This week's reading got into what is, for me, the most valuable and crucial element of Multicultural Eduction; and that is it's value as a tool for expanding Social Justice.
Specifically, the Sleeter and Grant reading (Chapter Six), discusses this beautifully in detailing the theoretical merit in "Education that is Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist." The theory herein is primarily concerned with "[eliminating the] oppression of one group of people by another" and "deals more directly... with oppression and social structural inequality" (pg. 188). The approach uses conflict theory to analyze why prejudices and inequalities exist and then seeks to stop the trend in the classroom.
The material this week was my favorite as we examined resistance theory, specifically anti-Black racist structures (of the more covert nature) in education. In adopting the Womanist framework to analyze systemic disadvantaging and strategize resistance, Anderson and Kharem highlight the kind of thought process that is needed to end discrimination at any level once and for all (without resorting to my chosen violent, insurrectionist, anarchist fantasies). This level of thinking is effective because it tackles the hegemony at work that Asa Hilliard names (and not simply it's nominally 'racist' manifestations) to eliminate the perpetuation of inequalities in classrooms. Recognizing these patterns of continued subjugation (stage 3 in Collins' Conflict Theory model) give us the tools to effect change.
So, what do I make of this all? For one thing, I feel that the readings say it all this week. I agree that intersectional models, like the womanist perspective of resistance theory, have a lot to offer in terms of stripping down hegemonic sturctures beyond their manifestations as any particular "ism." As a person who's very familiar with racism/negrophobia, nativism and homophobia/heterosexism, I feel that one can never be too critical and too sensitive to the structures in place.
I think that the more people who adopt this extra-critical mindset, the more effective we can be at eroding the reproduction of inequality.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Why don't they tell us?
Yesterday evening I had the great privelege of listening to Dr. Haroon Kharem and Dr. Noel S. Anderson speak at the symposium my EDUC 440 class put together. The volume of research and work the pair have put into reconstructing an afro-critical discourse in the master narrative of particularly American historiography. Their work, particularly that of Haroon Kharem, has prompted their respective careers in reforming the American education system to both correct the social justices issues that are rife within the current prescribed practice of schooling.
Perhaps one of the most striking points that were made throughout the symposium, for me, was Kharem's analysis of school curriculum, specifially the obfuscation of the African contribution to the creation of one of the most powerful cities in the world (NYC) and the African heritage of some of the most important figures in Western culture. His presentation questioned the images that are glorified in Black American schools of "Martin Luther King Jr. and basketball players," which ignore or, even more insultingly, abased the historical significance of Black scholars, activists, humanitarians, inventors and founders. (I mean, granted there is Black history month, but come on).
There are two questions that were raised in the context of this information that are pursuant to the point I'm weaving here.
The first was raised by a student in the back of the room, which struck me as just as arrogant as it was genuine (in all honesty). To paraphrase his question: "Aren't we perpetuating racial inequity/discrimination by calling it Black history to begin with?" He explained that as a Jewish person, he found it hardly relevant if and when educators identified a contribution to history as a Jewish one. His concern was that by highlighting the "blackness" of a historical contribution, event or figure one would make it susceptible to racially motivated biases.
Dr. Anderson's response to this question was respectful to the genuine note of the student, as well as unmitigatedly brilliant, thorough, effective and impressive. He explained that in order to understand something in earnest, one must understand its origins. My response to this question would have sounded as follows: "Well, the risk of highlighting the ethno-racial aspects of the contibution/event/figure is first to provide a wider and more nuanced understanding of minority groups that have historically been socially stigmatized, systemically oppressed and underrespresented in order to reverse the trends of these three effects of prejudice ion younger generations. Secondly, it would inspire members of said subaltern community to rise to these expectations rather than just the images highlighted by a capitalist, corporate media that is likely inherently biased against them."
Moreover, the second question was posed by Dr. Kharem as a point of rhetorical strategy in order to provoke us to this about the curriculum as it exists today. "Why don't they tell us?" The question refers to the sweeping achievements of many African Americans at a time when they were harldy possible. The obscure achievements that factored greatly in shaping literature, customs, technology, epistemology, philosophy and other commonplaces of "mainstream" Western culture. My personal response to this question is for another blog at another time. I feel, however, that it important to keep that critical skepticism in the back of our minds.
--TAHS
Perhaps one of the most striking points that were made throughout the symposium, for me, was Kharem's analysis of school curriculum, specifially the obfuscation of the African contribution to the creation of one of the most powerful cities in the world (NYC) and the African heritage of some of the most important figures in Western culture. His presentation questioned the images that are glorified in Black American schools of "Martin Luther King Jr. and basketball players," which ignore or, even more insultingly, abased the historical significance of Black scholars, activists, humanitarians, inventors and founders. (I mean, granted there is Black history month, but come on).
There are two questions that were raised in the context of this information that are pursuant to the point I'm weaving here.
The first was raised by a student in the back of the room, which struck me as just as arrogant as it was genuine (in all honesty). To paraphrase his question: "Aren't we perpetuating racial inequity/discrimination by calling it Black history to begin with?" He explained that as a Jewish person, he found it hardly relevant if and when educators identified a contribution to history as a Jewish one. His concern was that by highlighting the "blackness" of a historical contribution, event or figure one would make it susceptible to racially motivated biases.
Dr. Anderson's response to this question was respectful to the genuine note of the student, as well as unmitigatedly brilliant, thorough, effective and impressive. He explained that in order to understand something in earnest, one must understand its origins. My response to this question would have sounded as follows: "Well, the risk of highlighting the ethno-racial aspects of the contibution/event/figure is first to provide a wider and more nuanced understanding of minority groups that have historically been socially stigmatized, systemically oppressed and underrespresented in order to reverse the trends of these three effects of prejudice ion younger generations. Secondly, it would inspire members of said subaltern community to rise to these expectations rather than just the images highlighted by a capitalist, corporate media that is likely inherently biased against them."
Moreover, the second question was posed by Dr. Kharem as a point of rhetorical strategy in order to provoke us to this about the curriculum as it exists today. "Why don't they tell us?" The question refers to the sweeping achievements of many African Americans at a time when they were harldy possible. The obscure achievements that factored greatly in shaping literature, customs, technology, epistemology, philosophy and other commonplaces of "mainstream" Western culture. My personal response to this question is for another blog at another time. I feel, however, that it important to keep that critical skepticism in the back of our minds.
--TAHS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
