Pedagogy of the Oppressed and America

Over the last couple of weeks I have engaged a couple of friends in discussion related to race, sexuality, racism, and things of that nature. I was very surprised to end up in a heated discussion with a friend over the use of affirmative action in college admissions (the topic of my previous post). My friend continued to say how oppression was gone from America and that Black people do not experience different treatment simply because of their race. It was shocking to me how blatantly racist my friend seems to be. An interesting part of this is that had I told him he was being racist he would disagree with me. I was pretty excited that I actually attempted to have a discussion (it was more of an argument from his point of view) about racism in America. While it would be a stretch to say that Dr. Tatum would be proud of my actions, I do think it was a step in the right direction.

In my reading of Pedagogy of the Oppressed I continue to notice how well the United States fits into the oppressor position. It’s almost an uncomfortable amount. Actually, scratch that, it is an uncomfortable amount. Why does the U.S. not regard Pedagogy of the Oppressed as a groundbreaking work important to human dignity in the way that many other countries do? Frankly, it’s because America tends to always play the role of the oppressor when interacting with other countries. In addition to this oppressive role, the social structure in America is very oppressive to lower classes. I think it is important for citizens to read works like Freire’s and realize how much of an impact action can make. This use of action is something Freire discusses with great passion in the beginning of this work, “it is always through action in depth that the culture of domination is culturally confronted.” Meaningful action is what creates change in a positive direction for the oppressed.

With regards to the U.S. being seen as an oppressive nation, here’s a fun video (complements of Bill O’Reilly) to get your blood boiling (also, enjoy the video’s description if you watch it on youtube):

If only O’Reilly was so concerned with those innocent people of America.

The notion of banking education is great because it explains something I have always expected all along; our mindset around pedagogy is flawed. While I have always been an excellent student, I always felt it was because I knew how to “play the game” of getting good grades, not actually because of a true understanding of the material we were “learning” in high school classes.  I am glad that by the time I have made it to college there is a shift in teaching that understands how this banking method is not useful (with the exception of Humanities lecture, of course). Shouldn’t this disregard of the banking style of education be a realization in basic education, not just higher, university level education? One of Trevor’s discussion questions was “how can we integrate this problem-posing education into the classroom now?” and I think that is an important one to ask.

This question relates back to Dr. Kaplan’s math tutoring session. Dr. Kaplan used these square tiles for a number of different activities, including visualizing fractions and how to depict functions. While these tiles were great, why is it that I’m only discovering them in a how-to-tutor-better seminar? 

How helpful is something like this for a visual learner? 

There should absolutely be a more hands on approach to learning, an approach that engages the student as well as the teacher. Just as Freire emphasizes, with problem-posing education there is no longer a question of who has authority. In fact, this question of authority is eliminated. Critical thinking skills are emphasized with Freire’s approach, something essential for job placement. It seems a bit odd that our current educational system provides us with many skills that do not actually allow us to achieve in the “real world,” but perhaps this is because of the oppressive nature of our banking education system.

On a semi-related note, here is a very interesting interview with Malcolm Gladwell, author of many books, discussing his most recent work, Outliers. In this book he discusses why certain people have the ability to do incredible things.

About halfway through the interview he mentions the KIPP charter schools that were highlighted in Waiting for Superman. Gladwell says that the idea behind KIPP is that those students who desire to achieve academically will get the opportunity to with KIPP. The homogenization of our school system does not provide a level playing field for students to achieve success. This is essentially the crux of Gladwell’s theory on student performance; the variable for success academically is rooted in the desire to persevere. 

It is interesting to see how this idea of perseverance relates to the meritocracy seen in American culture. While there is certainly a sense of the value of hard work, there is also the notion that talent is a huge aspect of success. Gladwell disagrees with this idea too. While he doesn’t admit that talent plays no role, he does say that the importance of talent is only a fraction of what we perceive it to be.

Education in the U.S. is improving, but it needs to be changed in a way that allows the opportunity for the success of everyone. While some may thrive in the banking model of education, others require a problem-posing setup to learn properly. In its current state we do not make it easy for students needing more time to succeed. The KIPP charter schools are doing something very simple, extending the school day, to allow students with a passion for learning the opportunity to succeed.  

With the 2012 election in full swing I have begun to seriously consider the conditions of the United States since the last election. While I did vote in the 2008 election, I wasn't as informed as I would like to be, nor was I able to comprehend the magnitude of the election in which I was voting. Lately, because of forces outside of this course as well as the text we have been exploring, I've gained a new appreciation for the need to be well informed. I know how obvious this sounds, but a simple Google search about American voters can bring up some shocking information. For example, an article from the Washington Post entitled "5 Myths About Those Civic-Minded, Deeply Informed Voters" shows that young voters ages 18-29 still know the least about national elections. The same article shows that only 60% of young voters in the U.S. were following the news after the 9/11 attacks. While I know that I am reasonably well informed (by these WP standards), I also know that I am an exception AND that, in reality, I'm still learning new information all the time. I know the future of the U.S. depends a lot on the upcoming election, but I think it truly depends on the education and understanding of the American people.

Many of the books we have been introduced to this semester have opened my eyes to my own responsibility to being a change in the world. It is becoming clear to me that my previous desire to “be a good person” is much harder to define than I previously thought. While my “good person” standard used to be something like the desire to not cause harm to others and treat people with respect it has become clear to me that my new standard should try and increase human dignity as much as I can. Dr. Tatum’s book (highlighted in the previous post) has really made this point clear to me. While I may think I am being responsible and kind to others I may also be lowering human dignity without even noticing. I do not think I am doing a particularly bad job at treating others with respect, but Dr. Tatum made it clear that I need to be more active and conscious of my interactions with others. Here is an interview with Dr. Tatum from PBS where she summarizes many of the points in the book (it’s quite good for a refresher). I need to be more aware of the racist society in which we live and I believe I am becoming more conscious of its subtleties. As Dr. Tatum says in the PBS interview, “We’re all being exposed to stereotypes, and we all have to think about how we have been impacted by that.”

Relevant update:

While listening to NPR Tuesday morning I heard about how the Supreme Court will be hearing a case about affirmative action and its use in higher education admissions. Here is a link to the article. Only a few weeks ago I would have been thrilled to hear that the Supreme Court would be rehearing a case related to affirmative action, but now I am not so sure. I now recognize the complexities of affirmative action. Some people (including Dr. Tatum) view affirmative action in a positive light, a needed buffer to counteract the pervasive racism found in our society. Others view affirmative action as the worst thing that can happen to minorities, saying it only perpetuates the discrimination it is seeking to avoid. Clarence Thomas believes that “the government may not make distinctions on the basis of race” and that “government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equal before the law.”

Most of the comments I have read from the news article consist of people harking about meritocracy, a commonly held belief being “I want my surgeon to be one who is most qualified; not one who became a surgeon because he met some requirement that has nothing to do with his qualifications.” My initial reaction to these types of comments is something along the lines of “so the minority is unqualified?” I found many of the comments to be extremely racist and frustrating to read.

As a side note, it is interesting to view the comments on the CNN article related to this case in comparison to the comments on the NPR article. It is a true testament to the difference in viewers. 

It is interesting how Americans have such faith in meritocracy in some aspects (affirmative action, for one) but clearly disapprove of it in other areas (Occupy Wall Street). People in the majority do not tend to recognize the advantage they experience daily. Here is aninteresting article about the myth of meritocracy and why it cannot work in America’s economic and social climate. The article claims that our firm belief in meritocracy can be somewhat traced back to our “ancestral primate instincts for contest, dominance and pecking orders” but it is obvious that things have changed as we have evolved. Meritocracy does not account for cultural differences and the social constructs like racism, sexism, etc. The firm belief in meritocracy is harmful to the public as a whole.

Finally, here’s a chart from McNameeand Miller’s The Meritocracy Myth.

Table 1.  Share of Total Available Household Income, 
2002*

Income Group	Share of Income
Top Fifth	49.7%
Second Fifth	23.3%
Third Fifth	14.8%
Fourth Fifth	8.8%
Bottom Fifth	3.5%
Total	100.0%
Top 5 Percent	21.7%

*Source:  DeNavas-Walt et al. 2003. 

When the top 20% of American households receive roughly 50% of the wealth (the top 1% accounting for 30% of the wealth) is our society truly merit based? Perhaps the top 1% worked hard for their huge wealth. From McNamee and Miller,

Working hard is often seen in this context as part of the merit formula. Heads nod in acknowledgment whenever hard work is mentioned in conjunction with economic success. Rarely is this assumption questioned. But what exactly do we mean by hard work? Does it mean the number of hours expended in the effort to achieve a goal? Does it mean the amount of energy or sheer physical exertion expended in the completion of tasks?  Neither of these measures of “hard” work is directly associated with economic success. In fact, those who work the most hours and expend the most effort (at least physically) are often the most poorly paid in society. By contrast, the really big money in America comes not from working at all but from owning, which requires no expenditure of effort, either physical or mental. In short, working hard is not in and of itself directly related to the amount of income and wealth that individuals have. 

We need to let go of the myth that merit is the deciding factor an American’s success. 

Observations of Oppression

While reading Dr. Beverly Daniel Tatum’s work, Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?, I began to think about how this work integrates into my life and experiences. A classic example of a liberal arts education, this contemplation of course meant to connect the reading to other courses and outside learning. Last semester I took a course entitled Sociology of Sexuality and Desire and we spent a lot of time discussing different sexualities as well as social perceptions of sexuality. Dr. Tatum’s work got me thinking more about how social perceptions of different “others” is received in media today.

Lately I have been watching a lot of Friday Night Lights (guilty pleasure, bare with me), a typical high school drama television show filled with all kinds juicy nonsense that somehow manages to reel me in. This show covers all kinds of issues that an American adolescent in high school may face. Some of these issues include: racism, mental health issues, divorce, bullying, teen pregnancy, rape, etc. However, one topic that is never discussed is that of sexuality, especially those that diverge from the dominant heterosexuality. The only mentioning of homosexuality is in passing and always as a joke: “That’s a little brokeback, isn’t it?” or when the mayor of the town is a lesbian and a main character is afraid to join her campaign for fear of being associated with “the wrong people”. While the television show received much critical recognition about addressing issues in modern day America, I find it impossible to overlook this glaring homophobia.

Perhaps because LGBT equality is the most recent demographic to demand civil rights people feel comfortable shouting out offensive comments and remaining ignorant to the pain it is causing many people in our country. Here is a video from Fox discussing the television show Glee and if it is “too gay” to be aired during primetime television. 

While it is common to see people of color on television programs today, many are still playing stereotypical roles that demean their human dignity. I am interested to see how LGBT characters develop in the future and if they will still be commonly seen as the flamboyant gay uncle, the butch “unattractive” lesbian, or other stereotyped roles. 

I found Dr. Tatum’s comment on what an ideal person’s characteristics should be in our society to be an excellent observation. After listing off dominant traits (white, male, heterosexual, able bodied, thin, financial secure, etc.) it is obvious that only a handful of Americans fit this rigid description. Audre Lorde’s comment that, “There is no hierarchy of oppression” was insightful because it shows that all oppression is harmful to human dignity. The topic my blog seems to be harping on, perspective, comes up yet again with Lorde’s comment. It is certainly easy to relax when we fit ourselves into the dominant societal description, but we always need to remember where we diverge from this “ideal”. Oppression exists in every demographic and trait of the citizens of this country, some more glaringly obvious than others. While in the process of creating this blog we had a relevant discussion in one of my other classes on Monday.

In this class we discussed the oppression of men and how it is usually overlooked in courses that tend to focus on women. While I would never say that men have been as oppressed as women historically, it was a very interesting discussion to be a part of. We mainly discussed the expectation that men face growing up as they attempt to discover their own identity and interests. Men are typically required to have masculine interests and to enjoy anything that differs from these socially accepted pastimes questions the masculinity of the man in question. A male nurse, for example, is still seen to be effeminate, while a female surgeon tends to be more accepted in modern society. My criticism for this argument was based mainly on a capability standpoint. While some opportunities for men may seem more feminine for men to have, the fact remains that they have more options that women. It was exciting to have a discussion where I felt free to express my own thoughts and opinions without discomfort or guilt.

This notion of discomfort is something that I think is important to address with discussions of oppression, especially how it relates to racism. I asked my mother if I ever brought up race when I was younger and she said it never came up (clearly I received the silent “Do not talk about it” message). I really hope that when I have children I can explain difficult matters like race to them in a way that makes sense. That was something Dr. Tatum seemed to do very well and make a point of actively discussing with her children, and I thought it was just awesome! Open and honest communication is so important in most aspects of life and I think much discussion is still needed with regards to racism in America today. While it is sometimes difficult to talk about issues like race or disability now, I’m very glad our class allows for a safe environment of discussion.

Here is an interview with Dr. Beverly Tatum and Reverend Jesse Jackson following the inauguration of Barack Obama four years ago. One of the most noteworthy aspects of this video is their discussion of higher education in America and the need to lower student loans. Higher education should be attainable by all of those interested and students should not be forced to drop out due to the tuition costs. Dr. Tatum even says that her one wish for Obama is that he "expand access to college." Education remains one of the most defining factors in the success of Americans. 

Outsider Perspective

This entry will discuss many topics, but first I’d like to start with an article taken from the Huffington Post  related to the educational climate of our schools. While it is intended to be humorous it draws attention to the poor education many students are receiving every day.

After the clip went viral on the Internet the creators released a statement saying:

The video that we made as a school project has received a lot of unexpected media attention, and has been co-opted into an ongoing political debate that has become quite volatile. It should be known that we filmed for several hours, during which time many students gave correct responses; the film represents a short segment of the most entertaining answers. The bottom line is that we made the video to get a few laughs around our school, and it turned into something bigger. It was not our intent to polarize people, set off a firestorm, or get people to point fingers. Having said that, people will take from it what they will. We want to continue our work as student journalists in a productive manner.

Objectively it is unsettling that these students did not know the answers to basic American facts, but the journalist’s comments are important for placing the video in context.

A prime focus of our class is the development of human capabilities and dignity. I think this week’s reading (Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Anthony Appiah) brought up a very important topic: it is very easy for an outsider to place judgment and project views upon other individuals or groups. Within the text Appiah relates this to the commonly held belief in witchcraft in his home country of Ghana. To most Westerners a belief in witchcraft would be absurd, but within the context and belief system of a typical Ghanaian it is perfectly logical. The idea that a Western individual could go to Ghana and tell them all about their incorrect belief in witchcraft is terribly presumptuous. I particularly liked the quote by Melville Herskovits:

There is no way to play this game of making judgments across cultures except with loaded dice.  

This principle holds true in areas outside of anthropology. Even in our attempts to understand the issue of education reform it is difficult since we, as college students, are removed from so many of its current problems. Learning about contemporary issues as well as other cultures is important, but remembering how a personal perspective may be misleading is also key. Here’s another quote from Appiah that I thought was important:

In belief, as in everything else, each of us must start from where we are.

This reminds me of the importance of becoming involved WHERE WE ARE to instigate change. While I would love to see the education system in America change on a national level it is clear that true change begins within the community. Being able to leave a positive impact on a young person locally NOW is far more likely and rewarding than creating legislation that takes years to pass. Another huge change that can happen is within our mindset and outlook on others and ourselves. Instead of viewing our personal beliefs and values as the only valid ones perhaps we should become more tolerant of different beliefs.

This open-mindedness is a theme that stuck out during the film in class on Tuesday. The film, ARTS: A Film About Possibilities, Disabilities & the Arts, documented the use of art as a tool for disabled individuals in expression, exploring, and defining themselves. Many of the notions surrounding disability are society based and are long overdue for a reassessment. Just as it is hard to judge a different culture without a proper understanding, it is impossible to pass judgment on disability without a deep knowledge and appreciation for the circumstance. It is our nature to attempt to categorize things as “normal” or “different” based on our own experience, but the truth remains that there are billions of different experiences in the world.

I deeply agree with wanting to create more options for expression and exposure for the disabled, especially those with outstanding talents. During the film, however, I was troubled by the stressed capitalism on one particular artist. She (I forgot to write down her name) used her paintings to represent her relationship with her late husband and the process of death. Selling her artwork symbolized losing a part of herself, so it was obviously a difficult endeavor for her. It did not seem obvious to me that she enjoyed selling her artwork, she mentioned cutting out pieces of the canvas to keep as her own before parting with the painting. While this bothered her, it seemed that those who knew her were very excited that she was making money off of her talent. These supporters hoped she would stop viewing her work as so personal and begin to do it for the profit. While this supports the capabilities of the artist, I don’t believe it respected her dignity. It was simply projecting the Western ideals of capitalism on her talent. I know that those supporting the artist have only the best intentions and wishes for her, but it is such a shame on how they lost sight of her expression and emotions within the painting.

As I have mentioned in earlier blogs, perspective is an extremely important trait to have living in our modern society. Understanding different cultures and different abilities can allow us to successfully support human capability and dignity. Finally, another poignant quote from the ARTS film.

It’s hard to be disabled when you don’t like the word “disabled.”

With the recent striking down of Prop 8 in California, I leave with this image and quote [from the ruling] of human dignity.