Link

For both adults and kids, time spent outdoors increases all measures of well-being: psychological and physical health, cognitive abilities, and creativity. It is also good for the planet. Here’s a brief review of the research and some suggestions for how to make it happen for your child and yourself. Spending more time outdoors, preferably in natural settings, may be the simplest, healthiest, and most economical remedy for the terrible increase in numbers of children diagnosed with social, emotional, and learning problems over the past two decades. It may also be the answer to many problems suffered by adults in our increasingly rushed, technology-focused lives. And on a global scale, there’s evidence that more people spending more time in natural spaces would contribute to solving the environmental challenges that are increasingly disrupting our lives.

Link

Não responsabilize apenas indivíduos, nem aceite saídas superficiais, como vagões segregados. Que tal rever relações entre “homem”, “mulher” e sexo? No meio de tanto debate sobre o assédio que as mulheres sofrem diariamente em espaços públicos. Curiosamente, é a única questão que nos permitirá pensar em soluções eficazes para esse tipo de problema: de onde vem o assédio? Por que o assédio acontece? Há toda uma cultura em torno do que homens e mulheres podem e devem fazer em nossa sociedade. Todos e todas nós somos socializados com essas expectativas. Quando apreendemos, desde o nascimento, com base nas experiências concretas e reais, o que é “homem”, “mulher”, e em qual dessas categorias nos enquadramos, carregamos também, de brinde, uma carga de expectativas específicas para cada uma dessas identidades. Nos construímos, enquanto sujeitos, sobre essas expectativas. Entre as centenas de expectativas destinadas à categoria “homem”, por exemplo, a sexualidade como algo “instintivo” e “animal”, “incontrolável” é uma delas. Entre as centenas de expectativas destinadas à categoria “mulher”, por outro lado, a sexualidade é colocada como algo que se deve evitar.

Link

“The vast majority of scientists want their research to be of use to society. They just disagree on how much society should interfere with what it is they study, and how they carry out their research,” says Glerup, who is working on a PhD project on scientific sociology at the Copenhagen Business School. Her research has shown that there are two different ideologies when it comes to research and public utility in the scientific community:

An ideology of internal control – the researchers know how the world works, so they are in a good position to find out how it should be. Therefore, they are ideally placed to judge about the public utility of their research.
An ideology of external control – social actors, such as politicians and organisations, know what is best for society, and this makes them ideally placed to determine what research should be done and how.

Link

Exploring the genesis of neoliberalism, and the political and economic circumstances of its deployment, Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval dispel numerous common misconceptions. Neoliberalism is neither a return to classical liberalism nor the restoration of “pure” capitalism. To misinterpret neoliberalism is to fail to understand what is new about it: far from viewing the market as a natural given that limits state action, neoliberalism seeks to construct the market and make the firm a model for governments. Only once this is grasped will its opponents be able to meet the unprecedented political and intellectual challenge it poses. What is new about neoliberalism? Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval contend that it is more than just a new economic paradigm — it is a system for transforming the human subject. Rather than a return to classic liberalism, or the restoration of a ‘pure’, unconstrained market, neoliberalism envisages the modern corporation as a model for government, conjuring a future in which society is nothing other than a web of market-based relations. Cutting through contemporary misunderstandings about its genesis and prevalence, Dardot and Laval distil neoliberalism to its core meaning and examine how it might be challenged on new political and intellectual terms.

Link

Ce qui ressemble aujourd’hui à un sabotage de l’école – suppressions de classes, réduction des effectifs enseignants et appauvrissement de la condition enseignante – ne suffit pas à caractériser la mutation historique de l’école. Celle-ci ne joue plus seulement une fonction dans le capitalisme, comme l’ont montré les analyses critiques des années 1970 : elle se plie de l’intérieur à la norme sociale du capitalisme. L’« employabilité » est le principe et l’objectif de la normalisation de l’école, de son organisation et de sa pédagogie. L’école devient peu à peu un système hiérarchisé d’entreprises productrices de « capital humain » au service de l’« économie de la connaissance ». Elle cherche moins à transmettre une culture et des savoirs qui valent pour eux-mêmes qu’elle ne tente de fabriquer des individus aptes à s’incorporer dans la machine économique. Les effets inégalitaires de la concurrence, la mutilation culturelle introduite par la logique des « compétences » ou la prolétarisation croissante du monde enseignant révèlent la perte d’autonomie de l’école par rapport au nouveau capitalisme et aux luttes des classes sociales autour de l’enjeu scolaire. Dans ce livre de combat et de théorie, les auteurs renouvellent la sociologie critique de l’éducation en inscrivant les mutations de l’institution scolaire et universitaire dans celles du capitalisme contemporain. Ils entendent ainsi donner à tous ceux qui se sentent concernés par cette problématique éminemment politique les outils d’analyse pour construire une alternative convaincante et résolue.

Link

Partout dans le monde, des mouvements contestent l’appropriation par une petite oligarchie des ressources naturelles, des espaces et des services publics, des connaissances et des réseaux de communication. Ces luttes élèvent toutes une même exigence, reposent toutes sur un même principe : le commun. Pierre Dardot et Christian Laval montrent pourquoi ce principe s’impose aujourd’hui comme le terme central de l’alternative politique pour le XXIe siècle : il noue la lutte anticapitaliste et l’écologie politique par la revendication des « communs » contre les nouvelles formes d’appropriation privée et étatique ; il articule les luttes pratiques aux recherches sur le gouvernement collectif des ressources naturelles ou informationnelles ; il désigne des formes démocratiques nouvelles qui ambitionnent de prendre la relève de la représentation politique et du monopole des partis. Cette émergence du commun dans l’action appelle un travail de clarification dans la pensée. Le sens actuel du commun se distingue des nombreux usages passés de cette notion, qu’ils soient philosophiques, juridiques ou théologiques : bien suprême de la cité, universalité d’essence, propriété inhérente à certaines choses, quand ce n’est pas la fin poursuivie par la création divine. Mais il est un autre fil qui rattache le commun, non à l’essence des hommes ou à la nature des choses, mais à l’activité des hommes eux-mêmes : seule une pratique de mise en commun peut décider de ce qui est « commun », réserver certaines choses à l’usage commun, produire les règles capables d’obliger les hommes. En ce sens, le commun appelle à une nouvelle institution de la société par elle-même : une révolution.

Link

Successful decision making in a social setting depends on our ability to understand the intentions, emotions and beliefs of others. The mirror system (neurons) allows us to understand other people’s motor actions and action intentions. ‘Empathy’ allows us to understand and share emotions and sensations with others. ‘Theory of mind’ allows us to understand more abstract concepts such as beliefs or wishes in others. In all these cases, evidence has accumulated that we use the specific neural networks engaged in processing mental states in ourselves to understand the same mental states in others. However, the magnitude of the brain activity in these shared networks is modulated by contextual appraisal of the situation or the other person. An important feature of decision making in a social setting concerns the interaction of reason and emotion. We consider four domains where such interactions occur: our sense of fairness, altruistic punishment, trust and framing effects. In these cases, social motivations and emotions compete with each other, while higher-level control processes modulate the interactions of these low-level biases.

This conclusion implies a need to revise the idea that emotion/intuition is the enemy of reason. It is not in dispute that these two systems may often be in conflict. Rather, the data suggest that decisions dictated by reason are not always good, while decisions dictated by emotion are not always bad. Indecision-making, we ignore our intuitions and emotions at our peril.

Link

When decision-making power about what happens in a classroom is rarely shared with students, hierarchies are reinforced, knowledge is static, and learning becomes passive. Learning agreements and learning contracts can undercut these dynamics, modeling democracy while promoting cooperation. Analyzing collective learning agreements in undergraduate conflict management courses, this article explores what students perceive to be productive learning methods and argues that collective learning agreements facilitate active learning, self and class governance, and shared responsibility for individual and collective success. Jointly constructing collective learning agreements disrupts traditional power relations while engendering creativity in students and professors alike.

The example demonstrates that collective learning agreements call both students and professors outside their usual comfort zones; they can thus engender creative and constructive pedagogies, sometimes precisely because we are forced out of those familiar zones of practice. If we ask our students to be flexible learners—as we should—we must be flexible learners ourselves. Anything less undercuts the dialogic dimensions of true learning and puts cooperative and transformational education beyond our reach as it risks reducing education to something like the transmission of knowledge rather than the cooperative cocreation of it.

Link

This article explores a radical pedagogical method for democratizing the classroom that generates rich, engaged, student-led discussions. The approach is grounded in the notion that democratic participation in the classroom is a worthy goal of radical pedagogy, that students must be adequately prepared in order to take on greater responsibility in the classroom, and that greater learning occurs when students take a more active role in the learning process. Careful sequencing of discussions and assignments is used to turn over responsibility for the course to students gradually, without sacrificing the depth and sophistication that instructors want to achieve in the classroom. The result is a classroom in which all students participate and in which thoughtful, informed discussion and debate is the primary mode of engagement. Early in my career, I found student presentations and student-led discussions to be dull and uninspired much of the time. However, by carefully structuring assignments so that students are adequately prepared, I have found it possible to turn over more and more of my classes to students while still covering the material at a sophisticated level and maintaining an engaged, interactive classroom.

Link

With the recent development of the Occupy Movement, public criticism of neoliberalism has climaxed since the onset of a global financial crisis in late 2008. The mobilization of protesters in cities throughout the world was preceded by much speculation in the media and blogosphere over the past few years, where commentators have been quick to suggest that the end of neoliberalism is upon us. The validity of post-neoliberalism, however, remains tenuous, as its advocates continue to treat neoliberalism as a monolithic, static, and undifferentiated end-state. The ambiguity of post-neoliberalism forces us to recognize and appreciate such breaks from neoliberalism without losing sight of its continuities. This is why the current moment is so frightening, because a new hyphenated post-neoliberal era has not arrived and we may instead be bearing witness to the emergence of a new version of neoliberalism that substantially extends its content. The very notion of crisis consists, Antonio Gramsci once argued, “precisely in the fact that old is dying and the new cannot be born: in this interregnum, morbid phenomena of the most varied kind come to pass.” So while “neoliberalism is dead” insofar as it has run out of politically viable ideas, Neil Smith is also quick to point out that “it would be a mistake to underestimate its remnant power… neoliberalism, however dead, remains dominant,” precisely because “the left has not responded with good and powerful ideas.”