Ray Aldridge on tue 31 aug 99
At 12:06 AM 8/29/99 EDT, Ron Roy wrote:
(snip Ron's accurate assessment of hazardous working conditions in many
institutions and studios)
>I try not to inject my opinions except in the very worst situations - who
>am I to tell others how to conduct themselves? On the other hand I realize
>how difficult it is to make a decent living making functional ware even
>without scaring off our customers. We are dealing with a population that is
>easily turned off if things go wrong - real or imagined. I think it is wise
>to choose what we do carefully and in order to access risk we need
>information. If that information leads to hysteria then we should deal with
>that (a better situation than to continue on in ignorance) which is what we
>are doing here I suppose.
Certainly we should have as much information as is available, but my point
is that if we do not at the outset challenge information that is biased,
exaggerated, and/or one-sided, we will later have a much more difficult
time changing any laws that may result from this misinformation.
Bad information (and even good information out of context or without useful
perspective) takes on a life of its own, if it spreads far enough.
>
>As for the bodies - it depends what you define as a body I suppose. Do you
>count all those rats and mice used to test toxins as bodies. Are they that
>much different from a month old fetus? How is it possible to isolate and
>identify all the contributing factors that went into the mix when we find a
>body.
>
>We have not mentioned incapacitation in our discussion - I know potters
>that can't pot anymore due to exposure to some of the oxides we use. Should
>we count them as bodies?
Of course we should, and in no way do I wish to minimize either the dangers
of our profession or the importance of taking precautions against these
dangers. However... In the specific instance of Fiesta ware, are you
aware of any person, fetus, or rat who has been incapacitated by exposure
to uranium-glazed dinnerware? Should we, because of the risks mentioned by
Monona, have laws prohibiting private collectors from possessing these wares?
The trouble with Monona's information is not in most cases that it is
wrong-- far from it. It's that the information is delivered in such an
absolutist and dictatorial manner that it is often very difficult to know
how best to act on that information. The Fiesta ware tempest-in-a-teapot is
a perfect example. Monona confined herself to stating that uranium glazed
Fiesta ware was Dangerous. Do you now understand, even approximately, how
dangerous it actually is? I don't, and if I owned any of this
glow-in-the-dark stuff, I still wouldn't know if I should get rid of it or
not.
When Sue, Evan, and others attempted to fit the danger into the context of
other minor environmental sources of exposure, (so that we might have some
useful perspective in the matter) they were viciously attacked for their
trouble. But unless I missed it, Monona refused to justify her warnings
within the rational realworld structure that Sue and Evan tried to bring to
the discussion-- and in my opinion she did so because such a sensible
approach might have caused most reasonable and intelligent folk to shrug
and think, "So what?"
>All I am trying to point out is that we should be aware - and try to do
>what we think is right.
I agree completely.
> There are safe and relatively safe materials to use
>in our glazes. The only way we can tell which are benign is to be informed
>- and most of us are not - and Monona is helping us learn.
>
In my opinion, she's doing a truly lousy job of it. This, of course, is an
entirely different subject than my first post, which used Monona as an
illustration of the inflexible and domineering bureaucratic personality.
Monona's teaching style is to deliver information and then aggressively
quash any ensuing discussion which does not slavishly support her view. As
Mike Blossom recently discovered, it's not even safe to agree with her,
unless you are prepared to do so in sufficiently abject terms. Leaving
aside for the moment the issue of basic civility, I have to question
whether or not this is an effective approach to teaching anything, and
especially so vital a subject as occupational safety. Her habit of
attacking anyone who wishes to elaborate on or debate her statements has
the unfortunate effect of shutting down our access to additional or
conflicting information, thus preventing us from making the best and most
rational choices.
Contrast this with your teaching style, which in my opinion is vastly more
productive. You offer your information authoritatively but kindly, and if
someone disagrees with you, you do not take it as an opportunity to insult
and intimidate that person. In the civilized discussions that ensue, I
learn more and I have more confidence in the validity of what I've learned.
It's the same for most folks. We don't like to hear, "Do this! Do that!
Don't ask why; you're too stupid to understand." Most of us don't learn
well from instructors who use that method.
Returning to the issue of civility, I received a great many posts
congratulating me on being brave enough to contradict Monona. The common
theme was this: "better you than me, Ray." Most of those who wrote me
privately confessed to being afraid to speak out in any matter in which
Monona was concerned. Is this really a good situation for learning?
We have all had "teachers" like Monona, and if we learned anything from
them, it was due only to our determination to learn.
What bothers me most about the situation isn't that a group of Good People
have been made to fear the consequences of expressing their opinions--
though that's certainly bad enough. At present Monona has no real power
beyond the considerable force of her personality. She's only a trivial
annoyance, easily ignored (and this is another sad aspect of the situation;
her toxic personality may cause some of us to ignore her information. This
would be a great loss, because in most cases it is very useful and
important information.)
But here's my concern.... If we as a group are afraid to contradict her
now, when she's relatively toothless, then I wonder how we will ever find
the courage to oppose her when her opinions carry the weight of law.
Ray
| |
|
