The Wind Up

You’re only one toothache away from realising how thin the veneer of being a cultivated human being is.

While lying on my bed this afternoon with a bag of frozen peas clamped to my jaw there was still a part of my mind that wondered how this would have all panned out 200 years ago.  400 years ago.  1000 years ago.  I’m guessing that some kind of nerve is dying under a tooth somewhere in my mouth.  What kind of hell would this have been in the past?  Anything to do with teeth.  Christ, it must have been awful.  When we imagine the past we often forget this.  We imagine how wonderful it would be to walk the streets of London in the time of Shakespeare and forget things like: toilets, painkillers, showers and dental hygiene.  It makes me think that the main things the future delivered on happened in the bathroom and the hospital.

I’ve been back at school this week and walking to work listening to podcasts.  I often listen to On Being which is generally very good (I also listen to Team Human which is also good).  It might be coincidence or it might be increased grumpiness but there were two moments in the last two podcasts where I thought: eff off.  This is unusual because it’s not that kind of show.  It’s an excellent, wide-ranging, and generously hosted series on being human in the spiritual sense.  What happened to me?

Anyway, the first incident was Jonathan Rowson saying that some survey had said that by 2030 90% of people would identify as religious and atheism will be in the decline.  Well, that turns out to be a trick in statistics: the religious have more kids so even though atheists will increase in number religious folk will out breed them.  But it wasn’t that fact that annoyed me it was his talk about economics later.  He is into a new kind of economics, the sustainable kind, and that’s all good, but I couldn’t help but think that the other kind – the linear, polluting kind – was a result of man’s (and I mean that particular gender) modelling of himself off God. This idea of God as man, and directives from the top, and obey me or go to hell, and the earth and it’s creatures are there for you: you can’t tell me that all these ideas have not had a big part to play in the how capitalism has unfolded.  To then switch the story and say God is big on sustainable economics seems like a sleight of hand; an adjustment to make God not look like a giant arsehole.

The next episode was with Richard Rohr who said:

To be a contemplative is to learn to trust deep time and to learn how to rest there and not be wrapped up in chronological time. Because what you’ve learned, especially by my age, is that all of it passes away. The things that you’re so impassioned about when you’re 22 or 42 don’t even mean anything anymore, and yet you got so angry about it or so invested in it.

Which made me think that Richard is talking like a very privileged person.  If you’re poor at 22, 42 and 62 then I guess that being poor is still on your mind.  If you’re black in America I guess race might still be on your mind when you’re 82.  Some issues don’t go away.  Is he saying that the passion of some people for the issue of climate change is just an amusing fad that you will laugh at in hindsight?  In this respect there is a weird parallel between this kind of spiritual thought and Jordan Peterson.  They all seem to discount social justice action.  Each year we take classes out to a Buddhist monastery and it is pretty clear the monks there have no interest at all in the suffering in the outside world or would ever take direct action to improve the lives of others.  Jordan Peterson similarly has no interest in changing the social order.  It is what it is.  Which is what Richard is talking about.  He seems to say: isn’t it funny looking back how you were so bent out of shape by sexism?

In the light of eternity, this thing that you’re so worried about right now — is it really going to mean anything on your deathbed?

Yes.  It could.  Some things need to be fought against, and improved and it is not good enough to quote a Latin phrase and say in the infinite space and time of the universe who cares?  Especially if you’re going to waste your time thinking that there is an entity called God who knocked up Mary and produced a sprog called Jesus who was resurrected to teach humanity the lesson about being saved from the sins of Adam and Eve.  That’s just flat out ridiculous.

Two final things then in what I think we can call a ramble.

Firstly, in both of those podcast episodes both chaps also said things that were interesting.  Especially Richard.  He said this:

I was jail chaplain here, a few blocks from where I’m sitting right now, for 14 years, and if there was one universal I found among the men in particular… to find someone in jail who had a good father.

And the rage in the young male who never had a dad or had an alcoholic father or emotionally unavailable father or abusive father is bottomless. It’s just — it moves out toward all of society, a mistrust of all authority, all authority figures, all policemen.

Now you can see what a bind this put us in when we defined God as masculine and called God “Father” exclusively.

And then, finally, Theresa May on her way out in Question Time was asked about being a female role model.  While it is questionable that she was a role model she had a great point to make: every single party that was represented in the House that day had, or had had a female leader, but not the Labour Party.

It was a cutting point.  And a true one.  It’s actually a black mark against that party in that country (the Labour Party in New Zealand has had two female leaders; both excellent).  If there’s a gender that knows about labour it’s women.  Not only is that true of women who have given birth, but of pretty much every women I have known who has run the lives of their families or partners because the men in their lives are complacent and lazy.  That’s the labour that makes the world go round.  Never mind money.


Tony Wagner Quotes Einstein

Part One: Almost anything by Tony Wagner

If you go on YouTube you only need to watch a Tony Wagner presentation once.  He has one presentation and it is 90% the same every time he gives it.  He is a “thought leader” who has been repeating his one piece of “research” over and over for at least a decade.  I’m not sure if he is aware of YouTube, or if the people who book him are not aware of YouTube, but everyone should stop booking him: just watch a YouTube clip.  Just in case you’re worried about my superficial engagement with this man I have actually read a book by him.  I read it about five years ago with a positive frame of mind, but was turned off by its assumptions towards the end.


Every one of his go to presentations starts the same way.  He quotes Einstein – “The formulation of the problem is often more essential than the solution”.  This is so he can tell us that reforming education is the wrong question: present education is actually obsolete and needs to be reinvented.  Also, weirdly, he often starts with a suit jacket on and then takes it off in the first minute and then rolls up his sleeves at a certain point.  This, I think, is to tell us that he’s getting down to business and telling it like it is.

So, our current education system is obsolete.  You can actually get the gist of his ideas from this simple sentence.  Obsolescence is a word that applies mainly to technology but to his way of thinking it is now technology that has made education obsolete.  He has done this presentation around the world and I wonder if he thinks all education systems are identical and that they are all totally obsolescent?  I guess so.  Or maybe he’s doing that white man thing of saying opinions like they are facts.

Let’s run through his main points anyway one by one:

Knowing stuff, memorising facts is not needed now: “The world no longer cares about what you know; the world cares about what you can do with what you know.”

  • Memorisation is a form of knowledge that enables you to work more quickly to higher thoughts.  Without internalising knowledge like this so that it is at your fingertips I doubt that you can make creative leaps at all.
  • Memorisation is also a form of cultural knowledge that prioritises the oral recounting of history and wisdom, and his flippant remarks here downgrading that type of knowledge is yet another cultural denigration of oral cultures.
  • The world has always cared about what you can do with what you know.  People do not go to a knowledgeable person to hear a recitation of data points, they go because that person can apply their knowledge in a useful or powerful way.

The world is flat.  Any job that is routinised will be off-shored or done by machines.

  • I once listened to Mark Osborne tell a hall of teachers how Google Cars were coming for the jobs of taxi drivers and long haul drivers and there was nothing that could be done about it.  Actually there is plenty that can be done about it, and it is not impossible to imagine people legislating against this kind of job loss as damaging to society just as people try to legislate against wanton pollution.
  • Off-shored.  It’s a word you might only notice because of its ugliness, but think about the implication.  It suggests a hierarchy of people.  There will be those saved in the rich countries by a new kind of education that gives them highly-paid jobs, and then there will be robots and foreigners.  It tells you everything you need to know about who is audience is and how Tony thinks.

There is a global achievement gap between the seven things he says “matter most” and what education is delivering.  Here is the list of things that matter most:

  1. Critical thinking and problem solving (the ability to ask really good questions)
  2. Collaboration across networks and leading by influence
  3. Agility and adaptability
  4. Initiative and entrepreneurialism
  5. Effective oral and written communication
  6. Accessing and analysing information
  7. Curiousity and imagination

All students should leave high school “well on the way” to mastering these core competencies.

  • He says he spoke to a wide range of people to establish what these core competencies are but you suspect he mainly talked to a certain kind of business person.
  • The ranking he uses is clearly wrong.  Good luck doing any critical thinking of any kind without five and six coming second and first.
  • These competencies are of course not subjects which is his intention: after all, subjects are about knowledge building and remember – you can just Google it so memorising is a waste of time.   He is not suggesting (if you read more of his stuff) that we get rid of subjects exactly, but that we run project-based classes that cover a wide range of subject areas and that these projects will help to develop the core competencies which are the actually important things.
  • Well, there are just all kinds of problems with this based on my personal experience of being involved in this kind of work.  Also – can I add – being a leader in this kind of work.  I wasn’t being a dick about it and looking for flaws the flaws just exposed themselves so often that it got really hard to ignore them.  There are two big areas that are concerning in this approach: (1) Whenever I contributed my subject knowledge to a project the learning in my domain rarely felt enriched.  At best it came out neutral, but often it was negative (the subject knowledge was severely diluted).  (2) Projects can’t really cover some things because they don’t really fit in a project.  This really impacts Science and Maths a lot, but it touches all subjects at different times.  Good luck running a cross-curricula project that includes algebra.
  • The likely outcome of this – at its best – would be a bunch of students who have these core competencies (but haven’t “mastered” them because that’s ridiculous), and have pockets of knowledge based in the projects they did that worked well.  This doesn’t seem a good outcome.

Some places do this stuff well: High Tech High, Olin, D.School and the MIT Media Lab.

  • Only High Tech High is a school, the other three are at university level and all of those three are at wealthy universities where elite units that are highly specialised in media and engineering have been established.  High Tech High is a well-funded charter school with small classes.  In other word: fuck off with this list.  Give any school anywhere this much money and these students and teachers will do well.
  • These “schools” also seem highly specialised and please don’t tell me you can get into Stanford’s D. School or MIT’s Media Lab without having learned a lot of detailed subject specific stuff and memorised it.  Once you reach a certain level you can’t just Google it because even if you found the detailed information you needed you wouldn’t understand it unless you had an already strong backbone grasp of the fundamentals.

“But the culture of schooling is all about becoming a specialist.”

  • No it isn’t.  You take multiple subjects at school.  Stanford’s D. School and MIT’s Media Lab sound very specialised.  Your regular student takes many different subjects, and is often a member of different groups or sports teams as well.  Looking for ways for students to work in a cross-curricular way twice a year is a good idea that I would fully support, but I guess that is just “reforming” a system Tony thinks is obsolete.

This is the point where I have to stop and switch focus because I start getting bogged down in the detail and lose sight of the bigger picture.  That big picture is to do with the underpinning ideologies he is peddling.  He has a little sentence he puts in near the start of his presentations about the big issues of the day being inequality and climate change.  This is just noise because his proposed education system is about perpetuating an elite and hoping they can innovate their way out of the consequences of capitalism’s darkening path.

His stories make it clear who he is talking to.  How should we raise our imaginary children?  Encourage play.  Give your kids simple toys; old fashioned toys.  Limit screen time.  Give your children a “rich buffet of things to try out”.  He’s describing affluent educated parents catering for their privileged children.  This child-rearing he describes will allow your children to find their “passion” (or “element” if you’re Ken Robinson) and leads to a wonderful job.  Sounds grand.  What if your parents are both working shifts on zero hour contracts and there’s no money for rich buffets?  “What if” a whole bunch of things. 

Tony’s vision – like Ken’s – is not revolutionary.  It can be boiled down to this: the job market has changed so we should change the education system.  Problematically the underlying system on which the jobs are all based is leading to terrible social and environmental problems.  Tony’solution?  Prepare your kids for the best possible jobs in this system so they can mitigate the social and environmental costs with their fabulous incomes.

Part Two: Tony Wagner speaking to principals in Wellington, 2018


Elegant Beast (2/2)


Shitoyakana Kedamono / Elegant Beast (1962)

Elegant Beast contains a barrage of ideas about all kinds of things.  Its men swindle and its women use their bodies.  The shenanigans of the characters are entertaining, their frankness is refreshing, and their hypocrisy when double-crossed funny.  Without the viewer even really noticing it also happens to cover cultural identity, generational conflict, gender and economics, and morality.


Elegant Beast was made in 1962.  World War Two finished in 1945.  Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been completely destroyed.  Okinawa turned into a graveyard.  On top of this devastation came the American occupation which lasted until 1952, and serious economic hardships.  If you watch the film and forget this background it makes the motives of the parents in it particularly opaque.  Are they supporting all this grifting just because they are bad people?  During times of hardship and suffering there are many ways to respond.  After decades of propaganda that had tied Japan together ideologically and that had spoken of the greatness of Japan and the evil of America came the double blow of defeat and occupation.  Everything was thrown in the air.

When the children begin to mock the parents in Elegant Beast the father explodes:

Do you want to go back to the way we used to live?  Living on gruel in that shack?  No way.  I never want that life.  That’s no way for people to live.  A dog or even a cat lives better than that.  We could never live like that again.  The poverty.  The poverty sank into our bones.  It soiled us right to the core of our bodies.


It is a moment of stark silence in the film, and clearly highlighted as a moment of significance.

Shame and honour; purity and dirtiness.  These are better ways to think of the moral landscape in Japan.  Better than thinking about sin, certainly.  The idea that the father alludes to in his speech seems to be that their experience of poverty has made them dirty, and although this family might seem shameless it is only because we are seeing behind the scenes.  Whenever they are with outsiders they maintain the idea that they are decent people, and stand on their honour when this is questioned.


Bubbling under all this is a combined delight and contempt for the new Japan of 1962.  Very early on in the film a jazz singer comes to the family’s apartment: Paburisuta Pinosaku.  He is absurd.  Cartoonishly aping what he thinks is western.


So absurd is he that the father compliments his Japanese believing that he must be a foreigner.  Even though this has a lot of potential to be offensive, and smack of conservative, nationalistic ideas about “true Japaness-ness”, people like Paburisuta Pinosaku exist to this day in Japan – often as B-grade celebrities on TV game shows – and are frankly ridiculous.

Which is all part of the phenomenon that causes anxiety today: how do cultures remain intact in a globalised world?  Can they?  Should they?  Japan had to begin responding to this question a lot earlier than the West because of the occupation years.  Indigenous cultures in colonised countries have been living with it for centuries.  Only now is it the turn of some of the colonisers who respond to rising immigration with nationalism and calls for ethno-states.

When we first arrived in Japan we found it funny that there were things like Italian restaurants there, although it didn’t take us long to realise that it was no “funnier” than there being Italian restaurants in Wellington.  Then there were those decrying the popularity of McDonalds in Japan, but who accepted McDonalds as part of their own local city landscapes in England, Australia and Canada.  When you do that (and I did it too) you end up putting yourself in the same camp as Japanese nationalists who want to drive all the foreign devils into the sea for diluting the essence of pure Japan.  In other words you put yourself in the camp that would also drive you out of the country too.  The idea of saving cultures that are “other” to mine from “my” culture’s influence is daft and patronising.  If I can eat sushi in New Zealand without destroying my culture then the Japanese can probably manage a burger in their own country without destroying theirs.


The characters in Elegant Beast have blue cheese and cola and caviar.  The art is European, the music is rock’n’roll, and the Japanese diet is criticised.  This is clearly all meant to contribute to the film’s portrayal of the family, but what statement do the contributions amount to?  Every character in the film is involved in or benefiting from the scamming, and if every character is involved then it gets hard to know who we are supposed to condemn.   In fact condemnation doesn’t feel like the point of the film.  It feels like we are observing a social phenomenon; a development of one kind of people in response to the new Japan that was metamorphosing (or mestastising, depending on your point of view) all around the audiences that came to see the movie in 1962.

The one character who makes a conventional if melodramatic act at the end of the film certainly does not seem heroic, vindicated, or better than any of the other characters.  In an amoral word his action actually seems meaningless, and is rendered meaningless to the family at the centre of the drama by the mother’s decision not to inform the family of it.



On a bad day it was easy to feel that life was meaningless living in Osaka.  It is a densely-built, sprawling city of utilitarian buildings.  The shopping is intense and intensely wasteful and empty.  There are homeless people sleeping rough and grotesque wealth.   The castle sitting in its centre is a concrete replica.

On bad days it was easy to sneer at the bastardisation of Japanese culture, or be a snob, or be critical of the Japanese and their society.  To say that the Japanese were racist;  too reserved; that they were arrogant about their culture, and that their bureaucracy was officious.  They were also the opposite of all those things: tolerant, warm, curious and efficient.

People from different cultures are different from each other.  I’m not a fan of the notion that “we’re all the same in the end”.  The difficulty is that once you start pushing too far into that idea of cultural difference you end up in a morass.  It’s ok to go a certain distance with it, and make some generalisations, but not too far where you enter into caricature.



When the daughter and son dance on table tops against a brilliant red sunset to rock-n-roll the parents – in traditional Japanese clothes – carry on eating their soba as if nothing is happening.  The rock-n-roll gets drowned out by a rising soundtrack of traditional Japanese percussion.  It’s a great scene.  We’re not supposed to admire anyone.  Neither the children for their licentious dance nor the parents for their utter indifference.  Young and old are participating in this scene.  The old have lost authority, the young have lost control.  Something is rotting in the heart of society.

Isn’t it fun?