thesis is the cultural expectations placed on Asian-American children are incorrectly based on merit. Asian immigrants first arrived on the West Coast bringing their traditions and worldviews with them. Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian philosophies heavily influenced and defined behavior and lifestyle. These emphasized harmony, family, and group needs over the individual’s needs (180). Cultural influences relied the most on family, the model family being two parents who cared for their elderly parents and established clear rules and discipline for their children. The cycle continued when the children became adults and had families of their own. In interaction with their children, parents are generally not physically or emotionally affectionate in an open manner toward their children. The effort to communicate care was demonstrated through respect to a sense of responsibility. The crucial understanding of respect for elders is a monument in culture as it can dictate long-term decisions such as career, marriage, and location for where the children decide to live. Therefore it is not uncommon to see children choosing academic paths in college, career, or spouse as their parents preferred over their own passions and interests (183). To choose otherwise is to be seen as disrespectful and ungrateful. This pressures the child to follow what others determine for him, even if he has no desired interest or enjoyment in the decision.

In 2011, Amy Chua coined the term “tiger mom” in her book describing Chinese mothers as superior in how they raised children, as opposed to the western archetype. With incredibly strict guidelines since their early childhood, her two daughters were raised forbidden from any dating, sleepovers, and they were absolutely required to play the piano or violin and receive only A’s in academics. They could not participate in any drama plays (due to the amount of practice time it required), not play any other instrument of their choice, and had to choose tutoring and music over their social life. This meant her two daughters underwent difficult tutoring for advanced classes and extensive lessons in piano and violin (Chua 10). In an article Chua states, “The solution to substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish, and shame the child.” This was literal, as oftentimes and even in public she would criticize her daughters when they were failing and yelled at them, calling them garbage, lazy, and cowardly. Though not always as extreme, the mentality behind this is quite common among the majority of Asian parents. Oftentimes, it will result in resentment and stress for both the parent and child. The practice of breaking down a child for discipline is damaging and when strict discipline becomes verbal abuse, two main reactions follow; as a consequence, the child will either suffer incredibly low self-esteem or accumulate unspoken hostility for his parents. Like pressure building in a balloon, the unsolved tension will burst into outspoken hatred from the child, and can ultimately destroy the relationship (Wu and Lee 732).

My third argument is Asian Americans lack awareness for mental health in identity and self-worth. In addition to their expectations and ideals, Asian parents typically discourage acknowledging any lack of mental health unless extremely severe. Otherwise, it is dismissed and the desire to seek help in terms of counseling is not only considered unnecessary but also frowned upon (Bronstein and Chan 185). Experiencing this attitude and refusal to acknowledge attention to mental health, the child can perceive the relationship is built on vulgar methods of criticism and lack of affection. Amy Chua’s method employs verbal abuse within the environment to stimulate academic discipline. In a national study led by Michael Spencer, Juan Chen, Gilbert Gee, Cathryn Fabian, and David Takeguchi, the number of Asian Americans utilizing mental health services was found to be significantly lower than the non-Asian population. They conducted the study through a series of questions asking about formal and informal means of mental health-related service use, racial discrimination, language proficiency, and barriers to service use. Informal means consists of seeking online self-help chats, or relying upon religious leaders in the community; formal means consist of seeking counsel from professional psychiatrists. They concluded,

In the United States Asian Americans have a sizeable burden of mental illness, with a 17.30% overall lifetime rate of any psychiatric disorder and a 9.19% 12-month rate over a 12-month period. Only 3.1% of Asian Americans use specialty mental health services, compared with 5.59% of African Americans, 5.94% of Caribbean Blacks, 4.44% of Mexicans, 5.55% of Cubans, and 8.8% of the general population. In a study by Abe-Kim et al., only 8.6% of Asian Americans sought any mental health services compared with 17.9% of the general population.

Since Asian Americans were more likely to use informal means of mental heath services, the discrimination and condescension toward mental health concerns proved to be a root cause in discouraging mental health. Another factor was the lack of clear communication due to the language barrier for immigrants. In another study conducted by the research team at the University of Maryland School of Public health, authors Meekyung Han and Helen Pong concluded,

Extra-familial intervention, such as seeking professional psychological help, is often considered shameful, a violation of the family hierarchy and harmony, and potentially disgraceful to the family. Our study suggests that, because Asian American community college students grow up in a culture in which family hierarchy, emotional restraint, avoidance of shame, and “saving face” are prevalent, these students’ foremost significant barrier to engaging professional help is the stigma of mental health issues, as learned and constructed within the family and cultural context (Han and Pong 10).

As parents do not encourage mental health as a significant priority, children continue to focus on accomplishing the task in front of them regardless of the strain it produces and accumulates over time. If this occurs, the student creates a negative image of himself built on merit and achievement only. Students will only continue to aim higher and higher without realizing or accepting the need to satisfy success will never truly be reached. No matter how much the individual attempts to continue striving for higher scores or better performances, the ultimate reality remains: perfection is out of reach. This mentality drives the unrealistic mantra, “I have to do better,” and it also leaves students susceptible to constantly comparing to others in academics and extracurricular activities. At the end of the day, when a student collides into failure, not only does he feel defeated, but the impact of such defeat can become much more devastating on self-image. The stress builds over frustration, helplessness, and lowered self-esteem. Failure is inevitable, and if parents do not communicate that failure is only a part on the process, or even worse do not know how to communicate the fact at all, the consequence of a strain and lasting damage on the relationship between the child and their parents ensues. The child perceives his efforts and work are not enough, which builds in her mind, replaying every mistake and regret on what should have been done.

On the other hand, the alternative approach follows from feeling deep resentment toward parents for not allowing the child to pursue what he wants to; there is no room for compromise and are prohibited from what he enjoys either for no reason whatsoever or unjust, controlling reasons. Conflicting ideals are a common issue: disagreement on career paths, college choices, etc., all factor into more tension between them. Furthermore, on top of pressure from family, the perception society holds adds to the anxiety and indecision over what to follow. The narrative society asserts emphasizes following what an individual desires in life; anyone holding him back is an obstacle to his happiness. With both the expectation of parents and society’s idea for pursuing individual happiness competing for influence, the student becomes more and more agitated and conflicted over whom to follow. Koko Nishi’s article, “Mental Health Among Asian Americans” summarizes the sources of stress commonly found in students:

Parental pressure to succeed in academics, discussing mental health concerns is considered taboo in many Asian cultures and as a result Asian Americans tend to dismiss, deny or neglect their symptoms, pressure to live up to the “model minority” stereotype (a view that inaccurately portrays Asian Americans as successfully integrating into mainstream culture and having overcome the challenges of racial bias), family obligations based on strong traditional and cultural values, and discrimination due to racial or cultural background, and difficulty in balancing two different cultures and developing a bicultural sense of self (Nishi).

With each of these perspectives, the self-image Asian Americans have assembled from society’s perception and familial cultural perception are detrimental to their self-worth and image; both aspects have the potential to change in a positive manner.

The first counterargument I will refute is the psychological issues in Asian-American students are solely founded on the ignorance of stereotypes from Western culture and society. This is incorrect because the assumption fails to understand from where the stereotypes and mentalities derive. In order to understand these stereotypes, immigrant history is necessary to identify the origins behind them. The stereotype that all Asians are Chinese, Japanese, or Korean is found offensive because it fails to recognize Indians and other Southeast Asians such as Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc.; yet the three ethnicities are only better known because they have had longer and larger presences in America (Bronstein and Chan 180). In the 1840s-1860s, the Chinese were the first nationality to immigrate; they worked as laborers and were placed in ghettos. They were also the first to be barred from immigration as only men could arrive and were prohibited from marrying. The Japanese experienced similar conditions in the 1880s, as did the Korean and Filipino groups that immigrated in 1903-1920. In each situation, policies were enacted in response to the fear that a growing community was a threat to the workforce. The height of anti-Asian sentiment occurred during the internment camps for Japanese Americans in WWII with over 110,000 sent away from their homes (181-182). Furthermore, Chinese citizens were also placed in the camps due to the similarity of appearance. When the immigration ban was lifted in 1965, an influx of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian, and Filipinos moved in hopes of better opportunities (182). Thus, while not excusable, many of the Asian American stereotypes derive from historical background. The failure to recognize or implement Asian American immigration into education results in ignorance. The stereotypes are not a misunderstanding, but a direct cause of psychological issues in Asian-American students today. They trace from immigrant history, dealing with the aftermath of abuse, racism, and oppression.

In addition, media has a large role in creating the Asian image. The constant exposure to media and characters created in movies and television shows have an impact on how Western society views Asian Americans. Especially in Hollywood, the identity created by films and television shows have started with stereotypical roles: the IT guy, the math nerd, or Chinese man #2. Examples include Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s or Dong in Sixteen Candles. Whitewashing has raised controversy among the Asian community not only with Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, but also currently with films like Ghost in the Shell, Aloha, Batman Begins, and Doctor Strange. Whitewashing communicates that Asian leads are near impossible to have and find. In the same way, Asians then are only cast as minor characters, oftentimes as stereotypical roles. In an age permeated with technology and media, the idea presented here is discouraging to young Asian Americans who are only exposed to the stereotypes people who look like them play on television. Controversy on cultural appropriation and need for better Asian-American media representation has been addressed, but not nearly enough as it should change what is seen on screen. Until incorporated well enough into mainstream media, the ideal broadcasted by Hollywood remains a constricting view of how Asians are portrayed in society. It affects not only how others see Asian Americans, but also how they see themselves. Hence, this is a direct misrepresentation that negatively affects Asian Americans today, especially for the youth who have constant exposure to media.

The next counterargument I will refute is the psychological issues of Asian-American students derive solely from the harsh standards in parenting and expectations. This argument is incorrect because this statement fails to acknowledge the mentality behind Asian culture. When examining Asian parenting based upon a Western mentality, the ready observation is Asian parenting is cruel and inappropriate. Now imagine switching the mentalities on how Asian culture views Western culture on the topic of parenting. If Asian households encourage their children to be respectful and caring towards their elders and family as priority, the logical reaction is to wonder why Western households are so reluctant to focus and devote their time around the children as priority instead of the parents. As Amy Chua states in the article about her book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, “The Western narrative wants to respect the child’s individuality, encourage to pursue their passions, support their choices, with only positive reinforcement, and nurturing environments, but by contrast Chinese parents believe in what their children are capable of to prepare for their future and arm them with skills, work habits, and inner confidence.” Asian parents believe in following safe career paths and academics that will guarantee success and a stable future where one can provide for their grandchildren and entire family.

The notion of sacrifice is incredibly significant to parents. Immigration is an immediate example of this. Parents recognize better opportunities for education and career and thus travel halfway across the world to unfamiliarity and discomfort, all for the sake of their children. In turn follows the Immigrant Bargain, in which children recognize that struggle and hardship their parents underwent, driving them to perform well for their parents and that their effort to bring the family to the States was not in vain (Bronstein and Chan 185). It is true there is a higher standard set for students but the parents want the best for their child, and when the child cannot accomplish the task in front of him, the parents push him because they believe he can do it. Hard work and discipline build character. Thus choosing the parents’ recommendation over passions is acceptable when it means a secure financial future and guarantees provision for future family and care for parents. It does not mean all passions are rejected for the sake of blatant hatred for letting a child want to pursue something enjoyed. The value of family is the priority and community rests on the unified family near each other.

Once while eating dinner, my grandfather exclaimed I was holding my chopsticks too high. He took the superstition quite seriously where the farther up I hold chopsticks, the farther away I will live from the family when I am married. Immediately it felt constraining to not have the freedom to venture away, but in an instant I realized the sentiment that he only wanted me to remain closer to visit often and spend more time together. Perhaps Asian parents are not verbally affectionate, but to say “I love you” was not through the outright “I love you,” but communicated through “Are you eating enough?” “Are you doing well in school?” When you consider how the majority of society demonstrates affection, these questions seem overbearing and nagging, but in reality it truly indicates care for wellbeing. It is without doubt their own parents did the same to show love. This was best demonstrated in a short film titled “What Asian Parents Don’t Say,” a comedic take on communication and lack of openness between parents and children. Two friends contrast how they relate to their parents; at first glance, the Asian friend feels as if his communication is askew or stunted, but realizes it is only said differently. Thus, Asian parenting is misunderstood in communication and in comparison to Western parenting. The intentions are built on heath, stability, and comfort for the future of their children as adults.

After doing research and listening to several testimonies from Asian Americans and their struggle in identity, I have learned the occurrences and thoughts among these students are incredibly similar. They are similar in academic pressure, self worth, and familial issues. It was not until I finished research that I realized the conclusion would be largely based in change starting in attitudes and perceptions. If there is no foundation in altering how people think, the changes in behavior or any other action will not hold in the long run.

For those who have not grown up within an Asian community or have not had the chance to learn about East Asian culture, take a step back to look through the perspective of Asian parenting. Truly look at the motives and values within an Asian-American family before discounting any method. Blindly criticizing and judging without understanding the full story is not justified, not only in this situation but also in any circumstance. By sympathizing with parents’ desire for the best for the children, common ground enables understanding into comparing and contrasting strengths and weaknesses of the ideal model for raising children. As for how non-Asian peers or adults view Asian-American students, there must be awareness and ability to relate to children in how they are raised. This allows for healthy growth and encouragement for Asian-American children from a young age.

For Asian parents, especially Asian immigrants, you should not disregard Western values out of ignorance. To understand Western values of raising children you cannot dismiss and classify status through merit-based achievements. Only focusing on accomplishments is detrimental to a child’s self worth; they live in a society where school preaches the ideology “pursue what one desires,” while parents insist on pursuing financial security in options regardless of personal desire. It is honorable to believe in a work ethic and discipline to succeed, but the idea will lose meaning when the motivation behind becomes founded on the need to always perform better or attain higher academic scores. The emphasis here also falls on encouraging mental health and understanding a child’s hope to please those wishes conflict and create anxiety and stress to maintain academic goals and excelling in other activities. In a study conducted to promote mental health by Tsu-yin Wu and Joohyun Lee, the results found that open communication was a key to disclosure and growth in relationship between the parent and child (Wu and Lee 9).

For Asian-American students, understanding where your parents are coming from is crucial. The method by which they were raised is still present in their attempt to convert into parenting within their current environment. The generation gap tends to break communication between parents and children, and the lack of acknowledgement of background and culture leads to a broken relationship. It is incredibly easy to compare yourself to the people around you, and when no one is familiar with the culture in which you are brought up, the temptation overwhelms you into thinking there is something wrong because you are different. When ignorance concerning your heritage follows, take the time to simply explain for future improvement rather than jumping to accuse another of being intentionally and maliciously racist. Lastly, your self worth is not built on the grades you receive, the scores you attain, or the achievements you receive.

This thesis is very much a personal account and journey, but also much more as it is a continuous problem for first- and second-generation Asian Americans. This struggle to find self-identity and worth is evident in my close friends, in the people I meet in church conferences, and also in the testimonies of strangers. All relate specifically to the urgency felt and supposed need to fulfill an academic standard. The immediate answer is to change how worth is measured alongside accomplishment. The wrong response often turns to holding someone else responsible for the disappointment in how we view ourselves. One side of the spectrum turns to hating peers and accuses them of ignorance and discrimination. The opposite side turns to hating parents and culture in feeling insufficient from pressure or outraged at the expectations placed upon them. I think we want our parents to be either heroes or villains. As heroes they are the perfect family and as villains we are justified in fighting against them. I think the hardest thing to realize is they are humans. It is easy to blame, yet our challenge is to forgive. The broken communication and estranged students from parents continue to run within Asian-American families today. We have every power and voice to make the first step. Forgiveness is not a blink of an eye but a long storm to move through; the relief and freedom from pain will heal the broken relationships within generations and culture. This issue ends within our generation.

Works Cited

Barbash, Fred. “Why Asian American Kids Excel. It’s Not ‘Tiger Moms.’” The Washington Post, WP Company, 8 Apr. 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/08/forget-tiger-moms-asian-american-students-succeed-because-its-expected-say-scholars/?utm_term=.518790214e52.

Bronstein, Phyllis, and Connie S Chan. “Psychological Issues of Asian Americans.” Teaching Gender and Multicultural Awareness: Resources for the Psychology Classroom, American Psychological Association, 2007, pp. 179–193.

Chua, Amy. Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.

—. “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones and Company, 8 Jan. 2011.

Han, Meekyung, and Helen Pong. “Mental Health Help-Seeking Behaviors Among Asian American Community College Students: The Effect of Stigma, Cultural Barriers, and Acculturation.” Research Gate, 18 Aug. 2016.

Hartocollis, Anemona, and Stephanie Saul. “Affirmative Action Battle Has a New Focus: Asian-Americans.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Aug. 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/affirmative-action-battle-has-a-new-focus-asian-americans.html.

Jaschik, Scott. “The Numbers and Arguments on Asian Admissions.” Inside Higher Ed, 7 Aug. 2017, www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/08/07/look-data-and-arguments-about-asian-americans-and-admissions-elite.

“The Model Minority Is Losing Patience.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 3 Oct. 2015, http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21669595-asian-americans-are-united-states-most-successful-minority-they-are-complaining-ever.

Nishi, Koko. “Mental Health Among Asian-Americans.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/ethnicity-health/asian-american/article-mental-health.aspx.

Spencer, M., Chen, J., Gee, G., Fabian, C., Takeuchi, D. (2010). “Discrimination and Mental Health-Related Service Use in a National Study of Asian Americans.” American Journal of Public Health, 100(12), 2410-2417.

Wang, Phil, director. What Asian Parents Don’t Say. Wong Fu Productions, 24 Dec. 2015.

Wong, Jin. “Why The ‘Smart Asian’ Stereotype Is Not Flattering.” The Odyssey Online, 25 Aug. 2017, http://www.theodysseyonline.com/why-the-smart-asian-stereotype-not-flattering.

Wu, Tsu-Yin, and Joohyun Lee. “A PILOT PROGRAM TO PROMOTE MENTAL HEALTH AMONG ASIAN- AMERICAN IMMIGRANT CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS: A COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY APPROACH.” International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies , vol. 6, no. 4, ser. 1, pp. 731–745. 1, journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ijcyfs/article/view/15055/5995.