I think this should say "some" - there are situations where people don't have foundational needs met and still engage in the work of self-actualization or of finding beauty around them.

This implies that there is a "full potential" that someone can reach, given the right circumstances. The moral implication is: if you don't develop to your full potential (or worse yet, don't want to), there's something wrong (with you, your community, etc.).

Love this idea too!

I've run final exams in pedagogy classes with grad students that invited them to design a class in small groups as the final exam... I love this 5 step process and it is making me think about bringing back this model of a final exam, but in my current class to design a youth program.

I'd love to know what this sounds like and how Ratto's students hear it.

I absolutely love this prompt. My dissertation work was around data use in youth-serving organizations and when I have conversations about it with said youth-serving organizations (YSOs), I typically spend a good chunk of time doing a workshop that invites YSOs to create what they feel are ethical systems for data use.

I've worked closely with a colleague on mentoring programs for a number of years. He does a lot of mentoring of engineers doing final (and perhaps their only to this point practical) projects before graduation. His primary complaint is that they've learned the theory of engineering while never learning to really think through the purpose, problems, and constraints of real world problems. However, when he does get them to think about those kinds of issues, it isn't too far a jump to connecting to the political/cultural value of these objects.

I love these questions!

I wonder whether there's been a sort of pendulum swing here. My grandparents and parents grew up "making" - (re)building cars, a motorhome, etc. This was partially out of interest in projects (they liked and still like making things), partially financial constraints. There wasn't a critical engagement in the ways I think Ratto means here. And then hacker/maker culture (early maybe) there was some critical engagement, lost maybe in the popularization. But I guess from my perspective both have existed alongside each other for a while. My local makerspace (and one I mentioned earlier) may not always be thinking about the adversarial/political/tactical components of their tech-oriented DIY practices, but those are present for some in the organizations. Overall though, I'm all for Ratto's argument that we could use more of this! I find some of the "open" culture frustrating because of a deeply ideological commitment on the part of some to "open", even when the real impact of "open" is that large corporations are the main beneficiaries of data and shape it toward the needs of capital, rather than the benefit of the people writ large.

I like this as a parallel to a classroom too, given the language people are now using to describe getting an education as a "consumer" or "customer".

test

yo