In my Social Contract series an item entitled "Mentor System of Education" dealt with how a social contract between mentor and student can be useful in structuring the educative process by which a learner can progress toward insinuating himself into a social milieu that will significantly benefit society. I want to amplify upon those methods and procedures of mentorship that lead to a binding continuity between the past and future of society not offered through the teaching situation.
I take it that teachers disburse bits of information and facts. These are clustered in a hierarchical structure of items known as concepts or topics. By discoursing upon concepts, facts and informational items (which answer the question, "Did you know that...?") become meaningful and understandable. Even a TV program like "Jeopardy" organizes its informational questions about topics. The program does not demand of contestants to ask a question "out of the blue" concerning some factual item presented in the half-hour show but in light of the topic under which an item is listed. In sum. teaching involves the interplay of teacher and student in a process of disseminating knowledge involving a subject matter, i.e., a concept.
Contrast that methodology, which I take to be the essence of teaching, to what is the methodology of mentorship. Mentors, using a serial approach to topics, demonstrate the value of what is learned in the classroom or in the field. They offer their learners recipes to solve problems and achieve tangible results in the world. They are responsible for their beleif that knowledge is power and they can prove it!
This paper details the steps involved in educating through the mentorship learning process, which I place in a contractual relationship between mentor and learner, e.g., a protege, a student. But the mentor must have organizational backing and certification for any learning experience he provides. He must not act alone without institutional commitment.
It does not mean that in emphasizing mentorship, teachers are passe, only that teaching must be placed in a greater context that mentorship provides. Let's enumerate the way mentorship ought to take place, in my opinion, to justify my claim that mentorship has greater importance to education than the mere teaching of concepts does, when at the moment of my writing this, teaching is deemed the major component in educating youth and those experiencing significant change in their lives in institutional settings.
Be it noted, that long before there were schools and cooperate learning centers, learners depended upon their parents; and experienced tradesmen were the mentors bent upon guiding the young toward a respected place in society. A learner still does. From one's mother a child is taught how to tie his shoe; a girl to cook and take care of the house; and from an established tradesman or expert, possibly his father, a boy is taught a trade, becoming first an apprentice.
But with the advent of schools, historically emphasis was placed upon getting an education by learning facts and amassing knowledge through the deployment of concepts and was taken away from mentorship learning of how to solve problems in the real world and do things that make a contribution to society. The mentorship form of learning was relegated in the school curriculum to an area known as "vocational education." It is the purpose of this paper to restore mentorship to its proper place in the educative process, for after all, a learner's amassing knowledge of processes comes short of demonstrating the capability in knowing how to do things that make a difference for the social good.
I noticed when I was in Omaha last, the parents of delinquent or direction-less kids were looking to a program enlisting community volunteers to act as mentors, this program established in major cities across the country called the Cities of Service coalition. An established societal member identified as a mentor shares his success story and acts as an inspiration in other ways to motivate the troubled learner toward becoming a responsible citizen in his community. A major problem with such volunteer programs in my opinion is that there's no organizational involvement or backing behind the mentor's inspirational words and guidance. Hence, the need for a contract between mentor with organizational blessing and the learner, making clear what is being offered to the learner to engage in mentorship. I am aware that IBM has recently inaugurated a program for students that recognizes the need for organizational involvement: if a student passes a set of courses available in high school or college and meets other requirements of participation in their mentorship program, the student will have priority placement for jobs that become available at IBM.
So, I am proposing a plan of mentorship involving the social contract concept to take place in steps toward realizing an educative goal that the learner is desirous of pursuing. At the conclusion of each step in that process the learner will achieve greater awareness of his own personal identity, i.e., he will know who he is by virtue of what he can do! Incidentally, one of the egregious complaints a typical student makes is that though he has acquired much book knowledge, he still does not know who he is. That's because he has not acquired skills of applying his conceptual knowledge to real-life situations.
Steps in the Mentorship Educative Sequence
1. The learner must identify an organization he might be willing to join once he receives appropriate training. The organization, in turn, should identify an inhouse mentor who could detail what he needs to know in order to qualify for mentorship at the particular institution contacted. First contact in this step is the learner's visit to the institution of his interest, e.g., an agricultural school of a university he misht be willing to attend.
2. Next, knowing what would be required of him, the student should discuss with the school or the learning instiution he presently attends the training and coursework that will enable him to proceed one step further towaad his educative goal, e.g., the next institution he envisions attending. He starts the discussion by showing what his perspective mentor at such an institution would demand of him as learnerunder hiis tutelege.
3. The student engages in a tailored educative experience, meeting occasionally with the perspective mentor, acknowledged as such by an organizational symbol, e.g., the organization's letterhead, on correspondence confirming communications between the perspective mentor and his learner.
.
4. The perspective mentor even at an early stage of coming under the mentor's care must offer support and counsel useful to the learner. When the learner advances to the level where the perspective mentor becomes the mentor, e.g., is attending the institution where the mentor works or teaches, these discussions of intention now become conferences regarding performance and advancement.
5. Gradually, as the learner demonstrates skill acquisition and maturity in his field of endeavor the mentor should introduce the learner to new and exiciting opportunities awaiting his learner who is developing an even
greater repetoire of skills and abilities, indicating his achieving significant progress toward of his educative goal.
See W. Brad Johnson and Charles R. Ridley, The Elements of Mentoring (2004) for a further discussion of some of these steps.
What the Mentor Gets from his participation in the project
Obviously, there must be something in it for an individual professional businessperson to participate in a program of mentoring others who are designated as learners, even proteges. Such a list might include:
1. Professional recognition by publication or even by obtaining a job elsewhere. It is not uncommon for a learner who has set out on his own and done well to bring along his mentor to work for him or to recommend his mentor for hiring to someone he knows. Minimally, the company or university the mentor works for will usually acknowledge his contribution internally. Or, the mentor may reach sufficient status and reputation through his being a mentor to establish his own business, e.g., in sculpture; in painting.
2. The learner who has advanced to the stage of mentorship in which he is contractually under the mentor's
tutelege becomes the "eyes and ears" of the mentor in whatever capacity the learner is assigned. The mentor who has seveeral learners under his care might rightfully claim he knows what's going on where he works as much as his boss--his tentacles of mentorship reaching into all aspects of the organization.
3. He may also make social contacts through a protege, even one leading to marriage or intimate friendship. A mentor not limited, as are teachers', to a non-fraternizing ralationship--to my knowledge.
So, there's lots to be gained by being a mentor, if the individual plays it right!
Societal Benefit from Mentorship
Ever since the age of 23, I've worked on and off with gangs--the last being in Raleigh, North Carolina three or four years ago, when I worked with a gang of 50! Gangs rely on peer mentors to retain their cohesion. I understand there's been a dramatic increase in gangs in the country.
I believe mentorship involving insitutions and places of learning are an imporrtant way to overcome gang influence in society. A mentor having institutional backing to my mind can overweigh the effects of peer pressure, if the hopes instilled in the learner can come to fruition, i.e. are legitimate.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Turkey: Military and Government
I think there are important lessons to be learned from the interplay between the government of Turkey and its military. I believe this interplay is both unique in the history of the World and phenomenal, lasting over many centuries. I will provide only my impressions of this interplay, impressions I have gained from just about 20 years of being apprised of it; and I do not attribute these impressions to anyone else (even if he shares them), including anyone in Turkey. However, to enable me to refresh my memory, I have referred as resource to the somewhat recent book The New Turkey (2005) by Chris Morris.
The military and the government have been at odds now and again, and the military generals upon occasion have seized the rule of the country for a period of time, before relinquishing control back to the civilians. I believe that the military through the years has maintained its own governmental structure through what at times has been called The National Security Council. To my mind, The Council is a "shadow government," with its own guiding principles. For example, the military is committed to a secular form of government, despite the apparent fact that the civilian government hires mostly Moslems. Moreover, the military decries corruption and favoritism whenever the ruling government has notoriously engaged in such practices.
Today, the Turkish Parliament is deemed the country's supreme authority, but it may well be that the military, by means of its own "parallel government," stilll exerts tremendous influence on the affairs of state, though not conspicuously so. Nonetheless, over the years, the generals have spoken out emphatically on matters of education, politics, religious influences upon the country, and of, course, foreign policy. Indeed, it is difficult for me to imagine that the country would have recently sent a flotilla of ships to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza to bring non-military aid, e.g., medicines and food, to the Palestinians without firm backing from the Turkish military. I understand Turkey has solicited encouragement and support from other Moslem countries and is planning an even larger flotilla by year's end.
Historically, the Turkish people have rallied around the military, even when it took over rule of the land. I look upon the intervening actions of the military as a check upon the civilian regime. The military is a-political, at least in appearance in the eyes of the Turks. (I might be naive about this, but certainly, its power does not stem from the political realm.) The Turks admire the military's dedication to honor and duty: "As a nation, we love our soldiers!" admit scores of Turkish citizens. It tries to keep the country unified through military action against those who would split it asunder, e.g., the Kurdish movement toward independence within its borders and in northern Iraq.
I think the Turks are committed to making their nation great and influential in the region. Turkey has attempted to join the EU and would be the largest nation in that organization. It has a large military, obviously, with many planes (supplied over the years by the US) and its soldiers are known the world-over for their organizational prowess. But the meta-political issue that has led to the interplay of government and military I find most interesting: namely, how to control the excesses and evils inherent in a political structure due to the power and prestige any government amasses by virtue of control over the citizenry.
Consider concrete instances in the United States politics. After 9/11, whatever the government deemed necessary to strike at the individuals and organizations deemed its perpetrators were granted by a complicit Congress. As Commander-in-Chief of the military the US President affects military plans and dictates military strategy. The US military is under the political arm of the US President, who commands the generals; and the President, with consent of Congress, appoints military leaders including the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs. In this way, the military succumbs to political pressures. Indeed, recently on the some TV talk shows it has been stated that General Petraeus has become aligned with the policies enunciated by the "Neo-Cons," the Right Wing Conservatives of the Republican Party, and thus might deal harshly with the Taliban, possibly refusing to seek negotiations as part of a political win strategy in Afghanistan. The point is, the US, in placing the military under political control, makes it a dependent entity, subject to political pressures, while Turkey has sought to maintain an independent role for its military in affairs of state. So, while in Turkey the military can legitimately act as a check upon the civilian government, in the US, the military can occupy no such contravening posture.
Be it acknowledged, that in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope in Rome, attempted to be an "honest broker" among the nations of the Christian World. In the Old Testament times, the Jews, standing for the ethics and precepts of the 10 Commandments, offered their religious stance as that of an "honest broker." To some extent, the nations of the contemporary world think of the United Nations in this capacity, too. However, none of these entities can talk "tough" to governments, since they have no military might nor policing power to back up any of their edicts and charges. In this regard, the Turkish interplay of government and military is unique. The military does indeed serve as the conscience of Turkey's political realm; and the Turks support them in this mission. It need not be beholden to the country's civilian governmental entities.
In that currently Moslem countries are peculiarly being singled out for hostile actions and strong criticism against them, I think the presence of a strong and influential Turkey military in the area is essential for the maintenance of peace.
The military and the government have been at odds now and again, and the military generals upon occasion have seized the rule of the country for a period of time, before relinquishing control back to the civilians. I believe that the military through the years has maintained its own governmental structure through what at times has been called The National Security Council. To my mind, The Council is a "shadow government," with its own guiding principles. For example, the military is committed to a secular form of government, despite the apparent fact that the civilian government hires mostly Moslems. Moreover, the military decries corruption and favoritism whenever the ruling government has notoriously engaged in such practices.
Today, the Turkish Parliament is deemed the country's supreme authority, but it may well be that the military, by means of its own "parallel government," stilll exerts tremendous influence on the affairs of state, though not conspicuously so. Nonetheless, over the years, the generals have spoken out emphatically on matters of education, politics, religious influences upon the country, and of, course, foreign policy. Indeed, it is difficult for me to imagine that the country would have recently sent a flotilla of ships to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza to bring non-military aid, e.g., medicines and food, to the Palestinians without firm backing from the Turkish military. I understand Turkey has solicited encouragement and support from other Moslem countries and is planning an even larger flotilla by year's end.
Historically, the Turkish people have rallied around the military, even when it took over rule of the land. I look upon the intervening actions of the military as a check upon the civilian regime. The military is a-political, at least in appearance in the eyes of the Turks. (I might be naive about this, but certainly, its power does not stem from the political realm.) The Turks admire the military's dedication to honor and duty: "As a nation, we love our soldiers!" admit scores of Turkish citizens. It tries to keep the country unified through military action against those who would split it asunder, e.g., the Kurdish movement toward independence within its borders and in northern Iraq.
I think the Turks are committed to making their nation great and influential in the region. Turkey has attempted to join the EU and would be the largest nation in that organization. It has a large military, obviously, with many planes (supplied over the years by the US) and its soldiers are known the world-over for their organizational prowess. But the meta-political issue that has led to the interplay of government and military I find most interesting: namely, how to control the excesses and evils inherent in a political structure due to the power and prestige any government amasses by virtue of control over the citizenry.
Consider concrete instances in the United States politics. After 9/11, whatever the government deemed necessary to strike at the individuals and organizations deemed its perpetrators were granted by a complicit Congress. As Commander-in-Chief of the military the US President affects military plans and dictates military strategy. The US military is under the political arm of the US President, who commands the generals; and the President, with consent of Congress, appoints military leaders including the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs. In this way, the military succumbs to political pressures. Indeed, recently on the some TV talk shows it has been stated that General Petraeus has become aligned with the policies enunciated by the "Neo-Cons," the Right Wing Conservatives of the Republican Party, and thus might deal harshly with the Taliban, possibly refusing to seek negotiations as part of a political win strategy in Afghanistan. The point is, the US, in placing the military under political control, makes it a dependent entity, subject to political pressures, while Turkey has sought to maintain an independent role for its military in affairs of state. So, while in Turkey the military can legitimately act as a check upon the civilian government, in the US, the military can occupy no such contravening posture.
Be it acknowledged, that in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope in Rome, attempted to be an "honest broker" among the nations of the Christian World. In the Old Testament times, the Jews, standing for the ethics and precepts of the 10 Commandments, offered their religious stance as that of an "honest broker." To some extent, the nations of the contemporary world think of the United Nations in this capacity, too. However, none of these entities can talk "tough" to governments, since they have no military might nor policing power to back up any of their edicts and charges. In this regard, the Turkish interplay of government and military is unique. The military does indeed serve as the conscience of Turkey's political realm; and the Turks support them in this mission. It need not be beholden to the country's civilian governmental entities.
In that currently Moslem countries are peculiarly being singled out for hostile actions and strong criticism against them, I think the presence of a strong and influential Turkey military in the area is essential for the maintenance of peace.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)