# data[].attributes.headline
Objectivism is a problem in education. (pp. 127- 131)

# data[].attributes.subject
Objectivism is a problem in education. (pp. 127- 131)

# data[].attributes.body
Objectivism impedes communication between teachers and students. Because the teachers who valued objectivism are more likely to be pathologically narcissistic, they stand at a distance from students and cannot connect with students.

# data[].attributes.body
Objectivism is too stiff, it is all about pouring knowledge and everything into students’ brains, treating students like empty vessels. There is no creation, no listening, no hearing, only rote memory and predictable assignments.

# data[].attributes.body
Objectivism brings professors and students into conformity, where professors get dominated and have control over students. WHere there is no place for love.

# data[].attributes.headline
A mutual partnership based in love is a better educational model.(pp. 131 ff.)

# data[].attributes.subject
A mutual partnership based in love is a better educational model.(pp. 131 ff.)

# data[].attributes.body
Because a mutual partnership model invites an engagement of the self that humanizes, that makes love possible. And mutual communication can bring profound engagement for teachers and students.

# data[].attributes.body
Implementing a love-based model can be difficult in classrooms dominated by fear and competition. These challenges are exacerbated by a fear-based education system that encourages adversarial relationships between students and teachers.

# data[].attributes.headline
BUT other teachers have voiced objections

# data[].attributes.subject
BUT other teachers have voiced objections

# data[].attributes.body
Objectivism is an unbiased standpoint, it is fact, which brings authenticity to professors. And some educators resist this model, fearing that love might lead to unclear boundaries or favoritism. However, Hooks responds that love actually leads to clearer and fairer assessments of students’ needs and abilities.

# data[].attributes.body
national most college and university, they treat students as empty vessels, pouring knowledge to their brains nd teaching them based on rote memory and predictable assignments.

# data[].attributes.body
religious teachings had encouraged them to fear difference, to exclude rather than include voices and perspec- tives different from their own, to shun diversity.

# data[].attributes.body
Create the opportunity to be fully and compassionately engaged with learning. we privileged respect and responsibility

# data[].attributes.body
While teaching the works of James Baldwin, Hooks encountered challenges when some students expressed shock and discomfort upon learning that Baldwin was gay. These students openly displayed homophobic attitudes and assumed that everyone in the class shared their sexual views.

# data[].attributes.body
Hooks emphasized the importance of a learning community based on respect and responsibility. She led students in discussions about the difference between hate speech and constructive criticism, helping students understand the harm that certain viewpoints can cause to others. By fostering an environment of love and compassion, she encouraged students to overcome prejudice and to seriously consider Baldwin’s themes of love and identity.

# data[].attributes.body
As for religious students who fear difference, Hooks acknowledges that many of them come from backgrounds where religious teachings encourage them to fear diversity. She solve this by treating them with care and respect, allowing these students to openly discuss their fears, which creates a supportive environment for them to be exposed to different perspectives. This approach is designed to help them confront and transcend their conditioning, promoting inclusion and understanding in the classroom community.

# data[].attributes.body
In her critique of objectivism in education, bell hooks highlights the limitations of the objectivist approach in fostering meaningful connections between teachers and students. Hooks argues that objectivism creates barriers to communication and that teachers are more likely to distance themselves from and alienate students. This model emphasizes control, conformity, and rigid knowledge transfer, viewing students as empty vessels that need to be filled rather than participants in the learning process. As a result, students are deprived of opportunities for deeper emotional and intellectual engagement. Hooks contrasts objectivism with a love-based model of teaching. She argues that a mutual partnership based on love can create a nurturing environment where students and teachers can openly connect and grow. In such an environment, teachers act as guides, facilitating students’ journeys rather than dictating their paths. While some educators worry that this approach may lead to blurred boundaries, Hooks argues that love in teaching brings clarity and allows teachers to assess students’ needs more fairly and fully. However, Hooks also acknowledges that there are challenges to implementing this model. In classrooms filled with fear and competition, a love-based approach may initially face barriers. Additionally, Hooks discusses the biases and fears that students often bring into the classroom. For example, students influenced by religious teachings may fear diversity or reject perspectives different from their own. Similarly, in her experience teaching James Baldwin, Hooks encountered students who were shocked by Baldwin’s sexual orientation and expressed homophobic attitudes. Rather than allowing these biases to be divisive, Hooks addressed these challenges by fostering a classroom environment of respect and responsibility. By fostering love and compassion, Hooks allowed students to move beyond their biases and connect with Baldwin’s exploration of love, identity, and humanity.

# data[].attributes.body
Creating this map I carefully read and combined Hooks’s ideas about love in education and mapped her arguments visually to help clarify the connection between her critique of objectivism and her support for a love-centered teaching model. I found that organizing her ideas into categories, such as the flaws of objectivism, the benefits of a love-based model, and the challenges of implementing this approach, made it easier to understand and express the distinctions of her arguments. One challenge I encountered was making sure I accurately and fully represented Hooks’s ideas. As I organized her arguments into a map, I had to think critically about how to best capture her ideas. This process required me to not only explain her arguments but also consider the underlying principles that tied them together. I realized that this type of mapping is particularly useful for organizing complex arguments because it can visually represent the relationships between different ideas. In future writing projects, I plan to use argument mapping to break down and analyze complex texts before drafting a summary or reflection. This approach helps to distill key points and makes it easier to see how different arguments support or oppose each other. In addition, I learned the importance of reflecting on the needs of my audience when writing summaries and analyses, ensuring that my interpretations are clear and understandable. Overall, this exercise improved my ability to organize and coherently present complex ideas, a skill that is valuable in both academic and professional writing contexts.