I am a Gemini

Reflecting on Part One of Daniel H. Pink’s A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future

“I am a Gemini”

So I was born in the middle of the year and in the middle of the month. I used to think this was ideal because it meant I got presents every six months, which is much better than having a birthday in, say, November. After Christmas you’d have to wait another eleven months to get more presents! But then I learned more about what being born in the middle of June means; it means I am a twin, a Gemini, a versatile communicator valuing relentless stimulation and expression. When I took personality quizzes in Seventeen magazine or even later when in undergrad I had to take the Myers-Briggs, I was never totally at one end of a spectrum. Am I more creative or intellectual? Intuitive or thoughtful? I used to think ending up in the middle meant I was bi-polar (OK, not really), but now I see this as a kind of balance that has benefitted me greatly in developing relationships with colleagues, students, and superiors alike. (In fact, I was just perusing astrology.com—no joke—and it said that Geminis “are fascinated by psychology and the way human relationships work”; this could not be more accurate.)

So why do I even mention all of this? Because Pink’s A Whole New Mind is about precisely this: the difference between the right and left brains, the thinkers and the creators, the mathematicians and the artists--and what this difference implies for America's future.  After having read Part One of his text, I am finding that I feel assured by his observations and predictions, and that makes me wonder the extent to which this relates to my “sign,” baby. Since the way of the future is apparently “high concept” and “high touch,” I can’t help but feel elated that what Pink describes as “the capacity to detect patterns and opportunities… to empathize with others, to understand the subtleties of human interaction, to find joy in one’s self and to elicit it in others” (p. 3) is exactly how I keep my own life interesting and fulfilling. Is it possible that my English major and music minor have prepared me for the future beyond my anticipation?

Further, I have to say that Pink’s opinion on America’s plenty—that “the defining feature of social, economic, and cultural life in much of the world is abundance” (p. 32)—makes total sense to me: It’s no wonder we are drifting further from a focus on reductive thinking when we can walk into any grocery store and have, like, seventeen different options for rice! As Pink mentions, having such abundance as “freed literally hundreds of millions of people from the struggle for survival” (p. 35), and I can only hope that while many American youth in particular have been “liberated by prosperity” they will continue to “not [be] fulfilled by it” (p. 35). As I continue to reflect on my educational philosophy and get involved in not-for-profit organizations like Ambassadors for Children, I am learning more and more about the importance of service learning; and as I continue to hear stories about kids in our own community who feel forced to steal from their peers and principals in order to help their parents make ends meet (true story), I know that although many of us are blessed with plenty, many more of us do still struggle for survival.

While Pink has some excellent food-for-thought, I think his bias is clear: The business of power. Look at the subtitle of the text: “Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future” (bold mine). And even the fact that his book has been a bestseller in BusinessWeek is telling. Is this a book meant to give readers a leg up on competition by prompting themselves to ask if they are cheap enough? Fast enough? In enough demand? (p. 51). Or will reading Pink encourage readers to find fulfillment and create meaningful context for their lives—in ways that help us to think beyond our abundance and toward the needs of others?

I am doubtful that Pink offers a philosophical blueprint in altruism, but I am only 93 pages in….


Pink, D. H. (2005). A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead Books.

From 2007: On Hoping for Humility...

"A Novel Notion: Trust Teachers!"

As I read the articles and editorials pertaining to reading instruction, I could not help but think of Michael Apple’s Educating the “Right” Way (2001), a text that challenges the power structure of education and insists that the policies and practices in education are moving towards the conservative right. I promise I will make clear the connections I see between Apple and the assigned readings, but to set up this comparison effectively I need to give a brief run-down of a couple of Apple’s core principles (do excuse the pun...).

First, he calls this movement towards the right “conservative modernization,” a process where different interest groups (“interested” in education) position and reposition themselves in relation to other groups vis á vis power relations. Now what is important to consider is how power is accumulated, and, in the words of Sir Frances Bacon, “Knowledge is power.” So then the question becomes, Who has access to knowledge? And this begs consideration of the notions of social and cultural capital; those who have these forms of capital are the ones who are more likely to gain and maintain power and, by extension, a voice. (I can go into a whole thing about social and cultural capital, but that’s too much of a tangent even for me… if you care let me know and I’ll write an addendum or something and post it later… lol.)

OK, so anyway. America is considered the land of the free, right? But Apple posits (and I totally agree) that freedom is really based on a fear of freedom, a fear of either losing distinction or of becoming too uniform in the “wrong” way. And who determines what is the “right” or “wrong” way for our culture to be represented? Those with the most social and cultural capital, and who currently has this? The right. (Again, there’s lots of support for this, but let’s just operate on the assumption that Apple knows what he’s talking about.) Let me start connecting this stuff to our readings: The Stutz article (1999) discusses how Texan conservatives are pushing for phonics and how their opponents argue that the “conservatives’ agenda is driven by a desire to have a more rigid learning structure in schools, one that avoids critical thinking by students.” Shouldn’t education empower students through engaging in critical thinking? Aren’t we taught in our undergraduate methodology classes that the ultimate goal is to get kids to a level of higher-order thinking? Why would any interest group discourage critical thinking? Fear of losing power.

So here’s the conflict: The state thinks it’s the expert in education and social welfare, yet so do the teachers who spend their days surrounded by students (I know: the nerve!). I absolutely love that Carpenter (2000) quoted Farstrup’s analogy that “[F]ederal pedagogy legislation [is like] having the government ‘tell an aircraft mechanic how to bolt a part on.’” Ultimately, whether the debate is reading instruction or standardized testing, my premise remains: We the educators should be those trusted to make the call when it comes to effective practices, not those with agendas steeped in fear or power-maintenance mode. And for that matter (sorry, one more tangent), I’d like to add that when it comes to methods of research (which I’m assuming proponents of any particular methodology base their arguments on), only quasi-experiments can be conducted on human subjects because of the innumerable variables; if we believe that this is true, then why on earth would it make sense to boast a single “best” method for any kind of instruction? The majority of articles on reading instruction that we read agreed that a blend of pedagogies is best; why do those with power so often fail to see the shades of gray that envelop education? Or, if they do see the gray, why is it a “bad” thing? Unfortunately, I think Andrea Neal (1999) reported the answer (ala Motes and Hall): “[C]hildren’s needs may take a back seat to adult... egos.” Here’s to hoping for humility….