A Note on the Utility of Reading Non-Assigned Material
While for looking for random material relevant to my field of study (Community Development), I came across an article titled "The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development" by James DeFilippis. It caught my attention because "social capital" (as one of the 7 or so "community capitals") is one of those concepts that is central to nearly everything I have read in my courses thus far (those being, Community Development I & II and Community and Natural Resources Management). In these classes, I cannot recall ever reading critiques or hearing criticism from the professor(s) about this concept, so I have never seriously entertained doubt as to their validity. The concepts have always been a little conceptually "fuzzy" to me, but I attributed this to my unfamiliarity with them, assuming that as I matured in the discipline I would internalize them and come to understand them better.
Is understanding a concept merely internalizing the logic that underlies that concept? Or does it involve re-shaping the concept so that it fits into your own dominant logic? Whatever the case, James DeFilippis' article reminded me that I need not be uncritical of any theory, concept, even any fact, that is presented to me in class, especially in the kind "social sciences" classes that comprise my program of study.
Sometimes it all seems too easy, even if I don't always understand what I am reading, that I can't believe I am spending thousands of dollars on classes and books to learn about it. If it seems too easy, it probably is. And if it probably is too easy, I am probably doing something wrong. I have always believed in "independent learning" and seeking out answers in seemingly non-relevant sources. That is the source of "eureka moments" – or call it a Zen moment, with all the connotations of mystical enlightenment and humorous wisdom that it holds for someone like me.
It is the source of real learning. So make time for it.