Muchos Musings

I sampled a simple but compelling Korean speaking game. Two teams of two; one team confers, then poses the other team a difficult preference choice: “Rat or cockroach?”  They then count 3, 2, 1  and the other team must simultaneously respond.  The responding team gets a point if they answered the same way.

         There is an American version of this game (if you can call it a game): individuals take turns generating the preference question, then all the other participants individually take turns answering the question. 

         The purpose of both games is to reveal things about their participants.  Additionally, the purpose of the Korean game is to see which team has the most harmony, accord, agreement. The additional purpose of the American game is to have each person argue why their position is justified, which, more often than not, becomes an argumentative contest for which answer is best. I have never witnessed the alternate version in either country.

         Both games generate laughs, but the Korean displays of the game are downright joyous, whereas the American format leads to scorn just as often ("You would rather be a poacher than be a vegetarian?! How could you!")  Perhaps the American game generates more insight and formal reasoning...  But is that insight worth a life of less laughter?

In many ways, my Hangaram teenagers are the healthiest, best adjusted young people I’ve ever encountered.  But about that word, “adjusted”:  I’ve spoken to several Korean twenty-somethings who claim their “adolescent rebellion” (their word choice)  did not happen until their late 20's, when they visited America or spent time overseas (Korea is proving to me that "adolescent rebellion" as a necessary stage is as great a myth as "mid life crisis"). Is it possible that Korean students (who are often described by my principal as “innocent” compared to American teens their age) are not required to “adjust” in some fundamental way Americans are asked to?  …And perhaps that is preferable?  In spite of some stereotypes, I find no deficiency in my students’ creativity or critical thinking; many of them demonstrate healthy skepticism time and again, all while wearing that genuine, considerate smile. As for their innocence, I’m working on it: we’re reading a novel about impotent, nihilistic, and amoral superheroes, debating the legality of prostitution, abortion ethics…

       Perhaps due to the milieu of Freud in my upbringing, I’m dumbstruck that my students don’t demonstrate more signs of "everyday neuroses;" I once thought there was a certain quota of mental imbalance any substantial cohort eventually betrays.  But if those neuroses in my students are hidden, or repressed, it’s buried deeper than my shovel can dig.

What could culturally account for this?  My mind turns to Eric Fromm's "Escape from Freedom":  perhaps it is only with freedom, the unbearable consciousness of unlimited choice in work and relationships (and the inevitable confusions that result from those choices), that these stereotypical adolecent neuroses form; perhaps depression comes primarily through comparing your life as it is with how it could be.  Because of their grossly crammed schedules, my students do not have the time to consider other lives for themselves; some don't even have the capacity, due to lack of world exposure (during school breaks, they do not see the world via internships, summer camps, or travel).  More generally speaking, they don't have time to think about themselves at all (a guaranteed cure for depression, unless the grades which do receive focus begin to fall).  As for relationships, two attitudes are universal: "Who has time for sex/romance?" and "We know how families and friends are supposed to behave."  Social scripts are stronger and more prevalent across the board (remember, my name is "Teacher," not Marnell).  This clarity yields security, and I'm beginning to think this is beneficial for teenagers, especially if it creates respect for adults and, by extension, education of all kinds. 

To repeat: what astounds me is that the moment I ask for original thinking from students, I receive it in torrents.  My students are exceptionally creative, and can be scathingly critical so long as their criticism does not have to be made public (though they are willing to share in small groups). Another peculiarity: my students are uncomfortable around the opposite sex (there is no mingling at lunch or in class); I suspect this results from the asexual culture at school (drab, concealing uniforms, no school dances, no health class).  But I would argue the asexual environment dramatically reduces the extremes of gender behavior which causes the majority of adolescent social scarring (it's no surprise that male hierarchical competition and female slandering is diminished in an asexual environment; when we consider the painful tolls of these tendencies, can we say the benefits of a sexual environment-- relationships, maturation-- are really worth it?).    

This all leads me to wonder: are there any flaws with this conservative system besides the over-emphasis on standardized tests and the inhumane work loads?  And is it possible to adjust those flaws while retaining the system's virtues?