Hello twins.
The following is a response to Dr. Kimmer's chapter on scientific terminology and the language of animacy from her book Braiding Sweetgrass.
I had never really considered how the English language rejects the concept of animacy. The anecdote about "someone was in my hat" instead of "something was in my hat" was a moment of epiphany. Why do we only give humans such exclusive rights to be a "who"? It is a subtle shift in the use of pronouns but its impact is profound. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that society's way of objectifying nature opens the door for exploitation by reducing living organisms to things. We mistakenly see ourselves as the only important beings inhabiting our planet. It enables a humbling paradigm shift in how we view and interact with nature by seeing natural beings as our equals.
I can see the applications to science classes but am less sure of how such a shift could impact mathematics education. My biggest takeaway from this article was that there is always another way of looking at things. In my life, I have never considered that there could be another way of discussing nature. This exemplifies adopting the Two-Eyed Seeing approach to how we educate our students. Just because we have long viewed an idea in a certain way doesn’t mean there are no other perspectives to explore. Often we are simply unaware that alternatives exist and thus miss out on the insights they offer. Therefore the first step is making students aware that there are other, often better, ways of viewing the world.
Thanks for reading,
Josh