race, power and education

[ulysses]

We had a good discussion this afternoon in the Atlanta schools summer institute on the education of African-American children in urban schools. The article that spurred the discussion (The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People's Children by Lisa Delpit) isn't exactly kind to white liberals like myself, but I think it's spot on, especially as regards, first, our reluctance to admit that we reside within a power structure that these students don't share, and second, our ignorance regarding the way in which we can exercise enough authority over a class of black kids to teach them what they need to know to succeed in the world as it is while recognizing and validating their own culture.

In thinking through these issues, I have found what I believe to be a connecting and complex theme: what I have come to call "the culture of power." There are five aspects of power I would like to propose as given for this presentation:

1. Issues of power are enacted in classrooms.

2. There are codes or rules for participating in power; that is, there is a "culture of power."

3. The rules of the culture of power are a reflection of the rules of the culture of those who have power.

4. If you are not already a participant in the culture of power, being told explicitly the rules of that culture makes acquiring power easier.

5. Those with power are frequently least aware of - or least willing to acknowledge - its existence. Those with less power are often most aware of its existence.

Thoughts?

fixed link.

[redqueen]

1. Wow that's quite an article!

I'll read tonight and comment tomorrow.

[ulysses]

2. it's well worth it

for anyone with any interest in education or race issues. And race still being the 800-lb canary in the corner of the national living room, it touches on most other issues.

[redqueen]

3. lol

800 lb. canary indeed. :)

I wonder if anyone else saw Norman Kelley, Author of "The Head Negro in Charge Syndrome" on C-Span this morning. Very interesting and unconventional views he has. Haven't heard of him before this a.m. but I'm now quite interested in finding out more about him.

[ulysses]

4. a little

:kick:

[Trillo]

5. I'm not a teacher,

but I couldn't help but note some similarities in the essay to another dogfight that has been ongoing between fundamental skeptics and astrologers here on DU. Here's the text I refer to (from the original posters article):

If you try to suggest that's not quite the way it is, they get defensive, then you get defensive, then they'll start reciting research.

I try to give them my experiences, to explain. They just look and nod. The more I try to explain, they just look and nod, just keep looking and nodding. They don't really hear me.

Then, when it's time for class to be over, the professor tells me to come to his office to talk more. So I go. He asks for more examples of what I'm talking about, and he looks and nods while I give them. Then he says that that's just my experience. It doesn't really apply to most black people.

It becomes futile because they think they know everything about everybody. What you have to say about your life, your children, doesn't mean anything. They don't really want to hear what you have to say. They wear blinders and earplugs. They only want to go on research they've read that other white people have written.

I call into question whether this is just about race. That there are cultural differences in learning styles is not a point I would care to disagree with. But is it limited to this? I would argue: no, definitely not.

There have been many discussions in The Meeting Room where fundamental skeptics write in ways exactly the same as the above except, and race is definitely not an issue there; it is, at least in my view, solely about exercising power over others who don't measure up to the standard they are espousing.

What I do wonder about is the effect of this belittling on others.

My bottom line on this is that white people do this to white people everyday. Don't listen. Look and nod. Then they tell why they do it the way they do, and why it will continue to be done that same way.

When dealing with a customer the corporate twist is to do it with a smile on their face.

Can it be that what is being perceived is not racism, but is instead simple dogmatism and contempt for those who are different? Anyway, thanks for the read, it was interesting. I'm glad there are teachers that are addressing this creatively.

[redqueen]

6. Seems pretty simple to me

Teach both process and skills, and while acknowledging cultural norms as valuable and worthwhile - also teach formal norms with the explicit understanding of the necessity of such in order to succeed in the power structure we live in.

What's the big deal over it? Am I missing something? Are school systems inherently resistant to teachers using unconventional methods?

[ulysses]

8. I guess that it's easier to say

than to do. I'm not as deep into the theory yet as I will be, but there seems to be a lot of symbolic meaning (as well as practical) inherent in the process/skills discussion. The direct discussion of power in the classroom was what really grabbed me, though, and we talked a lot about that yesterday. How do you invest kids who don't use standard English in learning it? How do I, as a white man exerting a pretty strong level of control and authority over a class of African-American kids, bring up that discussion of power, social structure and language?

It's certainly not insurmountable, but I wouldn't say it's easy. Much as I think she's right, a lot of what Delpit says runs counter to a lot of unexamined attitudes I have about race as a liberal.

[redqueen]

13. Correct me if I'm wrong

but wasn't the gist of the article saying that a more authoritarian style might be welcome from the Black community?

:shrug:

[redqueen]

14. Kick for input

:kick:

[markses]

15. Well, it calls into question what an authoritarian style is

It seems to me. The "Would you like to sit down now?" IS, in fact, authoritarian, given a particular organization of power relations; it is simply not the kind of expression of authority that some of the minority students are used to, and it is thus often misunderstood, or taken as a sign of a lack of authority. So it's not really as simple as to say "More authority."

You must also look closely at Delpit's qualifiers: She recognizes, and this really is a result of the process pedagogy movement of the late-1960's-1970's, that the teacher cannot be the sole expert on content in the classroom. She rejects, then, a "banking model" of education (the teacher has knowledge and deposits it in the passive and empty students). That's a pretty significant qualifier, as it shows the place where Delpit folds in the advances of the process movement - she then moves immediately to peer review and other process movement standards. I mean, Delpit even drags Students Right to their Own Language, a fairly well-worn rallying point and/or punching bag from the mid-1970's.

This is really an old argument; many arguments in the same vein were published throughout the 1980's opposed precisely to the "lightening" of power relations presented by process pedagogy, and its general failure to recognize how processes are contextualized.

[ulysses]

16. right.

My trainer (who is African-American) talked a lot about the difference between saying "Would you like to sit down now?" and saying "Put your rusty ass in that chair NOW." A lot of cultural things that I don't necessarily understand go into that difference.

[redqueen]

19. I see what you're saying

I suppose I should have said that an increasing use of the direct, explicit method of giving instructions would be welcome, instead of just calling it a more authoritarian style.

The 'banking model' you mention sounds awful. Are any schools still teaching that way? It seems like it would actually *discourage* independent, creative learning or even thinking.

:scared:


However, I still don't understand why there would be resistance to this. Is it such a huge deal to change methodology in such a small way? Or are there larger issues that would need to be addressed before this could be implemented? Maybe I'm missing the big picture here, but from what it sounds like so far, it seems that all that is needed is a more open dialogue among faculty and parents, and more flexibility from teachers in the classroom so they can incorporate these alternate styles into their day-to-day interaction with students.

[markses]

21. The question really

revolves around the theoretical presuppositions underlying the various practices. Delpit's article attempts to mediate those fairly dichotomous positions; it is a dialectical progression. Very much an incomplete sketch:

1) Skills model (pre-1950's/60's) - Presupposed universal standards while ignoring cultural difference and therefore presupposed universal students (a kind of human nature argument). Student failure here was due to the student's own idiosyncracies. Moreover, nobody questions the source of the normativity of said skills (for example, standard written English), or their function in a structure of power. This model requires a particular pedagogical response, a particular way of dealing with students, and particular concepions of how learning actually works: teacher as authority (the one with knowledge of the standards), students
receive instruction of the standards through a variety of means, and bracket out their experiences and languages which do not comport with those standards. Power vested in the teacher. Emphasis placed on production; evaluation based on a product.

2) Process Approaches (1960's-1980's) - Many process approaches continue to maintain a universal student (through cognitive psychology, primarily), but emphasis is turned increasingly toward student experiences. Since the emphasis is placed on capacity to develop a process of problem-solving, adherence to universal standards start to recede. Authority is now vested in the students (we should not forget that this was a political imperative of the student movements of the 1960's); differences in student populations start to erode the naturalized universal standards, exposing them as constructions used to benefit particular groups (i.e., the bourgeoisie, or the white dominant culture, or patriarchy, etc.). This is clear when it comes to so-called standard English, which is not only clearly a construction, but actively operates to favor groups who learn it outside of school over those who only encounter its force in schools: clearly, the former group has a built in institutional advantage. Here, power is increasingly decentralized (so you get peer review, collaborative pedagogies, circled desks, rather than the authority in the front of the room, etc.), at least in appearance. Emphasis is placed on the learning process rather than a product; assessment - for institutional reasons, remains tied to a product (nobody can figure out how to do otherwise while maintaining institutional imperatives of ranking), but there is increasing talk and practice of peer assessment. Above all, we must remember that the development of process pedagogy was a political response to the failures and political oppression of skills-based approaches...this is not JUST a matter of learning styles; there are fundamental political questions about the function and value of education that underlie these differences.

3) Delpit's Mediation (the synthetic moment) - Delpit argues that however politically progressive process movements may have been, they have swung too far away from pragmatics. Yes, standard English is arbitrary and has no necessary power over AAVE, for instance, but that makes it no less real as a force of power. Just cuz something ain't necessary, don't mean it doesn't work, in other words. Process is good at exposing constructedness and fields of power, but perhaps not that good at dealing with them. The process movement sees everything as arbitrary and constructed and within a field of power BUT ITSELF. That's the essence of Delpit's argument: Process pedagogy itself gains favor among a white bourgeoisie, for a variety of reasons (not least, I would argue, being the shift in economic conditions from the 1950's-1970's). This is like the SDS attempting to preach a kind of neo-Marxism for the Oakland ghetto; there's a reason the Black Panthers told the white liberals to fuck off. When it comes to actually dealing with fields of power rather than just exposing them, Delpit thinks that some features of the old skills based curriculum, combined with the insights on power gained through the process movement, are appropriate and needed. That's her game: Take the best of both. Simple, right?

Well, no. Because of the political investments and basic differences in - I'll just say it - ontological outlook professed by the two movements. Real political investments. Real divergence on the questions of how to deal with power, and therefore, real divergence on the way students and teachers are positioned, and on which activities can be most effective. If it a question of learning styles, it is a fundamental question: not just what works here and now, but what are the real consequences for the lives of these students? How do different techniques position students differently, and which of these positions are ethical. The question is extremely complex, and cannot, as Delpit's article shows, be settled merely by saying "a little of this, a little of that." It's not (and never) that simple.

[Karenina]

7. I clicked the link

and could not get through the entire article. :cry: :cry: :cry:
It, and so much I've experienced since, triggers a PAIN BEYOND BELIEF.

One small anecdote:

Had to take an elective in 11th grade. We had these HUGE ROOMS with computers, which back in the day were no more than glorified calculators. I figured out how to program them to do my Trig assignments (which took much more than simply doing the problems manually. I found them EASY, programming offered me a challenge, got a 99% with THAT instructor).

When I got finally it down for ANY variable, I handed in a printout in my Trig class. The teacher got furious and accused me of not doing the work. (I was an 97% student in her class). She was SO ANGRY there was FOAM around her mouth. I was NOT the only one who noticed it. She declared she didn't want ANYONE using technological "shortcuts" and put 5 pop quiz problems on the board. I was NOT the first finished, merely "among." After the allotted time she came directly to my desk, whipped up my paper and PRESTO CHANGO! 100% correct. She became EVEN MORE ANGRY and assigned "extra homework" admonishing the class about "shortcuts."

The MESSAGE was CLEAR TO EVERYONE. All about POWER. One classmate remarked out loud in her earshot that had I been anyone else she would have praised my work to the heavens (I was the only dark-skinned kid in her class).

[ulysses]

9. Karenina

I've seen teachers like that, and I'm sorry for your experiences. Hell, I've probably *acted*, if not quite like that, in that kind of vein without even realizing before. I wonder if it's possible to ever have the kind of discussion about cultural power we need to have as a nation in order to truly move forward.

[Karenina]

17. Ya know Ulysses,

Clinton did take a shot at discussing it before he got buried under the blowjob. Folks always wonder why he was so beloved by the black community. The REASON is if he walked by Miss Sally's house and she demanded he have a proper breakfast before going to the Statehouse, he'd NEVER DARE refuse her. She'd make her fuss over him, send him on his way with a full stomach and he would thank her for it. R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

The wounds I suffer are those of one who has played by the "rules" or found a way beyond their asinine simplicity only to be confronted by a cultural power that proclaims, WHAT YOU DID DOES NOT COUNT.

Gorbachev invited Clora Bryant to play in Russia as a part of his Peristroika efforts. Folks there went crazy in love with her as would ANYONE who ever experienced this Yellow Rose Trumpetist from Texas. The American press REFUSED to cover her as a cultural ambassador. Would I be mistaken to assume you never heard of her?

Bottom line, all these bits are SECONDARY to ousting the Neo-cons who have taken over the American gub'mint from power. NO ONE has a chance, be he of whatever "decription" unless we achieve this. Anyone not in the 2% $$$Übermenschen$$$ circle with the "family" $$$connexions$$$ to show is EXPENDABLE. Many who think they have "arrived" are in for a horrid shock.

[ulysses]

18. yeah, I know.

I guess my problems with Clinton are pretty well documented by now (:)), but I'll definitely give him that. Wish that discussion had come to fruition.

Would I be mistaken to assume you never heard of her?

You would not, no.

Bottom line, all these bits are SECONDARY to ousting the Neo-cons who have taken over the American gub'mint from power.

I'm not so sure about that. I'll agree with you on the necessity of removing the neocons and their influence, but the kind of power issues we're talking about here go well beyond electoral issues, seems to me.

[Karenina]

20. I do agree with you

WHOLEHEARTEDLY. My point is that in the face of 24/7 "us vs them" we cannot even BEGIN to discuss more the subtle manifestations.

I tell you Ulysses, in all honesty, I am horrified and more that a little bit frightened about our trajectory. Statements like "Iraqis are PRIMITIVE!" being broadcast into MILLIONS of outlets. Think about it. The Nazis NEVER had such a range... :cry:

[ulysses]

22. yes and no.

My point is that in the face of 24/7 "us vs them" we cannot even BEGIN to discuss more the subtle manifestations.

I'm really not trying to nitpick you to death. :D I would say, though, that we HAVE to begin that discussion now and under these circumstances - otherwise, the electoral realm remains disconnected from reality and we continue a vicious cycle.

Statements like "Iraqis are PRIMITIVE!" being broadcast into MILLIONS of outlets. Think about it. The Nazis NEVER had such a range...

And yet, are people really buying it? I mean, I know that enough are to more than justify your concerns, and I know that a lot of Americans are more than willing to blame their own troubles on the "swarthy savages" around the corner or across the ocean, but the situations are pretty different re: the Nazis. Goebbels may not have had the number of outlets available to him that Rove does, but he still had an even greater hammerlock on what was broadcast to a *very* beaten-down populace.

[markses]

10. Delpit's still at it, huh?

Have you read any of Henry Giroux's extensive corpus?

[ulysses]

11. no, I haven't.

Got an overview for me? :)

[markses]

12. Sure

Youth culture is repressed, subjugated and coopted by dominant culture. Critical pedagogy a la Paolo Freire (but updated for the contemporary American scene) is necessary. Postmodern theory provides some tools, but the liberation problematic of modernism is necessary as guidance.
-------------------------

I'm joking, of course. Giroux's work is complex and ultimately a rewarding read, especially if yer still in the education biz (he's a professor of education, coming out of the critical pedagogy tradition). I thought everyone in education read Giroux. The guy's got a ton of books out. You should check them out (I guess the most read would be Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education and Channel Surfing: Race Talk and the Destruction of Today's Youth - I'm looking at them in my bookshelf!).