Hey everyone!
For Noel's sake, I thought i'd do a partial recap of our lesson on Monday. Brigit took us through many of the salient points and arguments in Michael Apple's wonderful article, and gave us a interesting example of an "ideologically-rigged" text in the form of a newspaper op-ed piece (aren't all ISA-produced texts ideologically rigged anyway?). Then she showed us (using a painting by Manet) how it was possible for the gifted and socially conscious artist to produce texts that were self-reflexive and reflective of the ways in which readers/audiences/viewers construct their own ideological biases in the act of interpretation.
In the last part of our lesson, we extended the analysis further into our reading of Horace Miner's famous "anthropological" article on the Nacirema - a text that ingeniously conflates the discourses of science and art, fact and fiction, objectivity and subjectivity, anthropology and literature, orientalism and post-colonialism, innocent wonder and cynical satire. My challenge at the end of it was: how can literature - and by extension, writers AND readers of literature - discover and apply the subversive/oppositional potentialities of Art? Is this our ethical responsibility - i.e. to read against the grain? To challenge hegemonic authority? To refuse complicity with the dominant culture? Or are we as EDUCATORS constrained to play our parts in this play of cultural assent and affirmation?
So here's the online task for this week (and hopefully, our blog will be a better place to talk freely about how we feel and think). Consider the words of Matthew Arnold (1869) in the article "Sweetness and Light" (which you read two weeks ago):
CULTURE "does not try to teach down to the level of inferior classes; it does not try to win them for this or that sect of its own, with ready-made judgments and watchwords. It seeks to do away with classes; to make the best that has been thought and known in the world current everywhere; to make all men live in an atmosphere of sweetness and light, where they may use ideas, as it uses them itself, freely, - nourished, and not bound by them" (p. 226).- Does Arnold have a valid point here? Or is he (blindly) on the side of "cultural domination"?
- If the best of literature is supposed to transmit "cultural literacy" (as E.D. Hirsch would have it), are we as good literature teachers not somehow complicit in the workings of cultural reproduction?
- Or can we, through our curriculum choices and pedagogical practices, be engaged in a process of cultural transformation?
sorry that was me. elizabeth
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteIf it is the moral obligation of teachers to 'teach' students to realize and acknowledge their complicity, then I think it is also the ETHICAL obligation of teachers to 'teach' them how to deal with (and navigate) the contradictions and confusion that will inadvertently arise out of this 'teaching'. While it may be 'right' on one hand to challenge hegemonic authority and acknowledge one's complicity in having tasted the forbidden fruit (so to speak), as responsible (good educators are responsible are they not?) educators I think we also need to ask ourselves if something that is 'right' can possibly, when taken to its very end, turn on itself and become 'bad' or even tragic. Despite being ideological, Literature/Art's excesses has held subversive/oppositional affordances, but it has also, on occasion and without the need for 'subversion'/
'oppositional' readings, taught me 'good' values. To Kill a Mockingbird (though I really must say that I dislike this novel a lot now!!) for instance, once showed me (and many other teenagers) that one would "never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view […] until you climb into his skin and walk around in it".
While I acknowledge the importance of critical thinking, I think the world right now is in more need of "Ms Chongs"(hate this also!- the real kind btw, not simulacrums!), who will act on their 'show' of care and concern (unmotivated by dollars/sainthood) for the sick and the poor. What 'good' arises from systematically dismantling the 'deep structures' of our society, and then consciously and conscientiously repudiating them in an attempt/desire to remain an imperfect 'cog in a wheel''/someone will who not be 'taken in'? Every(? ok, perhaps not every) pedagogy (but perhaps this one especially) has indeterminate political and social consequences. Reading/interpretation may be the vehicle of a disclosing transformation but who will clean up the mess (take care of the old, the feeble, the brain-dead (those who literally can no longer think) -- the businessmen? the activist? or foreign talent?
Perhaps as educators, apart from "reading against the grain", we also need to teach students how to situate themselves (critical thinkers) 'usefully'. elizabeth
ReplyDeleteAnd most importantly (i think), humility.
ReplyDeleteI think that everyone, in one or any other, is complicit in the workings of cultural reproduction. And especially literature teachers, for the reason that what we teach is inevitably part of 'cultural literacy' which drives cultural reproduction. For instance, teaching "Lord Of the Flies" to a group of secondary school students would mean 'teaching' them notions of 'good' and 'evil', notions that are seen as universal and by implication, reproducing readings of 'good' and 'evil. My sense is that we can be engaged in a process of cultural transformation, but i guess for me, the question is perhaps what kind of transformation? How do we recognize that what is transformed is not another form of reproduction.
ReplyDeleteNoel
Being complicit in the workings of cultural reproduction needn't necessarily be a bad thing if, as you suggest, what is being "reproduced" are moral values that have universal merit. Assuming for now that there is a set of values, beliefs, and principles that is universally accepted within a particular culture, wouldn't the goal of "cultural literacy" (as E.D. Hirsch would have it) be aligned, then, with the transmission of such culturally sanctioned/approved values? If so, what's so wrong about being "complicit" in their preservation? Isn't this Matthew Arnold's point too? After all, Arnold is saying that to promote a universally cherished "culture" is "to make the best that has been thought and known in the world current everywhere; to make all men live in an atmosphere of sweetness and light" ?
DeleteSo then... what's potentially "wrong" about this argument is the point of Donaldo Macedo's article. But how would you respond to Macedo?
It is said that parents and teachers are the most influential when it comes to cultural reproduction, so yes, I would say that good literature teachers are complicit to some extent in it. They could be consciously or unconsciously imparting certain values and beliefs through the teaching of literature. Just like the acceptance of values and norms by generations. But, we know that the takeaways of each individual will be different as social background, race, gender, religion and accumulation of educational opportunities (among others) will interfere. I do agree that teachers also have the “ethical obligation” to ensure pupils learn how to deal and question the knowledge they acquire, but to get this done is an uphill battle, considering the fact that media could be the teachers they look up to more, where dialogic learning could be absent.
ReplyDeleteA person I know unapologetically make his views known (somewhat to this effect) that in our education system, for the longest time, he always believed that
1. Literature will meet a natural death because it cannot guarantee good grades,
2. Science and Maths are more important because they guarantee admissions to good schools and
3. Arts teachers and students are weird and disorganised in their thoughts.
So, with such frames of mind in the society, it is no surprise that the humanities have suffered. Some ex-students and cousins of mine have deliberately chosen the no-literature combination or dropped literature in later years because “I don’t like to read” or “I don’t understand” or “My parents say better drop”.
I was watching this documentary titled “Forgotten Few” which interviewed the fighters and survivors of the Japanese Occupation. One of them lamented that the curriculum (in Indonesia) failed to teach the young about the resilience, value of life and spirit of those who fought for the country. The education system has resulted in individualistic goals with “what is there for me” attitude. Such attitude is observable even in primary school children. They are willing to learn if they see a “value” in it, i.e. good grades, exam material, etc. If it’s just for self-reflection or questioning how a text / concept is applicable to everyday life, they are not interested or not willing to think deeper.
The Straits Times on Saturday featured an article on Bruce Springsteen’s new album which apparently criticises America as a collapsed and factionalised society with “unfettered greed” and “complete disregard of history, of context , of community”. I guess if we fear that today and tomorrow’s generations are going to go down the same path, whether we can or cannot, there must be an effort to at least try to bring about cultural transformation. But first, we have to be clear what culture we are working against / towards.
Arnold’s notion of culture which he regards “not only as the endeavour to see things as they are” but “to draw towards a knowledge of the universal order...which it is a man’s happiness to go along with or his misery to go counter to”, seems transformative in its character. Calling it an act of “learn(ing)... the will of God” and “an endeavour to make it prevail”, being cognizant of its “moral, social, and beneficent character”, does have us anticipate that it would lead to a socially desirable end.
DeleteThe goal of culture then, in Arnold’s terms is reaching an understanding of the “universal order ” This evokes Plato’s theory of forms- and explains his seeking “real thought and real beauty; real sweetness and real light”. For Arnold, this is the real culture we should be working towards- a culture which is inherently good and which has been predetermined as the source of good.
In culture, Arnold finds a space where “all the voices of human experience have been heard upon it, of art, science, poetry, philosophy, history as well as religion” (p 207) Although Arnold’s vision seems inclusive and pluralistic, it does show up a naive and circumscribed view of human experience. Can all the voices of human experience be restricted to these domains? Perhaps as a response to Arnold, Hirsch’s cultural project (as Macedo argues) reveals itself to be a “selective selection of Western cultural features” pretending to be cultural facts, “that are disconnected from the sociocultural world that generated these facts in the first place.”
But this is not to say that such a cultural project should not have been attempted in the first place. What is required is for conversations centring around culture to take place as an ongoing cultural process. This should not be premised by Arnold’s notion of a ‘fixed culture’ or of apprehending a universal/social order, but rather on his notion of plurality. The task for literature teachers would then be, to construct the experience of studying literature as a cultural project- but in doing so, to ensure that the plurality of voices on the subject are not ultimately stifled by cultural assent and affirmation.
I like the idea of teaching our students, as readers to situate themselves both ethically and usefully. (Sumiko Tan’s- ‘I see the hypocrisy in my stance, but I’m content merely to point how others are complicit’ or to retreat to into a narrow self-delusional-‘this is how it is, in my world view’, is inadequate). And in reading against the grain of the text, yes, we do need to teach our students how to situate themselves usefully. But the point to emphasise would not be the need to achieve social order, but rather the assumption of social interconnectedness. If our students can see culture as an open project, which calls for them to be aware of other voices, and inspires them to participate, then hopefully they will be motivated to ‘clean up the mess’. Moving from social interconnectedness to accepting social responsibility is a huge gap, but one that can potentially be filled by an education in the humanities.
Brigit
Nazlin - you've raised many of the ideas and themes we talked about yesterday in class! Your friend may be right is saying:
Delete"1. Literature will meet a natural death because it cannot guarantee good grades,
2. Science and Maths are more important because they guarantee admissions to good schools"
But what is the theoretical analysis for these claims? We talked about the political economy of an education system that has established strong linkages between educational success and human capital, where "capital" is consists of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that lead to good grades in high-stakes standardized examinations. The key question for us is: how is this "capital" related to (a) culture; (b) the learning outcomes of Literature; (c) the global economic system.
I hope our attempts to understand neoliberal economics yesterday were helpful in clarifying the processes related to the commodification of learning outcomes (utilitarian outcomes are greater than liberal-humanist outcomes according to the logic of the market). The fact that Literature and its liberal-humanist goals are less "marketable" than the utilitarian goals of Science and Math is closely tied also to the marketization of education (e.g., the growth of private schools, IP schools, and other elite educational programs that have capitalized on a particular privileged segment of our society).
So the challenge is: how can the Humanities and the Arts (including Literature) sell themselves in this neoliberal global capitalist market? Can we, or are we in doing so complicit in a system that is based on a system of "exploitation" and "oppression" and "injustice"?
Hey everyone, I think I disagree with myself, and right now I think I agree that it IS our ethical responsibility to challenge hegemonic authority (perhaps it is the ONLY 'true' ethical stance one can take). Previously, I was afraid of the consequences of the 'chaos' that would follow and wondered who would take care of the sick, the poor, and the dying. But I now realize that that isn't the point at all. Ideology is always hyocritical, and while it is nice to have people feed the starving, and tend to the sick, one is merely ameliorating the situation - the system doesn't change. The poor may have a roof over their heads, education opportunities (through generous bursaries), and a good job that pays well (a moving 'rags to riches story'), but whether slightly richer or slightly healthier than before, they are still stuck in the vicious cycle that is capitalism. How 'moral' is this then? In fact, it is the most immoral thing to do because in attempting to 'do the right thing', I'm in fact reproducing the very forces/processes that hold this system/ideology in place and in so doing, naturalizing it. I am, in some ways, the capital that produces more capital (an investment?). Culture (more benign sounding than ideology (though it is ideological,yes - that's the whole point)) is to me the 'human face' , the 'sweetness and light' of hegemonic discourses.
ReplyDeleteCorrespondingly, the cultural transformation that should take place should not just be 'any kind' of transformation but one that advocates a complete uprooting/change of the structure of the system - towards one that is equal - that can only be achieved through rebellion and uprising. Of course equal societies are myths. The epistemology of the word "utopia" ( i checked this up before but I can't quite remember the specifics now - it's a double meaning thing - comes from two roots) already suggests that there is no such place as a good/perfect place. What then? Do we cover our heads in despair? The obvious answer to me is that one has to fight - it is not enough for the 'critical thinker'/activist/revolutionist to be 'honest' about his complicity, but he has to 'act on it', he has to struggle and "read against the grain". I initially said that I felt it is the teacher's responsibility to teach students how to deal with the confusion and perhaps the "schizophrenia" that will arise from dappling in such things. Obviously this is a necessary consequence that one must accept, in fact, it is perhaps the very thing that makes more human and less 'capital'.
Dear Elzabeth,
DeleteYou mentioned 'I think I agree that it IS our ethical responsibility to challenge hegemonic authority (perhaps it is the ONLY 'true' ethical stance one can take).' The question is who is the 'our' that you mention. Is us as people or as eduators? Should we as people, individuals question hegemonic authority or is it the ethical responsbility of the educator to do so? Should we encourage, provoke incite anti-establishment views in search of an utopia that might not exist? Or is it our responsibility to make our pupils question and think about other perspectives as we deal with social and cultural norms? Where do we draw the line? Or is there a line or should there be a line?
Just wondering...
Kodi
Wow, Elizabeth - have the readings this week overturned your thoughts? ;-) Dave Hill (2009) writes: "The restructuring of the schooling and education systems across the world needs to be placed within the ideological and policy context of the links between Capital, neo-liberalism (with its combination of privatisation, competitive markets in education characterised by selection and exclusion) and the rampant growth of the national and international inequalities." I’m sure we'll be critiquing these claims (and your argument above) in class today. Meanwhile, check out Henry Giroux's article that i posted earlier in this blog - http://qcr520tg2011.blogspot.com/2011/10/corporate-stranglehold-on-education-by.html
DeleteAgreed on the point of "'struggle and 'read against the grain". But I don't think that the teacher would be in a position to remove the confusion that could arise. The struggle should also be undertaken by the student.
ReplyDeleteOne question from students that I really can't bear to deal with, is- "how is this relevant to me?" There is a need for the teacher to bear that question in mind while planning and delivering the lesson, but only the student can make meaningful connections to say, how and why he needs to know about dead soldiers buried at Kranji.
Brigit
Is the best of literature supposed to transmit “cultural literacy”? According to Macedo, ‘Hirsch argues that schools should deemphasise “process” and reemphasise “content”, which is, in his view rooted in our “common cultural” background knowledge’. The knowledge has been condensed into a list of facts, names, events that he feels every American should know. However, does knowing or reading the list make one ‘culturally literate’? I disagree. He seems to assume that that there is a common cultural identity among American which cannot be further away from the truth. How can the cultures of the Black Americans, Asian Americans, the Hispanics or white Americans be the same? In fact some feel that ‘Hirsch’s “shopping mall” (Gannaway, 1994) cultural literacy gives rise to a type of education based on the accumulation of selected cultural facts that are disconnected from the sociocultural world that generated these facts in the fist place’ (Macedo, 119). Thus, if the best of literature is supposed to transmit "cultural literacy" (as E.D. Hirsch would have it), then we must in the first place question what is the cultural literacy we hope to transmit and should we transmit it as educators? Is it ethically right? I do not have an answer. To me, the idea of transmitting seems to suggest that educators become a mere instrument or a tool through which supposed cultural norms are conveyed or communicated. Is that our role? Is it ethical?
ReplyDeleteIn teaching a text one must be aware that a text can provoke multiple readings and no one reading is superior to another. As educators we must be aware that ‘students bring their own classed, raced and gendered biographies with them as well’. It is my view that we must elicit their interpretations and views through thoughtful questioning so that they are able to make sense of the text in relation to their world while making them more aware of alternative viewpoints that exist. We must make them think, question, re-think, reject and question. There is no one right answer in literature. I know for a fact that this creates anxiousness and frustration in my pupils as I refuse to give them a model answer. It is through the struggles of making meaning for themselves, questioning the text and in the process the norms of society, that one grows.
Through the choice of texts and the pedagogical tools that we employ in our classrooms, we can ignite a fire within our students to question the ISAs, the social and political norms, create an awareness how hegemony is used to subjugate one and how they have been interpellated as an subject. However it is also vital to ensure that the fire that we ignite does not consume and destroy the individual that we teach.
Kodi
Kodi - to continue with my reply to Nazlin above, i must quote your excellent thoughts here: "Through the choice of texts and the pedagogical tools that we employ in our classrooms, we can ignite a fire within our students to question the ISAs, the social and political norms, create an awareness how hegemony is used to subjugate one and how they have been interpellated as an subject." (Question: What kind of "subject" are we interpolated as within the neoliberal market economy?)
DeleteYes, i agree that our job is to ignite that fire of critical consciousness and questioning in our students. So how can we do that? Our subsequent readings might offer us some suggestions...
Meanwhile, as you rightly advise, "it is also vital to ensure that the fire that we ignite does not consume and destroy the individual that we teach." How might students be "consumed" and "destroyed" by the fire of critical thinking? Are teachers risking their lives by being critical transformative intellectuals?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWow...there is certainly a fiery debate going on here! Well just to add my two cents worth...
ReplyDeleteArnold claims that "...religion, the greatest and most important of the efforts by which the human race has manifested its impulse to perfect itself, - religion, that voice of the deepest human experience, - does not only enjoin and sanction the aim which is the great aim of culture, the aim of getting ourselves to ascertain what perfection is and to make it prevail; but also, in determining generally in what human perfection consists, religion comes to a conclusion identical with that which culture - culture seeking the determination of this question through ALL the voices of human experience which have been heard upon it, of art, science, poetry, philosophy, history, as well as of religion, in order to give a greater fulness and certainty to its solution, - likewise reaches."
I think Elizabeth questioned the notion of utopia previously. What really is perfection and is it by any means possible to gather ALL the voices of human experience in order to determine what it is? Let us, for a moment, consider that it is possible to put those voices together...would it still render the task of determining perfection any simpler? In my perfect world, everyone would be vegetarian...because animals are entitled to life and joy too. How many takers would there be to this in our class itself?
When Arnold mentions religion, whose religion is in question?
I find it in some sense bigoted to claim that culture should render an intelligent person more intelligent because intelligence is such a subjective concept.
This is something that has been eating at me for the longest time. Does being critical necessarily mean transformative? Where will merely being critical bring us?
Love,
Deepa
And much love to you, Deepa!
DeleteRegarding your question on whether being critical would mean transformative, is that it can happen if it brings about the realisation that the text (especially meta-texts) do(es) not represent the universal truth about LIFE. And by text, I'm also including Warren's reference to the curriculum as a text.
Seeing the text as a social/cultural construct and learning to identify 'the powers' that produced it and continue to reproduce it can be a transformative process. This could work against the general perception that the text (or the literary text) in some essentialist way, is about life or holds eternal truths.
Perfection for Arnold, I think comes closer to the idea of SEEKING perfection/eternal truth (rather than achieving utopian ideal).
While I don't buy into Arnold's notion that cultural perfection exists, I don't really like cultural relativist's stance that all cultures are equally valid and that we should respect/ tolerate/ embrace all equally. The cultural relativist stance creates a culture of passivity, and is not critical/transformative.
Advocating cultural literacy does not entail acquainting oneself with a fossilized encyclopedia of cultural facts as that crafted by Hirsch, but rather by encouraging dialogue. One way that this could happen is to look at the text as a cultural artefact and as a culturally constructed microcosm, open to transformation.
Hello everyone,
ReplyDeleteI've been wondering about where being critical leads us too. Being critical is "not good" because it gives people headaches that may lead to insomnia and apparent madness. [But that's what mental institutions are for, to produce madness and then to contain it]. It could (and will, 'inadvertently') lead to the "destruction" of the individual (as Kodi suggests), and 'eat at us' and into us (as Deepa says), yet we all can agree that it is 'good' because it makes us more human and less capital. Perhaps we are all so frightened (I am) because this comes down to questions of our existence - did capitalism commodify our "sweetness and light" or did we have none to begin with?
And to accept that we had nothing but our bestiality to start with is to also accept that all our 'feelings' of disgust, liking, love, pain, concern, sexual pleasure (as some of us were wondering - does noise-making heighten pleasure or are there people who make noise and people who don't?) have been culturally manufactured (and subsequently commodified) (or do you think they have they have simply been manipulated?) in the name of the profit motive whose only interest is to spur demand for commodities such as alcohol, viagra, sleeping pills, stuffed toys, panadol, burglar alarms and religion [isn't capitalism making religion rather popular these days? And donations/alms-giving to support the 'growing community' are always welcomed and encouraged] - the very 'products' we reach for to assuage any discomfort and confusion, goods we can count on to soothe us and smooth over the gaps and contradictions we cannot come to terms with - which are, ironically, the very symptoms of ideology/capitalism. Being 'critical' for me means staring in the mirror everyday and picking at yourself, remonstrating yourself, even crucifying yourself - you are forever a work in progress.
While this probably sounds highly disturbing, I personally find the idea that I am capital extremely repulsive. Is there some kind of middle ground for this? Is there a way, (to borrow Kodi's words again), to "incite" a "fire" that will not "consume" the individual? In other words, we want a gas stove so we can keep the flames burning at the "ideal" size. BUT just thinking about the size of the 'ideal' flame is the beginning of commodification. So I think it is our fear (by the way, is there a difference between fear and anxiety?) of being truly "unfettered" that ironically chains us, casting us into willing servants of the system.
How can we 'liberate' ourselves?
Perhaps it is our consciousness that liberates us? I don't buy that. I think that's taking the easy way out and being rather hypocritical?
How about "irony, pastiche … deconstruction"? Hill doesn't sound like he agrees with that and I now agree with HIll. In his address, Lee Kwan Yew speaks about the importance of dedication and faithfulness with which teachers must transmit what is sent out to them or else everything will all become "a burlesque" - irony is a double-edged sword which underscores that which it wishes to attack. Besides, our society has come up with all sorts of spaces to contain the "burlesque" and profit from it.
But on the flip side, I don't think it is wise to call for something revolutionary as well. Should we launch a rebellion? But as Foucault (?) suggests (I hope I'm not dreaming this up, perhaps it was one of us who suggested this from our discussion last year), launching a rebellion is useless as the guard in the tower will simply be replaced by another guard.
The different metaphors that we have used to describe a critically transformative pedagogy- be it 'the struggle' or 'of setting our students on fire' or 'setting fire to our students' show us trying to make sense of the process. It also shows up our reservations on the process.
DeleteBeyond what it means for us personally, I hope we can also talk about what it means in pedagogical terms- and the 'hows'. I found Booth's article inspiring on this count. His qn:
Where does all this leave us, back in the classroom, suspicious of code-teaching,
aware of ethical ambiguities, but committed to the ethical goal of producing students
who are themselves committed to pursuing defensible values?
is what many of us are grappling with at the moment. His answer is:
"To teach reading (or viewing or listening) that is both engaged and actively critical is central because it is in stories,in narratives large and small rather than in coded commandments, that students absorb lessons in how to confront ethical complexities"
I find his idea of a shared reading curriculum, which encourages conversations among students outside the classroom, interesting.
In light of our discussion on our anxieties about capitalism and commodification, my only "refinement" to Booth's ideas is that teachers should include elements from the humanities as well, and launch an inter-textual, cross disciplinary kind of inquiry.
The teacher might have bridge the fictive world of text to help them see 'real problems' in society.
Brigit, I really like your idea of an "inter-texual, cross disciplinary kind of inquiry". It allows different disciplines, different ways of 'seeing', to come head to head creating a transformative culture where "all the voices of human experience" (Arnold) can be heard.
DeleteAlso, the teacher could bridge the fictive world of the text by drawing the students' attention to the spaces that they inhabit. Through a similar process of "reading, viewing or listening", students can engage and "confront" the conflicting "stories" and "narratives" that arise from these spaces (Booth).
I read Warren's commentary (the one he sent us 2 weeks? ago) just now and was struck by how sneaky literature (or is it warren?) could be. He suggests luring people to 'choose' the humanities by foregrounding its exchange value (amongst its other 'values'), thus appealing to their greed, and then springing an attack on them, shocking them into some form of realization through a critical pedagogy that involves dialogue and communication. Is this akin to a process of defamiliarization? It's a bit like the Nacirema piece. Perhaps for this to work best, primary schools should continue to propagate all the 'good values' and secondary schools can un-do this. After all, one needs to be part of the 'discursive community' to realize its full effects.
ReplyDeleteBut as we were wondering in class, can literature in this case be accused of being complicit? Maybe not, it is just being sneaky but not hypocritical because what it is essentially producing are critical thinkers (though it really depends on how students are eventually examined?) that challenge the very system that produced them.
But at a personal level (the level of a teacher), would this possible? For example, can a teacher pretend to be 'serious' about adhering to school rules while encouraging dialogue? What is the teacher to say when a student wears multicolored socks to school as markers of his individuality? If the teacher is, like the student, subversive, he closes one eye' but he may have to pay for it with his job. But if he goes by the rule book, what sort of person would he be, and more importantly, what sort of 'subjects' would he be creating? Would he be telling the student to 'be smart' and not 'chock on the bones'? How is this different from manufacturing gas stoves? Besides, I think the teacher who does this might risk creating indifferent students (the "whatever" types). OR would the teacher say, "hey, I too am complicit and there's nothing I can do about it, but we can be subversive in a textual way, ok?" OR perhaps a teacher can be subversive through small tactical transgressions such as: stealing office stationary, making full use of the office printer and printing copious amounts of worksheets and notes in color for the class (thus saving them money!) and stealing/hoarding the 'best' library books for the class to read, eating and drinking in class even though there are specific instructions not to etc.
Sorry, this is not very coherent but maybe a teacher first has to be part of the system to be subversive but it does not mean that he/she has to be complicit (although drawing a salary makes one complicit?) To be complicit is to reproduce a particular set of cultural values and as long as the teacher questions this through pedagogy, perhaps he/she is not complicit. I heard from a friend and also from our Educational Inquiry profs last year (yes, I paid attention on occasion!) that lots of teachers are now "encouraged" to take part in action research. While it does sound like an avenue for the teacher's voice to be heard/for the teacher to be subversive, a friend I spoke too wasn't too pleased - apparently her supervisor? ( I don't know what its called) vets it and makes her write draft after draft so it looks like she's "learning" something. While I see where she's coming from, I still think that is potentially a site of resistance that teachers can 'legitimately' manipulate. It is nice that teachers are given more agency now and that more people in power generally believe in learning from each other whether they call it 'meetings', 'sharing', 'dialogue' or 'brainstorming'. Perhaps ideally, teachers should strive to learn as much as they can so they can be subversive and speak the 'truth to power' when the opportunity arises (though of course i'm really in no position to say this at all, given the work load teachers in school are burdened with).
Alas, see this article - "Let teachers run John Lewis-style schools for profit, says thinktank" (Tuesday 21 February 2012)
ReplyDeletehttp://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/politics/2012/feb/21/teachers-run-john-lewis-schools-thinktank
Private companies should be allowed to set up and run schools under a social enterprise model, say the conservative Policy Exchange thinktank.
Teachers should be encouraged to take a stake in John Lewis-style partnerships to run state schools as profit-making enterprises, according to proposals outlined by the conservative Policy Exchange thinktank.
Private companies would be allowed to set up and run schools under a social enterprise model that would give employees a share of ownership and re-invest a portion of any profit back into the school.
The Policy Exchange report enters politically risky terrain. The deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, ruled out profit-making in state schools in a speech last year. However, the education secretary, Michael Gove, a former chairman of Policy Exchange, has approved a free school in Suffolk that will out-source management to a commercial company.
The report urges ministers to pilot social enterprise schools in some of the most deprived parts of the country. Schools would be allowed to distribute 50% of any surplus as a dividend to shareholders. The remaining 50% would have to be reinvested in the school.
Teachers and other school employees should be given the option of holding shares in the parent company or in the school itself, the report says.
The thinktank argues that allowing "for-profit" provision would provide extra capital to create more school places at a time when there is a severe shortage in parts of the country. Successful private providers able to keep a share of their surplus might also have a stronger incentive than charitable trusts to set up new schools. At present, local authorities are required to take back surpluses, but academies are permitted to carry over 12% of their budgets annually.
Policy Exchange suggests the proposed schools would operate under a "social mobility test" requiring at least 20% of pupils are eligible for free school meals.
They would also be prevented from selling off government-procured buildings or facilities, and payment of dividends would be tied to the school's performance. For-profit firms are allowed to run publicly funded schools in Sweden and the US.
James Groves, the head of education at Policy Exchange, said: "Given the huge challenges which our education system faces in the coming years, the government should continue to push the boundaries of the status quo. This report challenges the idea that there is simply a choice between for-profit and not-for profit schools. A John Lewis model of school where private companies, including teachers and school staff are encouraged to personally invest offers one such innovative alternative."
Earlier this month, the former top civil servant in the Department for Education told the Guardian he sees "no principled objection" to profit-making companies taking over state schools and believes they will "probably" be allowed to do so eventually.
A spokesman for the Department for Education said: "There are no plans to allow organisations to run schools for profit. The success of many academies in raising standards is built on philanthropic organisations using their expertise to turn around underperforming schools.
"We're more than doubling targeted investment at areas facing the greatest pressure on school places, to over £4billion in the next four years. Parents want to send their child to a good local school - that's we are building free schools, letting the most popular schools expand to meet demand from parents and driving up standards right across the system."
Teachers being made stakeholders in schools will inevitably lead to better results being produced. This is unfortunately the current state of affairs. Being motivated by our 'inate greed', even teachers need extrinsic motivation.
ReplyDeleteI just hope there will be some teachers left who still hold humanist values, willing to provide quality education to children who cannot afford exorbitant private school fees! ;P
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhile "sweetness and light" may (or may not be) "inherent" in us, through critical thinking, dialogism and communication, (as Freire suggests), we can still strive to achieve that. Yay! :) The thing I like best about The Pedagogy of the Oppressed is that it focuses on regenerative possibilities -- it is hopeful; but to what (utopian) end? Many people believe that 'love transcends everything'. But what does transcendence mean? Something can only transcend if it is first and foremost part of the structure/system. By extension, humanist 'values' such as 'love', 'compassion' and 'empathy' can be said to "arise" from the experience of 'pain and suffering/the struggle' brought about by thinking critically. In other words, 'the (ethical) struggle' is not a pointless one. When we bear humility and 'critical thinking' to our students, we are arguably contaminating the capitalist system, and in so doing, investing in the shared hope of a more equal and just society.
ReplyDeleteThis got me thinking about the blogging thing. I think I now agree with Noel and Brigit. I don't think teachers deserve the kind of hateful criticism (online or offline), that is not the way one repays gratitude (and most teachers truly deserve it). No matter how 'creative', 'imaginative' and 'powerful' these narratives may be, they are nevertheless words that enact violence. And to injure and objectify a fellow human being in any way is just not right -- should students be allowed to get away with such dehumanizing acts? I mean, I did … and after so many years, my friends and I are still laughing about it (at the expense of the poor teachers) who have been reduced to nothing but caricatures. oh no!
Therefore, I think teachers should neither ignore such instances of hateful remarks nor should they attempt to repress them through the implementation of rules and regulations. The consequences of doing so would be to suggest to the students that (a) there are certain mediums where dehumanizing acts are acceptable and worse, (b) that such acts are okay in private spaces and it is the task of the individual to ensure that he does not get caught -- essentially, students learn nothing. Anything that is repressed always returns in another form, and so, dehumanization continues. Freire is useful here because his is a pedagogy of regenerative possibilities. Through a willingness to truly dialogue with the Other, both the teacher and the student participate, thus generating new and hopeful possibilities.
His pedagogy works quite well for the general human condition, but I wonder if there's a way to extend these 'regenerative possibilities' to animals and plants (mostly because they can't be engaged in dialogue, so how can we seek to truly understand them? And besides, we need (some of) them for the survival of our race)? I suppose this also applies to people who do not share the same social codes as we do, such as those who are perceived to have 'special needs'. It seems like the only instrument we have so far (dialogism) is ironically dependent upon language (where the person in greater possession of it yields more power); perhaps that is why it is so crucial for dialogism to be coupled with humility.