Our understanding of terms such as diversity and influence has changed over the years. What does diversity mean and what does it mean to have influence? In my opinion the same would apply to terms like innovation, creativity, teaching and learning. However, I feel that today we have better access of bouncing ideas around to form new ideas. Whereas in the past you would need to physically make the effort to meet with individuals to have discussions.
​
Perhaps the change in our understanding of terms morph by giving ourselves the time and space to contemplate concepts holistically. I just got a copy of Ivan Illich's book, Deschooling Society, and I am really impressed with his progressive point of view - knowing that the book was first published in 1972. Illich says in his opening paragraph to his book: 'The pupil is thereby "schooled" to confuse teaching with learning, grade achievement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new.' (Illich, 2009) There are so many other factors that influence teaching and learning, which influences creativity and innovation. What comes to mind is the globalisation of our world, where I feel we're still learning to live with each other. Perceptions take time to change sometimes generations. Some people catch on quickly, while many others do not. According to the World Economic Forum, 4 billion people are still not connected to the internet, which is more than half of the world's population. (WEF, 2016) In addition to this, even though we are connected with the internet doesn't mean we have the 'right' kind of information. Who defines what is 'right'? According to Alan November, one of the misconceptions with having access with the internet is to be able to access information, but we are more prone to using information we can relate too. This alone can be very problematic.

I feel that at a professional level, we need to work towards challenging ourselves. Just because we live in the 21st century doesn't mean that we're doing things 'right'. I am sure 20 years from now we maybe thinking...wow what were we thinking? I feel that concepts of the past have its place in today's world or else how else would we make sense of what is happening today? What is important is to set time aside to challenge our thinking, but also to collaborate with others to share ideas to form innovative ideas - perhaps in a professional learning network. According to Steven Johnson, in his talk on Where Do Good Ideas Come From, the heart of innovation comes from the interaction and ability to exchange your ideas and to think things through.

Is feminism a 'living legacy' or a 'dead relic'?

According to Jane Roland Martin, in her article What Should We Do with a Feminist Educational Theory When We Have One?: A Response to Audrey Thompson, she discusses rather than looking at how you learn - what if we looked at learning like a stock being preserved for the next generation? (Martin, 67) The wealth of a culture is held in the stock with both 'assets' and 'liabilities'. As a result, there is cultural wealth. As educators or educational agencies we to assess how knowledge is seen when it falls outside their own definitions. (Martin, 67) However, if we see our 'assets' and 'liabilities' on a continuum, many times we think of positive and negative connotations. (Martin, 68) 

As educators are we using the educational agents around us to inform our knowledge? Martin suggests that those educational agents can be places of worship, neighbourhoods, museums, libraries, zoos, symphony orchestras, banks, businesses, the stock market, newspapers, magazines,  book clubs, record companies, publishing houses, sports organisations, government agencies, TV,  the internet, etc. (Martin, 68) However, as educators inform their knowledge, I feel that we can bring our own biases to whether a concept has negative or positive connotations. As Martin suggests, what if we saw knowledge on a continuum as either a 'living legacy' or a 'dead relic'? With both forms having value in the contributions it has to what we know.

So I now pose the question again...Is feminism a 'living legacy' or a 'dead relic'? Many would hasten to say that it is definitely a 'living legacy'. Concepts within feminism have definitely evolved with the reflection of the needs of women today. However, we hasten to shun how the feminism of the 60s or 70s is not what it is today. Perhaps that is true, but what if we saw the concept of feminism like an archeological dig? 

If you have seen an archeological dig, you would see different layers of sedimentary deposits in the ground. The deeper you dig to explore, the story of the land is exposed. You learn about the environment, surrounding vegetation and human activities of the time. It's from this data that gives us clues or reasons to inform our conclusions to present day scenarios. Similarly, feminism has changed but the past, which may seem like 'dead relics', inform the needs of women today such as the importance of intersectionality to the concept.

For the small few out there that think the feminism is a concept not relevant today...here's a thought. 'Just as humankind is trying to eradicate the smallpox virus, so it should seek to transform rape, torture, poverty, and other cultural evils from 'living legacy' into 'dead relics'.' (Martin, 69) The question is...as educators how will we foster an environment in our classrooms, which will dig deep into concepts to foster critical thinking to better inform student and our own understandings?