Should We Stop Referring to People as ‘Consumers’?
This is a pretty interesting article to read (at least to meee), considering the fact that I am writing this paper on arguing some educational institutions referring students as 'consumers' and 'customers' - serving the needs to their "money-valued" students with "custom-designed" as well as "quality" education. In hoping that they will receive "customer satisfaction" from their valuable customers for continual services and support. Talking about pedagogy, its just good business. And yes of course, politics, too.
In my teaching philosophy, I stated, "As the 21st century emphasizes utilizing education to prepare students for the challenges of interacting with people all over the world, language becomes a key factor in creating interaction between people. Throughout the years that I attended the teacher education program, I became more aware of the important role I am taking as a future language teacher. I realized that I am not simply just teaching language to students in my class. I am educating my students on a global level in order to better understand the world they live in through a second language and its culture. As Ludwig Wittgenstein quoted, “The limits of my language are the limits of my world,” students in this century are no longer living in a homogenous society. Instead, they are now living in a global environment, one where they are all linked through new technology. Therefore, as future teachers for the global society, it is important that teachers advocate global citizenry, break down stereotypes, and educate students to become citizens of this world.
My paper explores the possible outcomes of the different kinds of students I will be having in my future classroom. It looks at how my pedagogy of teaching Chinese would transform my students into lifelong language learners. I will state how I would differentiate my instructions by using language teaching methods as well as theories of language acquisition, such as Howard Gardner’s “theory of multiple intelligences” (1983), to effectively aid my student’s needs and meet their different learning styles. I will also suggest the three modes of communication, use of authentic materials, media, and technology to plan a content-based, performance-based, and culturally inclusive instruction for students. Furthermore, a second language cannot be fully acquired just by knowing the grammar rules. Therefore, instead of constructing instruction that is solely grammar-based, I will show the effectiveness of incorporating instruction with meaningful contexts, and comprehensible inputs that are relevant to students’ interests and everyday life. It will foster a language learning environment that is comfortable and motivating for students to explore Chinese language and culture to their fullest potential.
I aim to help students develop the proficiency and competence, both linguistically and culturally, in the Chinese language and culture so that they can truly use Chinese within and beyond the classroom, whether it is at home or around the world. In addition, I want to raise the students’ awareness about the benefits from learning Chinese such as the abundant job opportunities that will become available to them. Lastly, by acquiring the knowledge of the Chinese language as well as the perspectives of Chinese culture, students will hope to transform into life-long learners for personal enjoyment and enrichment."
-- Now, some would judge that whatever I just said is just a graduate student of Education's pure ideology with "not enough" (I would argue what is "enough" then?") exposure to the "reality of the education field". This brings in the notion of theory vs. practice. No matter how, be polite; just let them talk. I won't argue with my theory and beliefs on the spot. God will provide the right opportunity. Until then, I would like to remain faithful and HOPEFUL that this WILL BE my teaching philosophy I carry on, until the day I am defeated by the reality of this world. IF!
TIME article By Brad Tuttle
"I'm still going to buy this, but please refer to me as an individual next time."
The term “consumers” is routinely used in place of “people” and “citizens.” While most people (consumers?) don’t notice or care much about the terms being used interchangeably, there are those who resent being labeled as “consumers,” as if their sole purpose and reason for existence on this planet is to consume—to eat, drink, use, watch, and buy stuff, and keep the economy humming along. Now, a new psychological study indicates that it may be in everyone’s interest if we stop referring to (insulting?) folks as mere consumers.
A team of researchers led by Galen Bodenhausen, a professor of psychology and marketing at Northwestern University, has published the results of a new study about materialism and happiness in the journal Psychological Science. Among the familiar findings—money can’t buy happiness, and material possessions don’t make us happy either—is one concerning the use of the word “consumer.”
In one of the study’s tests, participants were presented with the following hypothetical scenario: There is a water shortage, and four people (including the participants) must share a well. Sometimes in the experiment, participants were called “consumers,” and other times they were referred to as “individuals.” And apparently, words can be powerful.
(MORE: 10 Ways You’re Going to Get Your Identity Stolen)
When participants were labeled as “consumers,” they were more likely to selfishly focus on their own individual consumption:
The “consumers” rated themselves as less trusting of others to conserve water, less personally responsible and less in partnership with the others in dealing with the crisis. The consumer status, the authors concluded, “did not unite; it divided.”
“It’s become commonplace to use consumer as a generic term for people,” said Bodenhausen, but a “subtle difference activates different psychological concerns” depending on whether “consumer” is used, as opposed to the more neutral terms “Americans,” “citizens,” or “people.”
When we view ourselves and each other first and foremost as materialistic “consumers,” the researchers say that the results are a more depressed, anxious population and a more antisocial, isolated society. Basically, you want to live in a place filled with everyday people, not surrounded by desperate, ultra-selfish consumers who are all battling it out over precious resources in some ugly post-apocalyptic world that resembles Black Friday at the mall.
(MORE: Q&A with Andrew Benett, Author of ‘Consumed: Rethinking Business in the Era of Mindful Spending)
At some level, many individuals—note I didn’t use “consumers”—already resent the “consumer” label. Andrew Benett, a marketing expert and author of the surprisingly anti-consumerism recession-era book Consumed: Rethinking Business in the Era of Mindful Spending, harped on how nonchalantly the “consumer” moniker is tossed around, writing:
Along with economists, politicians, business reporters and advocacy groups, we habitually describe our fellow humans as consumers. Of course, that term makes sense when applied to people wolfing down food and drink, but lately it has been extended to virtually every area of our lives. Nowadays we do not just consume hot dogs and Cokes; we consume services and environmental resources and media and durable goods and everything else imaginable, all with greedy gusto and a seemingly bottomless appetite.
Until recently, just about everyone accepted this insidious new moniker, perhaps not even noticing when the term consumer began to push aside references to ourselves as citizens or simply men and women.
(MORE: Shhh! Genius at Work: Why Your Brain May Be Most Creative When You’re Sleeping)
Especially during the heart of the recession circa 2009, though, the rise of an anti-consumerism movement (the idea) was paired with a rise in an anti-”consumer” movement (the word). Here’s an example from a thread of discussion at Democratic Underground:
The way that the media and these wall street douchenozzles bandy the word “consumer” and use it to generally apply to any person who ever buys anything (IE all of us) completely disgusts me. It reduces all of us to market forces and resources to be bought and sold, and to be held in little more respect and with little more consideration than that which is granted to livestock, or ore bearing rocks.
What the new psychological study indicates is that the term “consumer” may not only be insulting—it’s possibly bad for society as well.
Read more: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/04/18/should-we-stop-referring-to-people-as-consumers/?iid=pf-article-latest
