Because of the different cultural backgrounds, I always feel that the film is like a novel. At the end, the narration explains the future of several students, only to know that part of the events in the film actually happened in Czechoslovakia, which is surprising! Fortunately we don't have a country without such teachers.
However, in the comments of some people, the current situation of education and teachers in our country is attributed to the situation of this film. I don’t know how the scenes in the film are consistent with China. Anyway, I have never seen such teachers.
First, I have never seen such a blatant demand for bribes. There are some teachers, maybe the parents will have a better attitude when they give gifts. I have given them too, but it is not the teacher who called or implied to give gifts, just asking for more attention. How could they tell you the answer and what to focus on during the usual test? Yes, I believe that China is not so absurd, but this may be related to the kind of file records established abroad (that is, the final admission score is not only the college entrance examination, but also the usual performance. This is my guess, otherwise it is too unreasonable. ) In fact, I also understand that it is not necessary to take more care, but I think that Chinese people always give gifts with an element of affection. The affection here also includes the abstract identification of the teacher's identity and the abstract identification of the Chinese way of affection.
Second, there is no such serious parent-teacher conference in China. In China, there is still more analysis of grades, rather than discussion of the head teacher, and none of the head teachers are so powerful that the principal is afraid and has to work with parents to deal with them. Of course, when I speak of a serious parent-teacher meeting, I mean that the attitude of the parents towards the signature is that they will not blindly sign anything. They must state their reasons in front of everyone, which is very democratic and feels very democratic.
Third, there are no such students in China. They are bullied by teachers to such an extent that students cannot be differentiated. Because all teaching methods in China are collectivized, teachers cannot differentiate students, at least they cannot effectively differentiate students.
And two other things,
Some people link education, system and human nature, etc., and regard the system as an important premise. This conclusion is actually the result of stopping thinking and believing in the rumors on the Internet. Ask the same system, why the difference between the city and the countryside, the east and the west is so big. When it comes to the system, the current Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, etc. are definitely different from ours. It must have something to do with the system, but it is not a decision. If it is really decided, it is very simple to run an education. Reform is something that fools do, because the system remains unchanged, education cannot change, and human nature will not change! Is that so?
I saw a lot of comments here on how important parents are. I would like to ask, since parents are so important, can we let all the migrant workers and friends go home, or bring their children to work? The current situation is that parents can’t come. Qi, why is there a parent meeting? In recent years, everyone's thinking has changed, and they have begun to realize the importance of family education. This is a good thing, but don't make myths about the importance of family. If family education is more important than school education, then at present, the two kinds of education cannot have both. When, why not take home education? Family education is important. This importance is not compared with school education. It is incomparable with school education. It is in terms of children's future competition, because with the vigorous actions of the country, school education is basically fair. , the problem is that the country cannot and will not be able to equalize family education, so family education has become an important reason for the gap in students' development. If you don't realize this, all day long, it is parents who need education in China, not nonsense? Everyone can say a few words about education, but don't talk nonsense. I saw some nonsense, and it was the so-called teachers who said the wrong thing. My heart is cold, how can you still engage in education? !
In addition, in view of the comments of some people below, I will add a few confusing words and respond to the title below
"" authority ": "The mark of authority is the unquestioned acknowledgment of the one demanded of obedience; neither coercion nor persuasion is required." [5] Obedience to authority is an unreflective but voluntary (while not forced) behavior . The following is the content collected on the Internet and can also be found in political science textbooks.
Power : "Power corresponds to man's ability not only to act but to act in concert. Power is never the property of an individual, it belongs to a group. And only when the group comes together to maintain its existence. When we say that a person 'has power', we really mean that he is empowered by a certain number of people to act in their name. Once the group (the people) from which the power originally originated disappears, Power will then disappear." [2] That is to say, power is the ability of human beings to act in a coordinated manner in the field of public affairs, and power always comes from groups and plural people, not only violence cannot produce power, but a single person can never May have power (could have violence, force, physical strength, etc.). Power emerges only when groups come together and act in concert through equal and free discourse. Of course, groups can authorize a certain person or institution out of voluntary authorization. At this time, the nature of power has not changed, that is, people's authorization.
This view was later developed by Habermas as the concept of "communicative power", [3] its most prominent feature is that power and violence are absolutely irrelevant, and power can only exist on the basis of equal dialogue and communication. Since politics is dialogue and communication, politics based not on power but on violence is not real politics. Rather, it is a manifestation of political corruption and political incompetence, a pre-political phenomenon. (details below)
Strength : "Strength refers exclusively to something singular, to a single entity; it is a quality buried in a thing or a person, belonging to the thing or the person itself (meaning that it cannot be transferability, citation), strength may demonstrate this quality in relationships with other people or things (such as manifesting one's strength through physical combat with others, citation), but is essentially independent of those relationships ( i.e. strength in one man when he is not fighting others.) Even the strength of the strongest individual may always be overwhelmed by many, often combined for one purpose, that It is the destruction of power, and the reason is precisely because of the special independence of power." [4] It can be seen that power only refers to something singular, that is, the quality of a person or thing, independent of the group and not transferable to others. Judging from Arendt's above definition, the so-called strength seems to be the physical strength that is monopolized by a person's body.
Force : refers specifically to the energy released by natural forces or social movements. Storms and typhoons are typical natural forces, and the force of conformity caused by mass movements is a typical social environmental force. . From Arendt's explanation, it seems better to translate the word as "power".
Authority : "The mark of authority is the unquestioned acknowledgment of the one demanded of obedience; neither coercion nor persuasion is required." [5] I think this is the most concise, succinct, and profound expression of authority The definition of authority, in just two sentences, sums up all the characteristics of authority. Authority is authority in that it requires neither persuasion (power requires persuasion) nor coercion (coercion is violence, and compulsory obedience is no longer "recognition without question"). The use of force or violence (such as a parent beating a son) or rational persuasion (a father-son debate) can lead to a loss of authority. The former shows that the abuser has no authority and therefore resorts to violence, while the latter shows that although authority is not based on violence and coercion, its The basis is still the hierarchical and unequal relationships between people that cannot be discussed, that refuse to be discussed, or that do not stand up to discussion. Traditions, taboos, customs, which are practiced and observed without question, are the most quintessential authorities, which do not have to resort to violence or force, and which are unquestioned and unnegotiable. [6] Here, "without questioning" is the key. Authority does not require argumentation and discussion, and often does not stand up to discussion. Obedience to authority is a non-reflective but voluntary (rather than forced) act . Because of this, Arendt said: "The greatest enemy of authority is contempt, and the most effective way to destroy it is to ridicule." [7] Contempt and ridicule are non-recognition, and non-recognition is not an authority. When a person or institution is ridiculed by the people, his or its authority vanishes, even if the people do not destroy it by violence or argument.
Among power, force, force, etc., authority is the easiest to disappear, and it can be given to people or institutions. It is often associated with specific occupations (such as teachers, doctors) or status (such as principals).
Violence : In addition to its non-verbal, non-communicative, anti-political nature, what sets violence apart is its instrumental nature. The concept of violence is close to the meaning of "strong". For "tools of violence, like other tools, are designed and used for the purpose of multiplying natural force (such as the power of the human body itself, citations), until the final stage of development, where they can replace force." [8] Now despotism The foundation of domination and modern warfare is violence, not force.
Then some people can understand why the title says that without the authority of teachers, there is no future for the nation.
This film does not reflect teacher authority at all, but teacher violence, because the obedience in the play involves coercion and persuasion. The question is why is there no national future without the authority of teachers? Authority is of a "non-reflective" nature, which determines that authority is a rigid and basic bottom-line consensus required by a society. As a special identity, teachers are undoubtedly the defenders of bottom-line consensus before children enter society. He is also a shaper, so some moviegoers should not confuse opposition to teacher violence with teacher authority.
Moving on to this topic, why there is no national future without the authority of teachers, authority is the kind of obedience that does not require reflection, and conversely, the formation of authority is necessary so that people do not have to resist any actions of others, that is, Authority can only break the old authority and establish a new authority. It is impossible to have no authority. The lack of authority is the totalitarian politics. Let’s talk about it so much, let’s dispel more, under Baidu, the relationship between authority and politics, human nature, education and so on. Because the concentrated research on authority was after World War II, and now there are more achievements, as long as you want to know.
View more about The Teacher reviews
