The
aim of this activity is to let students find out why it can be useful
to de-personalise academic texts. It can show the importance of being
aware of different perspectives we can adopt and consequent changes
in work with language. It can be based on any type of film that is
related to students´ fields of studies, ideally, a film, topic or
situation most of them are not familiar with.
First,
we show students a short part of a film. The instruction is just to watch the sequence, no title,
names, characters or context are mentioned or explained before
students watch that.
(Hotel Rwanda, 2004)
Second,
students are asked to write down a few sentences describing what they have
seen. Then, they discuss their versions: first in pairs and then
together with the rest of the class. All ideas, perspectives, points
of view and types of expression are appreciated.
Third,
students are given a text that offers a brief context to the
situation. They are given time to read the text. It can also be
useful to discuss some language issues or the meaning of the text.
Some important information may be added to make sure everybody
understands the context. For example:
Rwanda
Genocide
Rwanda’s
population of seven million was composed of three ethnic groups: Hutu
(approximately 85%), Tutsi (14%) and Twa (1%). In the early 1990s,
Hutu extremists within Rwanda’s political elite blamed the entire
Tutsi minority population for the country’s increasing social,
economic, and political pressures. The Hutu remembered past years of
oppressive Tutsi rule, and many of them not only resented but also
feared the minority.
On
April 6, 1994, a plane carrying President Habyarimana, a Hutu, was
shot down. Violence began almost immediately after that. Under the
cover of war, Hutu extremists launched their plans to destroy the
entire Tutsi civilian population. Political leaders who might have
been able to take charge of the situation and other high profile
opponents of the Hutu extremist plans were killed immediately. Tutsi
and people suspected of being Tutsi were killed in their homes and as
they tried to flee at roadblocks set up across the country during the
genocide. Entire families were killed at a time. Women were
systematically and brutally raped. It is estimated that some 200,000
people participated in the perpetration of the Rwandan genocide.
In
the weeks after April 6, 1994, 800,000 men, women, and children
perished in the Rwandan genocide, perhaps as many as three quarters
of the Tutsi population. At the same time, thousands of Hutu were
murdered because they opposed the killing campaign and the forces
directing it.
Policymakers
in France, Belgium, and the United States and at the United Nations
were aware of the preparations for massive slaughter and failed to
take the steps needed to prevent it. Aware from the start that Tutsi
were being targeted for elimination, the leading foreign actors
refused to acknowledge the genocide. Not only did international
leaders reject what was going on, but they also declined for weeks to
use their political and moral authority to challenge the legitimacy
of the genocidal government. They refused to declare that a
government guilty of exterminating its citizens would never receive
international assistance. They did nothing to silence the radio that
televised calls for slaughter. Even after it had become indisputable
that what was going on in Rwanda was a genocide, American officials
had shunned the g-word, fearing that it would cause demands for
intervention.
(Adapted
from:
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm)
Forth,
students are asked to contextualise their first texts. In other
words, they should re-write their original pieces of writing using
the information from the Rwanda Genocide text.
Then,
types of changes are discussed. Students should exchange their ideas
in pairs or groups and then share their ideas together in class. We
focus on the differences between their text number one, based only on
watching a segment of a film, and the text number two, based on
watching a segment of a film with a context of the situation.
Students
come up with a lot of different ideas but there are always some
changes relevant to academic context that we can highlight, such as:
-
improvement of accuracy: people → Hutus, Tutsies; in Africa → in Kigali, Rwanda;
-
improvement of sentence or paragraph structure: forming
full sentences or introducing a topic sentence at the beginning of
their short text
-
improvement of style: some say they try to be more formal (even automatically)
- higher responsibility: feeling "a higher level of fear” of making mistakes
-
attempt to create a “more objective” description of the
situation
This
discussion can but does not have to have a concluding character. We
can engage students in one more activity to offer them a more complex
view on reasons for de-personalisation in the academic context.
In
this part, students are given roles. In this case, they can include:
It
is 12th
April 1994, Kigali, Rwanda.
You
are a European tourist at a hotel. There is a brutal civil war going
on in this country and you are being evacuated.
It
is 12th
April 1994, Kigali, Rwanda.
You
are a United Nations peacekeeping forces general. Your order is to
evacuate citizens of foreign countries from Rwanda. You know you are
safe because Rwandan Hutu militias kill only Tutsies or Hutus who
help Tutsies. You know the hotel is full of Tutsies and other
refugees. If you and your soldiers leave, the hotel residents are
very likely to be killed soon.
It
is 12th
April 1994, Kigali, Rwanda.
You
are a United Nations peacekeeper. Your order is to evacuate citizens
of foreign countries from Rwanda. You know you are safe because
Rwandan Hutu militias kill only Tutsies or Hutus who help Tutsies.
You know the hotel is full of Tutsies and other refugees. When you
leave, the hotel residents are very likely to be killed soon.
It
is 12th
April 1994, Kigali, Rwanda.
You
are a humanitarian organisation worker. You have brought a lot of
Rwandans to the hotel to be evacuated. Being a foreigner, you can be
evacuated but the children and other Rwandans you have been trying to
save are forced to stay. The United Nation peacekeepers will not help
Rwandans; moreover, they prevent you from helping them more. You know
the hotel is full of Rwandan refugees who are very likely to be
killed soon.
It
is 12th
April 1994, Kigali, Rwanda.
You
are a Hutu Manager of the hotel. You have to manage the process of
evacuation of all foreigners from the hotel. No United Nations
peacekeeper will help you to save the locals. You know the hotel is
full of Rwandan refugees and you all are likely to be killed by Hutu
militias.
It
is 12th
April 1994, Kigali, Rwanda.
You
are a Tutsi employee of the hotel. You would like to be evacuated
with all the foreigners but the United Nations peacekeepers stop you.
You know if you stay in the country you all are likely to be killed
by Hutu militias.
…there
can be many other characters…
When
we make sure students understand which “role” they take on, they
are instructed to watch the film segment again. They should watch it
from the perspective of their role. In other words, they should see
the situation from a specific point of view (of an insider of the
situation). After watching this, students are asked to write a new
description of the situation.
Then,
we proceed in a similar way as in the step with contextualisation. We
ask them to identify differences and changes made between their texts
number three and texts number two.
Again,
a great variety of different ideas appear, but usually, many students share
three issues that can be emphasised: students
1) get “deeper inside” the situation;
2) focus on their own perspective only;
3) focus on details (not he wider picture) relevant only to the particular perspective and
ignore the rest.
In
this way, students have been guided to a deeper understanding of why
de-personalisation can be useful: They may experience the
difference of a personal involvement and more de-personalised
perspective. When they are personally involved, they may go deeper
into the situation but, at the same time, they can take only one
perspective and focus on some details while ignoring other issues.
On the other hand, when they are given some context or adopt a wider
picture, they may introduce more accuracy, precision and
responsibility in their writing.
