Week 3

            I very rarely converse with my fellow intern, Sister R, about our Life Pieces experience. Perhaps this has been a mistake. It’s not as if I hate speaking with her, I just often find it a hassle at the end of long days and prefer to isolate myself in either my headphones or a book. I haven’t gotten a good feel for whether this is what she would prefer to do as well. She’s always a pleasant and happy person to talk to. Anyway, since our conversations rarely extended beyond sentence or two-long daily assessments of much optimism and vagueness, I was under the impression that she did not think as critically about Life Pieces as an organization. When she would mention that she felt that Life Pieces was the “perfect fit”, I would be often become internally frustrated that she was continuously overlooking all of the things I found suspect.

            Today, in contrast to the judgments I had made, I listened from the backseat of the car as she discussed a few pretty grave topics with our program’s director. We then continued some of this conversation in private on the metro ride home. Our supervisor expressed distress at a fundamental change that Life Pieces has undergone since our numbers have expanded from an average of 15 to an average of 60. She worries that we’ve lost sight of the originally larger emphasis on meditation, peace, and mindfulness. She spoke of the commiseration and intimacy that this emphasis brought; that it allowed very heartbreaking experiences to be drawn out and shared. Apparently, the organization as a whole was a place of more understanding, affection, and patience. This fundamental also manifests itself in the staff’s presence. More specifically, she complained of the tone in which one of our aging staff members uses when rebuking the children. She attributed this tone to a trend that she (as well as I) have noticed amongst older teachers. When aging teachers have been intensely working in the field for more than a handful of years, they often begin to lose the patience they once had. This doesn’t mean that their intentions have changed, but what once sounded like calm and constructive disciplinary suggestions can now sound like angry, domineering, and out of control commanding. One very important piece of this is that of “control”. One must ensure that they are constantly presenting an outward image of collected, even if this is a façade. A teacher’s frustrations cannot run rampant. How does one approach this kind of problem though? Is it worth trying to actually correct? Or firing? Or just waiting out until a teacher like this will retire in the name of respect? This could be at the expense of the organization!

             Another theme that Sister R and me discussed on our own was that of hypermasculinity. I’ve always been a little bit skeptical of the fact that Life Pieces is an organization that solely serves males. Their justification is that the African American community in particular is bereft of strong male role models. A lot of the boys in our program have been raised in single-mother or single-female-relative households. Additionally, Life Pieces worries about the persistent stereotypes around African American men—namely that they are known for being irresponsible “hoodlums”. They are trying to combat this stereotype by raising up a generation that proves it wrong. This obviously sounds well-intentioned, but I’m sometimes a little concerned that if we’re spending so much energy trying to combat this stereotype, are we not giving it a little truth? Are we not saying that men are inherently more lazy or distractible or unintelligent or irresponsible by giving them more attention than women?

            Whenever I ask these kinds of leading questions, I’m by no means sure that I’m in the “right”, but I do wonder the implications of decisions about gender. But, for all I know, there could already be mentoring programs established for women in the area and this could be filling a gap. I’m just curious about the exclusivity.

            Because our program is focused around boys, there is often a lot of talk and emphasis on filling our roles a “man” or “gentleman”. More specifically, LPTM men are supposed to be “gentleman, scholars, artists, and athletes”. Most of the time, I get the impression that we are trying to communicate that the traits worth most cultivating are responsibility, respect, expression, thinking, fitness, etc. (all things in which I see a lot of value). The potential problem, however, with this kind of emphasis on “manhood” is that it might simultaneously communicate a dangerous emphasis on toughness and anti-femininity. I’m scared that “manhood” could be seen as the antithesis of femininity and delicacy. This seems rarely communicated in LPTM’s curriculum, but more often communicated through the behavior of the mentors and employees—especially in rebuking methods. When we command children, especially with negatives and raised voices, we are affirming that this is the right way to deal with problems as opposed to approaching disagreements and scuffles with conversation.

            I also think this type of “manhood” might manifest itself in the fact that the mentors are less hands-on with the children than I am. More specifically, Sister R brought up a few situations in which she was offering intimate, physical comfort to the younger children in either times of physical or emotional pain. Although our executive director’s disposition and philosophy would lead her to compliment this moment, one male employee (of considerable authority) told Sister R to stop “babying” and that the boy could manage on his own. This seems somewhat contradictory to the LPTM mission’s emphasis on how important and acceptable authentic “expression” is. I think this shows a weakness in the program because not everyone has the same distinct interpretation of what should be instilled in the children. I hear very often that consistency is necessary for developing children. My executive director very regularly asks for feedback so this might be something worth bringing up to her.