Week 4 Pre-Class Blog – Reflections on Module 2 Presentations

I have just gone through the Module 2 presentations that had posted at the time of this writing and felt the need to express how grateful I was to get so many perspectives on interests and ideas, not to mention the choice of incidents themselves.  It was difficult to know which to comment on as time was a factor, but they all warrant some praise.  To keep this on topic, each influenced my ideas about the issue at hand.

Kyra’s presentation on the Paris Climate Change Agreement probably resonated most greatly for me.  Her reasoned case for the “shared technology” model has influenced my initial aversion to the metaphor to great degree.  While I had been sold on the concept, it was the metaphorical translation that worried me – it was interesting to see that play out in my own thinking.    Dan McDevitt’s analysis China’s snub of Carter in 2014 not only called up recent events, but had me thinking about connections I had not considered before in relation to internal actors, special regions struggling to maintain autonomy in the wake of China’s increased power and posturing. 

I could go through the list… my fellow bloggers on this team, Dan Silva, Jesse and Courtney, each brought unique insight to the topics they chose to present.   While Jesse shared concern about technical difficulties with his audio, it was easy to follow his train of thought, especially with the script below each slide.   The important points shared were not lost. It was both instructive and thought-provoking.

On Malala, I was drawn first by the topic and then by its visual appeal.  The influence of ideas on the interests stated immediately called out to me, particularly the effect of Malala’s father on her fortitude and sagacity.  But, for that very reason, the fact that my mind was moving along another tangent altogether before viewing it, the presentation had impact – I gained much.  There are things one can miss in focusing on a particular argument or train of thought.  To the point we have been making as a group, there is no one right answer.  It is the dialogue and consideration of so many that informs us most effectively. 

Jesse makes this point beautifully at the end of his presentation of the Soviet-Afghan War.   And, that he chose that particular topic, tells me history is not lost in our discussions.   Dan Silva elegantly makes a similar case in his analysis of Brexit.  And, there, I had further interest in historical background. We are influencing each other in the best possible way.   

Images chosen speak to the heart, and our choice of those also leads the viewer in emotional direction.  Even visual backgrounds sway us.  The gray and red in Jesse’s color scheme complimented the topic.  Dan’s was clean – precise, fitting a discussion on economic choice - and stark given the decision so influenced by things not that.   And Courtney’s, with the ink stain against a soft background, immediately set the tone for presentation on an influential schoolgirl who defied violence. The images are big and bold – books and faces.  In each of these, I not only heard and saw, I felt. 

In sum, the exercise, the interplay of ideas and preferences, the comments to each other and the nuanced means by which we, as individuals convey meaning in class beyond our respective vocabularies, all subtly shape mine, and by extension, my own next conveyance of those and the impact they have on others - and so on.