Amelia Bedelia
There’s a quote that’s been rattling through my head for a month now…
“Teach…, not so plain that they can just understand, but you must teach… so plainly that no one can misunderstand.” (Harold B. Lee)
What an enormous task.
The other night, my daughter was reading aloud to me Amelia Bedelia. For those who don’t remember this elementary school staple, the plot line of every book (and there are several), is that Mr. and Mrs. Rogers have an unusual housekeeper: Amelia Bedelia. And every instruction they give to her is misunderstood – all dictionary correct, mind you, but still not what Mrs. Rogers intended.
For example, Mrs. Rogers’ instructions are: “Draw the drapes when the sun comes in.” So Amelia Bedelia takes out pad and pencil, and draws a picture of the drapes. Or Mrs. Rogers’ says “Change the towels in the green bathroom.” And Amelia Bedelia cuts the towels up, to make them different. But always in the end Amelia Bedelia’s fantastic (and non-verbally expressed) cooking skills manage to keep her employed.
I suppose the books serve the purpose of introducing to young readers multiple meanings of words in a comical memorable way.
But my in my head, the experience of having this book read to me again (for I’ve been down this road three times before with my sons) banged squarely into the quote above that I’d been pondering.
Just what is it about words – and how we use them – that divides people, keeps them from communicating, from understanding?
I think back to the LSAT; those who took the June 2004 remember the “code-switching” passage. Many still grumble about it today. What was being measured was the ability to understand and decipher meaning from complex arrangements of ideas and words, and this particular passage tripped up many hopeful law applicants. But is it possible to convey complex ideas in ways that ensure understanding by every potential audience?
Humpty Dumpty, in Through the Looking Glass, asserted that words were his to use as he pleased, regardless of how others understood them. But it wasn’t his purpose to be understood. How convenient it was for him to claim what Alice took from his words was not what he meant.
Betsy Hoffman and Ward Churchill both made claims that their words were misunderstood, that the average person was unprepared to comprehend their intent. This stance was vilified by the media, interpreted as an affront to Colorado citizenry and evidence of an “Ivory Tower” attitude. But the offensiveness of the statement notwithstanding, are their claims nonetheless true? And does it matter if the claims are true from a certain point of view, a view that might not be shared by all members of a society or group?
Do the printed words on a page or syllables flowing on waves through the air have meaning in and of themselves? I do not think so. They have to be put into context by somebody, now or later. And the risk of words is that someone will inadvertently or deliberately apply an unintended (though perhaps justifiable) meaning to those words.
Thus, words written or spoken cannot be the only means of teaching. . I personally think that example is a powerful mode of teaching. And I also believe in supernatural means of communicating truths.
But some words are vitally important to be understood. Our society depends on a common understanding of key words. How, then, does society teach – do I teach – so that others cannot misunderstand?
“Teach…, not so plain that they can just understand, but you must teach… so plainly that no one can misunderstand.” (Harold B. Lee)
What an enormous task.
The other night, my daughter was reading aloud to me Amelia Bedelia. For those who don’t remember this elementary school staple, the plot line of every book (and there are several), is that Mr. and Mrs. Rogers have an unusual housekeeper: Amelia Bedelia. And every instruction they give to her is misunderstood – all dictionary correct, mind you, but still not what Mrs. Rogers intended.
For example, Mrs. Rogers’ instructions are: “Draw the drapes when the sun comes in.” So Amelia Bedelia takes out pad and pencil, and draws a picture of the drapes. Or Mrs. Rogers’ says “Change the towels in the green bathroom.” And Amelia Bedelia cuts the towels up, to make them different. But always in the end Amelia Bedelia’s fantastic (and non-verbally expressed) cooking skills manage to keep her employed.
I suppose the books serve the purpose of introducing to young readers multiple meanings of words in a comical memorable way.
But my in my head, the experience of having this book read to me again (for I’ve been down this road three times before with my sons) banged squarely into the quote above that I’d been pondering.
Just what is it about words – and how we use them – that divides people, keeps them from communicating, from understanding?
I think back to the LSAT; those who took the June 2004 remember the “code-switching” passage. Many still grumble about it today. What was being measured was the ability to understand and decipher meaning from complex arrangements of ideas and words, and this particular passage tripped up many hopeful law applicants. But is it possible to convey complex ideas in ways that ensure understanding by every potential audience?
Humpty Dumpty, in Through the Looking Glass, asserted that words were his to use as he pleased, regardless of how others understood them. But it wasn’t his purpose to be understood. How convenient it was for him to claim what Alice took from his words was not what he meant.
Betsy Hoffman and Ward Churchill both made claims that their words were misunderstood, that the average person was unprepared to comprehend their intent. This stance was vilified by the media, interpreted as an affront to Colorado citizenry and evidence of an “Ivory Tower” attitude. But the offensiveness of the statement notwithstanding, are their claims nonetheless true? And does it matter if the claims are true from a certain point of view, a view that might not be shared by all members of a society or group?
Do the printed words on a page or syllables flowing on waves through the air have meaning in and of themselves? I do not think so. They have to be put into context by somebody, now or later. And the risk of words is that someone will inadvertently or deliberately apply an unintended (though perhaps justifiable) meaning to those words.
Thus, words written or spoken cannot be the only means of teaching. . I personally think that example is a powerful mode of teaching. And I also believe in supernatural means of communicating truths.
But some words are vitally important to be understood. Our society depends on a common understanding of key words. How, then, does society teach – do I teach – so that others cannot misunderstand?
Comments