4 Levels of Identity

            The four kinds of identity are foreclosed identity, achieved identity, diffused identity, and moratorium. These identity issues are unique and useful because they are not tied directly to any stage of life. These can be interchanged at various points of different people’s lives. These come out as a part of experience, rather than specifically because of age. A foreclosed identity is one, which involves a decision that was made without much prior thought. This identity can be thrust upon a person or done with little thought. A diffused identity is one that a person is not very committed to; they essentially do it for no reason. This identity can easily be influenced or altered by others. Moratorium is a state of identity where a person is fascinated with potential identities and studies them thoroughly. But this individual makes no commitment to doing anything. Achieved identity is the highest level of identity; this identity is thought about and committed to by an individual. This is essentially a person doing what they have learned and are interested in doing. These identity levels are necessary because they can be interchangeable at various points  in life and can be reached multiple times during a person’s life.

            Context mapping is similar to an ecomap in social work. A context map is a visual representation of a person’s relationships and activities, focusing on how they are interconnected. It is important to know how different parts of an individual’s life are connected.

Higgins Home Life: Mom, Dad, Brother

Higgins Student Life: Professors, Classmates

Higgins RA Life: Thorp Staff, Thorp Residents, All Staff

Higgins RSA Life: Alex (Advisor), E-Board Members, General Members, NRHH

Higgins Ultimate Life: Captains, Teammates, Coach Gibb, Friends in the community, Opponents, Spectators
Social Higgins: Old Friends (little contact), RIC Friends (lots of contact), Family, Co-Workers 

Higgins Work Life: Supervisors, Co-Workers, Clients, Support Staff

            

Quality>Quantity

I love that Nakkula explores the effect of students on the lives of youth workers. This connection is somewhat obvious but it is not something that people delve into very often. The focus is typically on the effect teachers can have on students but this effect is reciprocal. Nakkula draws from Mary Haywood Metz when he discusses the intrinsic value of teaching. There are few rewards outside of personal gratification with teaching; it is not a glorious profession, nor is it a high paying one. This can be applied to the work of youth development as well. Youth workers typically do not earn high wages and do not work typical hours. Their lives are centered on the youth that they work with and often the only real reward from this profession is affecting youth. But this is exactly why people are interested in this field. No one enters youth work to make money or gain notoriety; they do so in order to benefit the youth that they work with.

            

Youth workers often must deal with the disengagement of students despite the work that was put into a certain activity. Sometimes students simply will not be interested in a lesson. This is something that can be very difficult for teacher and youth workers. This same thing can happen as a Resident Assistant, we can work extremely hard to put on an event for students but sometimes they simply do not come. My friend and co-worker once told me that it does not matter how many people are engaged in something, the important thing is that those whoa re engaged enjoy themselves and gain something from the experience. This is a belief that I have carried with me for years and is something that applies to youth work. While a worker will always try to affect all their students, it is unlikely for this to happen. But if some students gain something sustainable from an experience, a youth worker has succeeded.

Access over Ability - Good Will Hunting Style

            I have been having a debate with my friend Zach for the past few days in regards to our opinions of access vs. ability. We agree that the two require some combination for an individual to be truly successful. But our debate is which is most important/which one should be chosen if a person could only have one.

            My argument is focused on the benefits of access. My favorite example used in this argument has been of Will Hunting from the film “Good Will Hunting”. Will was a mathematical super genius from South Boston who worked as a janitor at MIT. He had been in and out of jail since his teen years and now worked a number of manual labor jobs through his parole officer. Will spends a great deal of time reading and has the ability to perform incredible mathematical feats. But he has never had access to any higher education. It is not until he solves a problem on a chalkboard at MIT and a professor sees him do so that Will receives any interest from higher education officials.

            Will has all the ability in the world; he is a once in a lifetime mind. But until he received access to higher education Will was not going anywhere with his ability. Will needed to be provided access in order to utilize the amazing ability that he had. This ties directly to the egg drop experiment. A physics student provided with few supplies would have a difficult time defeating a history student who was provided with all the supplies needed for the experiment. Those provided with access can succeed despite issues in ability, but those with ability will have difficulty to succeed unless provided reasonable access. Access is something special because it can breed ability and knowledge, by having access a student can learn how to use the products they are provided. But a person with a great deal of ability will only be able to learn as much as their access allows.

            Ullucci focuses on the idea, without using this phrase, of blaming the victim. Many low-income schools do not help students and use poverty as an excuse for not providing a quality education. Assuming that ability is more important than access seems like an idea that could be considered blaming the victim. It makes me think that if a person does not have the ability then they will fail, but access allows for ability to be harnessed and expanded. This idea and connection is something that I think Ullucci is stressing in his work.