On Education Part Six: Articulating the World and the Implications of Literacy on Overcoming Limit-situations

This mini-series "On Education" is a compiled list of short essays concerning theoretical approaches to classroom pedagogy and their broader implications upon us as educators and our students. I hope to continue it for a while, and, of course, any critical dialogue upon what is presented is more than welcome. I will try to space these out weekly.

Read Past Contributions:

Part One: Banking or Problem Posting Education?

Part Two: Selective Omission and What We Learn from Malcolm X's Schooling Experience

Part Three: Education, for Liberation or Domination?

Part Four: "Revolutionary Radicals," Consciousness, and the Privatization of Education

Part Five: Humanization through Liberal or Vocational Education?

----------------------------------------------------

Malcolm X, recounting the mental enlightenment during his stint in prison in the chapter entitled “Saved,” lucidly articulated a vital concept for educators who desire to promote social justice and the democratization of society. As he explains:

I became increasingly frustrated at not being able to express what I wanted to convey in letters that I wrote…In the street, I had been the most articulate hustler out there – I had commanded attention when I said something. But now, trying to write simple English, I not only wasn’t articulate, I wasn’t even functional… every book I picked up had few sentences which didn’t contain anywhere from one to nearly all of the words that might as well have been in Chinese. When I just skipped those words, of course, I really ended up with little idea of what the book said (Haley, 1964, p. 197-8).

This passage vibrantly outlines how fundamental literacy is in combating one’s own oppression. Malcolm’s utter frustration and his conclusion that “going through only book-reading motions” (Haley, p. 200) was useless is not only a real and pressing issue for educators, it is a primary building block upon which the entire goal of individual development for participation in democratic life is based. Thus, for educators who hope to foster a culture of democratic participation and social justice in the classroom, the aspect of developing critical literacy is essential.

Without such critical literacy, the oppressed are permitted only an acrimonious severance from any genuine locus of control over their lives; this confinement to a specious, often naively individualistic comprehension of society reinforces the dominant ideology. The inability to articulate reality, or “read the world” as Paulo Freire outlines in chapter nine, implies a institutionalized, intentional paucity of intellectual development designed to undermine critical analysis of societal foundations and oppression stemming from them (Tozer, 2009, p. 288). Malcolm’s enlightenment, and with it the development of critical literacy and analytical skills, provides a glimpse of how percussive the acquisition and application of such skills are in altering not only the individual whom travails to hone them, but of helping to determine the destiny of humanity in a collective manner. This ability to articulate the world, then, is a prerequisite for the removal of the chains of real, or present, consciousness ; these chains bind the oppressed to simple, perfunctory responses dominated by the limit-situations  which define what can or cannot be done within the current structures. Critical literacy, as Malcolm demonstrated, facilitates the progression from real consciousness to potential consciousness and the subsequent blossoming, and pursuit, of untested feasibilities.

A prodigious amount of social interaction involves limit-situations, rational outcomes necessary to maintain order within the current political economy, which marginalize, oppress, alienate, and exploit the masses while serving the interests of the opulent. Often, these limit-situations are accompanied by a sense of fatalism festering within the oppressed who find struggle and liberation as unrealistic, or even undesired, outcomes. As Freire outlines, however, “it is not the limit-situations in and of themselves which create a climate of hopelessness, but rather how they are perceived by women and men at a given historical moment; whether they appear as fetters or as insurmountable barriers” (Freire, 2006, p. 99). Thus, critical literacy as exemplified by Malcolm’s development his voracious appetite to garner knowledge and understanding of the world becomes a vehicle through which limit-situations are no longer unfixable, eternal structures but institutions able to be altered, dismantled, or appropriated and creatively restructured or rebuilt by the oppressed. He goes on to explain, when the true nature of society is “concealed by the limit-situations and thus are not clearly perceived, the corresponding tasks – people’s responses in the form of historical actions – can be neither authentically nor critically fulfilled (Freire, p. 102).

Therefore, prior to Malcolm’s enlightenment, he simply responded to his limit-situations, as an animal responds to environmental stimuli in order to survive, rather than actively reflect upon methods through which to alter society. His actions only became historical when he engaged in critical analysis and sought to overcome and eliminate limit-situations through democratic struggle; literacy provided the prerequisite for the sufficient combination of action and reflection required to humanize the oppressed and allow them to play a role in shaping their own destiny.

Thus, one must necessarily view the political economy and the dominant ideology which reinforces it as definite limit-situations which heavily influence the majority of the people. These situations, then, must be articulated and understood in order to be dismantled and overcome. Literacy is an invaluable tool in the struggle to raise the oppressed from a level of real consciousness where limit-situations define them to a level of potential consciousness where untested feasibilities become collective possibilities which the oppressed actively work towards achieving. One should not, however, make the mistake of assuming illiteracy or ignorance on the part of the oppressed because they refuse to participate in the dominant culture or do not adhere to the linguistic norms of the oppressor.

Throughout history, the oppressed have always fought for freedom and liberation from the oppressor, often on their own terms, with their own words, their own dialects, and their own form of literacy. Freire further explains this concept:

In order to communicate effectively, [the] educator…must understand the structural conditions in which the thought and language of the people are dialectically framed… The object of investigation is not persons (as if they were anatomical fragments), but rather the thought-language with which men and women refer to reality, the levels at which they perceive that reality, and their view of the world… (Freire, p. 90-2).

To highlight just one historic example, Fred Hampton, deputy chairman of the Black Panther Party of Illinois, was someone who struck fear into the hearts of the establishment through his articulate oratory skills. He did not, however, simply adopt the oppressor’s linguistic style and attempt to use it for his own purpose but made prodigious use of eloquent black vernacular and what he called “plain proletarian English.” His brilliant oratory skills were not used to place himself above the oppressed but rather immerse himself within the oppressed community, of which he was a member. His words, many of the same words used by the community which he fought for, were a powerful example of honing one’s own linguistic techniques in order to educate and dialogue with the oppressed; through this Hampton avoided the isolation and projection of ignorance which plagues many activists, organizers, and educators. He was, however, not simply concerned with talking; as he explains, “so, what we’re saying there simply is, if [people] learn basically by observation and participation, we need to do more acting than we need to do writing. And I think the Black Panther Party is doing that. We didn’t talk about a breakfast for children program, we got one” (Hampton). The symbiotic combination of both reflection and action was essential; however, reflection could only be accomplished on the part of the oppressed when they were able to dialogue with educators and organizers, and the use of a culturally important vernacular facilitated this process. In fact, Fred Hampton presented such a threat that he was murdered by the FBI for his political leadership and percussive oratory abilities.

Lastly, educators should also be careful to avoid dismissing the language of the oppressor as inapplicable or unimportant; on the contrary, the language of the oppressor and what they intend to do must be thoroughly critiqued by those who wish to develop social justice in the classroom. This language can be analyzed through the dialect or linguistic intricacies of the oppressed but should be understood in terms of what the oppressor intends; to do this, one must understand the intricacies of the oppressor’s language. Hampton could both comprehend the oppressor’s language and communicate through the language of the people.

Therefore, the educator must be able to analyze the language of the oppressor in order to effectively combat it, even if they choose to combat it in the unique cultural and linguistic manner of the oppressed. For instance, educators (and students) facing privatization measures and budget cuts to common areas of study by a highly unpopular, unelected school president or board of trustees should not fail to understand and discuss the significance behind language such as “efficiency, extreme student centeredness, opportunities, business oriented, etc.” Words such as these must be highly scrutinized and a dialogue must occur, not necessarily with the oppressors who make use of such language, but with the students in how the best way to combat oppression is in the face of such benevolent-sounding language. Thus, what Malcolm shows is that an understanding of the oppressor’s language is absolutely vital, and what Hampton exemplifies is that understanding can and should be communicated to the oppressed in a way that is conducive to their specific situation and learning style. Professional educators could learn quite a lot by studying these political organizers, their methods, and their tactics. Black vernacular, bilingual education, and other forms of cultural resistance to the dominant ideology should be embraced by educators in the classroom who hope that one day social justice is not just an obscure pedagogical phrase but a dynamic, living reality in schools.

Works Cited

Freire, P. (2006) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Haley, A. (1964) The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York, NY: The Random House Publishing Group.
Tozer, S., Violas, P., & Senese, G. (2009) School and Society: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Vantowers "Fred Hampton" Youtube 1 May 1997. 16 March 2009 .

On Education Part Five: Humanization through Liberal or Vocational Education?

This mini-series "On Education" is a compiled list of short essays concerning theoretical approaches to classroom pedagogy and their broader implications upon us as educators and our students. I hope to continue it for a while, and, of course, any critical dialogue upon what is presented is more than welcome. I will try to space these out weekly.

Read Past Contributions:

Part One: Banking or Problem Posting Education?

Part Two: Selective Omission and What We Learn from Malcolm X's Schooling Experience

Part Three: Education, for Liberation or Domination?

Part Four: "Revolutionary Radicals," Consciousness, and the Privatization of Education

----------------------------------------------------

In educational and pedagogical discourse there is a dichotomy that consists of two contradictory methods of education. On one hand, an extreme emphasis is placed on vocational education, education designed for a specific job or occupation. Purported as the best for society by its proponents, some claim it would lead “to the development of marketable skills” that “prepares students for employment after high school” (Tozer, 340, 346-7). While in certain regards this may be true (although even the accuracy of these statements are contested due to the nature of employment in an advanced capitalist society such as the United States), education purely for vocation enervates students with a lack of the intellectually stimulating education required for the development of democratic culture, provides them with a narrow range of skills designed primarily to augment productivity, fails to promote an analysis of the material world in which they live, and hampers any sort of genuine democratic participation in society. On the other hand, some argue that vocations should be a vehicle through which a broader, liberal education can be pursued. Dewey articulated this concept as learning “through vocations” rather than “for vocations” (Tozer,  347). More generally interpreted, one can pose the debate between an approach that would prepare students to fill an occupational position in a hierarchical, oppressive society or an approach which would galvanize students to embark on the humanizing process of understanding, analyzing, and challenging society to help build the democratic ideal.

 

If education is to achieve “academic, intellectual, and personal growth,” (Tozer, 347) it must necessarily involve the process of humanization. This conception of humanization is illuminated by critical literary theorist Paulo Freire:

[T]he problem of humanization has always…been humankind’s central problem… Concern for humanization leads at once to the recognition of dehumanization, not only as an ontological possibility but as an historical reality... Within history, in concrete, objective contexts, both humanization and dehumanization are possibilities for a person… [b]ut while both… are real alternatives, only the first is the people’s vocation [emphasis added]. This vocation is constantly negated, yet it is affirmed by that very negation. It is thwarted by injustice, exploitation, oppression, and the violence of the oppressors; it is affirmed by the yearning of the oppressed for freedom and justice, and by their struggle to recovered their lost humanity (Freire, 43-4).

Humanization, then, is the struggle to control one’s own destiny free of violently coercive and undemocratic alienation. This can only be achieved for the masses in a relatively free, highly democratic society where private interests do not dominate social relations. Alienation, exploitation, and oppression are rational results of a society based upon the irrationality of a profit-driven system. It is consistent, therefore, to assume that these forms of subjugation and marginalization will persist until the system which creates them is dismantled by the collective effort of those in its yoke.
 

Richard Shaull, emphasizing Freire’s approach, explains that this humanization process functions on “one basic assumption: that man’s ontological vocation…it to be the Subject who acts upon and transforms his world, and in so doing moves toward ever new possibilities of fuller and richer life individually and collectively” (Freire, 32). The distinction between subjects and objects becomes relevant here since humanization produces people who are “no longer willing to be mere objects, responding to changes occurring around them; they are more likely to decide to take upon themselves the struggle to change the structures of society, which until now have served to oppress them” (Freire, 33). Some would proclaim that proponents of purely vocational education simply do not recognize the inconsistency between training one to fill an occupation and preparation for participation in, or further developing of, a democratic society.
 

However, it is much more likely that these theorists do indeed understand the implications of their approach. Proponents of such an education wish to successfully reproduce society; therefore, excess skills such as critical analysis, the ability to understand the world systematically in its totality, and other forms of thought which people may act to scrutinize society and propose alternatives, are rejected as unimportant and invaluable. Indeed, the concept of selling one’s labor in the marketplace takes on an entirely different interpretation when one begins to question the wage system and the free market ideology that supports it. Therefore, for those who control society it is infinitely more useful to train students to perform a specific task or group of tasks that will aid in the process of production without the ability to question how that process is structured. A worker who completes his task in a perfunctory manner and never questions the institutions of society is the desired result.
 

Further, this style of education solely for vocations shapes the very conception of democracy. It confines democracy to an extremely limited, hierarchical definition in which a small minority control the fate of humanity while the majority are marginalized into a position where they only perform their duties of production and consumption, once in awhile reaffirming or changing political leaders whom they vote for every so often. It is, in its result, much like the restricted and exclusive democracy Aristotle promoted in ancient Athens; it was a democracy for the few. Rather than taking a hand in how their own lives are managed through collective ownership of the workplace, workers are alienated from their labor. Teachers rarely control what they teach, how much they are paid, the number of students in the class, etc. Thus, the workplace is not democratically controlled by the teachers who work there, but instead by a small group of bureaucratic officials and private interests. Likewise, students are expected to conform to an extremely rigid, undemocratic environment where they have little to no control over how they learn, what they learn, and the environment they are placed in to learn. It is a vicious cycle indeed, one meant to perpetuate the dominant political economic system.
 

To highlight a specific example, once a fellow classmate explicated upon her experience in another class dealing with teacher preparation; she explained that the directions given to her by the textbook employed by the professor instructed that when a budget problem or lack of resources were the cause of an inadequate educational experience for the students (such as lack of funds to go on a promised field trip), the teacher should formulate some sort of personal excuse or reason for not fulfilling the activity (whatever that activity may be); the burden of blame lay was supposed to fall upon the individual teacher, not the school, the system, or society.  The logic behind this instruction was that it is better to lie to the students so they do not perceive the system to be working against them, regardless of whether it is or not, than tell them the truth and have them fall further into despair. The truth, it seems, is best hid behind a veil of benevolence, no matter how it affects the students. Rather than engaging in dialogue with the students, the teacher is supposed to shut up and review the material with no questioning of the structures in place. 

A liberal education which aims to fully humanize each individual and human society collectively, should not subjugate students into “mere objects” which respond to changes around them but should instead challenge students to become subjects who reflect and act to change the conditions which oppress them. The very act of discussing budget cuts and their relation to larger society upon a scenario like this would remove this veil of benevolence and engage students so that they become active participants in their own lives; in fact, this sort of dialogue should fit perfectly with any liberal concept of education where democratic discussion is valued. This can not be accomplished in an educational setting (or, more appropriately, a training setting, as that is what vocational educational philosophy promotes at its core) where vocations are the end goal.
 

If indeed humanity’s ontological vocation is to become more fully human, then the goal of education must be something more than filling an occupation in life like a cog is fills a place in a machine; a liberal, broad based educational approach is required. This is not to say, as Dewey emphasized, that vocations have no place or cannot be utilized in the educational process. On the contrary, vocational education is an essential aspect of education. As the text explains, “vocational educators who find ways to make intellectual developments come alive through concrete projects and activities may well attract a broader student clientele than they currently attract” (Tozer, 346). Not only that, they may even help to empower students who otherwise feel isolated from the traditional academic approach. However, the distinction between education purely for vocation and education through vocation is absolutely essential to formulating a pedagogy intended for liberation rather than subjugation. The impetus behind education, then, should be to fulfill our human vocation instead of filling vocations with humans.

Works Cited

Freire, P. (2006) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Tozer, S., Violas, P., & Senese, G. (2009) School and Society: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

   

On Education Part Three: Education, for Liberation or Domination?

This mini-series "On Education" is a compiled list of short essays concerning theoretical approaches to classroom pedagogy and their broader implications upon us as educators and our students. I hope to continue it for a while, and, of course, any critical dialogue upon what is presented is more than welcome. I will try to space these out weekly.

Read Past Contributions:
Part One: Banking or Problem Posting Education?
Part Two: Selective Omission and What We Learn from Malcolm X's Schooling Experience

----------------------------------------------------

This article explores the nexus of the educational framework developed by Horace Mann, an early nineteenth century American educational reformer and theorist. Borrowing from previous thoughts and methods of educational development, Mann reviewed various methods and merged them into a functional model based largely upon the authoritarian Prussian school system. One shall find that Mann’s educational approach was mostly an attempt to homogenize the ever-changing immigrant workforce and “provide [employers] with workers who were not only more productive but also docile, easily managed, and unlikely to resort to strikes or violence” (Tozer, 76). At a time when industrialization and urbanization were quickly impinging upon the exclusive agrarian society envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, it became essential that the ruling elites (composed of giant industrial owners, large-scale corporate executives, etc.) found a method in which to sterilize the working class and secure their position of power. Thus, Mann’s education process, a manifestation of elite desire to maintain power with striking similarities to the nationalistic, trade-specific, dehumanizing educational process in Prussia, is largely a pedagogy of oppression; the educational institutions which Mann argues for serve to reproduce the existing social structure and the dominant ideology.

One of the most striking examples is Mann’s attempt to apologize for the enormous wealth gap in society. His aims are rather explicit when he explains that education should “disarm the poor of their hostilities towards the rich” (Tozer, 77). This blatant example, despite some intertwining populist rhetoric, betrays his class loyalty. This is only reinforced when he explains, “The main idea set forth in the creeds of some political reformers, or revolutionizers, is, that some people are poor because others are rich” (Tozer, 77). By implying that a dialectical understanding of wealth is an inappropriate analysis, and that his conception of education alone will lift the poor out of the depths of poverty, Mann’s educational reforms can be viewed as little else than a attempt to skillfully manipulate the public to garner support for an educational process which fostered class oppression. In fact, a letter from a Lowell manufacturer, who had employed and exploited hundreds of workers, explicated upon this postulation:

“I have uniformly found the better educated as a class possessing a higher and better state of morals, more orderly and respectful in their deportment, and more ready to comply with the wholesome and necessary regulations…and in times of agitation…I have always looked to the most intelligent, best educated…for support” (Tozer, 76).

Thus, one sees that the primary goal of the educational process for school reformers such as Mann was to create a working class who provided little or no resistance to the oppressive conditions in which they labored. This played to the ears of the newly emerging ruling elite of industrializing America. No critique was permitted of an economic system where workers’ labor was exploited for as much surplus value as possible, starvation wages were predominant, child labor was common, and workplace rights were absent. Likewise, the idea that democracy should extend to the workplace was a dangerous idea to the elites in the early 19th century, much as it is today. Education, in Mann’s conception, serves to stifle democracy and its spread beyond the very limited political sphere.

The idea that society should reinforce the power structure and reproduce itself continues today. Modern school systems serve the interests of the dominant class. As Jean Anyon found upon studying various schools according to income, “students in different social-class backgrounds are rewarded for classroom behaviors that correspond to…different occupation-strata—the working classes for docility and obedience, the managerial classes for initiative and personal assertiveness” (Anyon, 1). It appears that Mann’s ideas are largely dominant in today’s educational atmosphere. Indeed, Anyon further explicates upon this point when she explains that working class schools use “mechanical, rote work that [is] given little explanation or connection to larger contexts” (Anyon, 4) and “Work is often evaluated not according to whether it is right or wrong but according to whether the children followed the right steps” (Anyon, 3). These examples highlight the fact that the majority of working class students are taught to become obedient workers who unquestioningly accept society and the current class structures which exist. In contrasts, elite schools train children to replace the ruling elite in society, so that the cycle continues, capitalism maintains itself, and the undemocratic workplace remains a permanent institution.

Undoubtedly, this model of education should be challenged by anyone concerned with truly democratizing society and the process of fully humanizing each individual. Indeed, even contemporary writers challenged Mann’s educational ideal. Orestes Brownson, whose own educational idea based upon democratic localism, flawed itself, was correct in pointing out the insidious nature of Mann’s proposals; his critique explained that the educational apparatus Mann envisioned was no more than “a branch of the general police” whose goal was to “[make] the rich secure in their possessions” (Tozer, 79). Unfortunately, history has shown that Brownson’s warnings were not considered seriously enough.

Today, educators are barraged with a wide gamut of bureaucratic measures intended to stifle critical thought and democratic practice. In fact, teachers themselves are supposed to be the “docile, easily managed” workers who are “disarmed…of their hostilities towards the rich” (Tozer, 76-77). Teachers unions, historically a vehicle for struggle against unfair working conditions and a lack of resources, have been largely stripped of their influence and are now run by a ruling group of conservative labor bureaucrats. Democracy and autonomy have been replaced with undemocratic centralization of power and unquestioning obedience. For educators, becoming promoters of educational liberation is vital; until teachers engage in the struggle to break free from the chains that bind them, however, this goal cannot be realized. Educators must look to the example of the 15,000 teachers who recently marched against budget cuts, class size increases, pay cuts and layoffs in LA. One could also look to the Puerto Rican teachers who cut ties with the bureaucratic SEIU and democratically organized their own teachers union to fight for better wages and schools. In order to promote the liberation of all people, educators must fight to liberate themselves; this means challenging Horace Mann’s conception of education and fighting for genuine democracy both inside and outside of the workplace.

Works Cited

Anyon, J. (1980) Social Class and the Hidden Cirriculum. Journal of Education, 162(1), Fall.

Tozer, S., Violas, P., & Senese, G. (2009) School and Society: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

On Education Part Two: Selective Omission and What We Learn From Malcolm X's Schooling Experience

This mini-series "On Education" is a compiled list of short essays concerning theoretical approaches to classroom pedagogy and their broader implications upon us as educators and our students. I hope to continue it for a while, and, of course, any critical dialogue upon what is presented is more than welcome. I will try to space these out weekly.

Read Past Contributions:
Part One: Banking or Problem Posting Education?
Part Three: Education, for Liberation or Domination?

----------------------------------------------------

The chapter entitled “Mascot” in The Autobiography of Malcolm X is an illuminating, yet disheartening look at the state of education in the 1930’s. Malcolm reflects upon his schooling experience and the attitudes of peers and authority figures accompanying it. At a time where racial segregation was rampant in the South, and the North simply disguised their racism in a paternalistic manner, Malcolm’s account is a fantastic primary source with the potential to enlighten the reader in regards to the honest condition of American schools during that time. The dominant ideology shines through repeatedly throughout the chapter. Malcolm recalls how he enjoyed history, except for the fact that his history teacher “was a great one for ‘nigger’ jokes” (Haley, 35). He speaks of his quality schoolwork, his excellent grades, his involvement in extracurricular activities, and his relative intellectual capabilities in comparison with his peers; still, his very humanity is denigrated by his English teacher when he professes his desire to become a lawyer and Mr. Ostrowski explains “that’s no realistic goal for a nigger,” suggesting carpentry instead (Haley, 43). Thus, he implies that this young black child, with one of the best grades in the class, is still somehow inferior and unable to perform at the level of his white counterpart. This obvious insult, one meant not as an invective solely towards Malcolm whom Mr. Ostrowski was actually fond of, provides a paragon exemplifying how racism and conceptions of racial inferiority, reflections of the dominant ideology, so deeply penetrated society.

The examples above of overt, personal prejudices are no longer commonly accepted in mainstream society. Struggle throughout American history but erupting in the 1960’s against the prodigious racial inequality in the United States helped shape and transform many Americans' views on racial inferiority. Today, personal ideas of race and race relations have liberalized considerably; this is undoubtedly evidenced by the fact that Americans elected the first black president, who won more white votes than any democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. At the same time, material conditions for historically marginalized groups, such as blacks, have been on the decline for the past thirty years. Thus, the liberal conception of racism, which they postulate exists because of personal prejudice by backward whites, proves unable to explain this phenomenon. One must instead look critically at the societal institutions, and the dominant ideology which supports them; these institutions have the ability to simultaneously liberalize personal conceptions of race and, conversely, increase the hardship, oppression, and segregation which many black communities face on a day to day basis.

One small component of this dominant ideology, which Malcolm so thoroughly depicts but does not label, is selective omission. This tool, omnipresent throughout the educational system, is used vigorously by academia, textbooks publishers, and public officials to sterilize the resistance of the oppressed against the system which oppresses them. Indeed, it is a paralyzing technique intended to pacify and placate students. Selective omission is a percussive blow to the truth that continues to exert immense force, even today, in hopes of subjugating the masses and excluding them from any sort of participatory democracy. This process, by which those who wish to maintain the status quo and prevent any fundamental change, carefully allows for the absence of regular people in the decision making process. It appears that this aspect of the dominant ideology acts to help ease tension which could potentially arise from the contradictions of a society which prepares students for a “nonparticipatory experience in the workplace” while simultaneously inculcating them “with the prevailing political rhetoric that U.S. society is democratic” (Tozer, 276).

In Malcolm’s case, the selective omission he cites is in regards to black history in his textbook. He explains:

It was exactly one paragraph long. Mr. Williams laughed through it practically in a single breath, reading aloud how the Negroes had been slaves and then were freed, and how they were usually lazy and dumb and shiftless. He added, I remember, an anthropological footnote of his own, telling us between laughs how Negroes’ feet were “so big that when they walk, they don’t leave tracks, they leave a hole in the ground” (Haley, 35).

Due to the gains made through collective struggle and organized resistance on the parts of historically marginalized groups, this blatant example would not stand today. However, it is quite easy to draw parallels between Malcolm’s textbook and modern textbooks; both make vigorous use of tactical selective omission. In Malcolm’s case, the omissions are obvious; the brutality and dehumanization of the institution of slavery, the history of abolitionism, the organizational and independent forms of resistance, the struggle for racial equality, or, in other words, the self-activity of regular people, are all ignored. Most important, however, is the fact that his textbook presents the issue as if it simply resolved itself, mentioning that “slaves were freed.” The implication, of course, is that this was due to the benevolence of those who control society and not because of the prolific struggle against the pernicious institution. Indeed, it removed the role of common people as an agency for change. Selective omission, used in this manner, hopes to conceal the fact that often times working within the framework of the established system is futile; it hopes to derail the idea that the oppressed must organize and fight back in the process of human liberation.

Examples in modern textbooks are innumerable. One study of social studies texts “reveals that positive social changes in civil rights, the resolution of the Vietnam war, labor unions, and the women’s movement are presented as triumphs of the legal system” (Tozer, 276). This sort of selective omission is vital to the functioning of the social system as it is currently structured; educational institutions, as they now stand, are meant to perpetuate that stability. The reason for this is simple; those who wish to maintain their wealth and power surely want the masses who labor below them to remain in their place. Serious challenges to the system are excluded or, as is the case of the rather popular Socialist Party, “most often portrayed negatively, as an insignificant movement on the part of an irresponsible few” (Tozer, 276). This pays no regard to the fact that Eugene Debs, presidential candidate for the Socialist Party, at one point won 6% of the popular vote while imprisoned for speaking out against World War I. Selective omission is a vital tool in the ruling class’s arsenal and they are more than willing to use it in order to secure the dominant ideology.

This tool is just one of their weapons. Historically, the ruling class has shown that it will stop at nothing to preserve it’s stranglehold on power. As educators, it is our job to do our part in the struggle for human liberation. Taking back history from the rich and powerful and emphasizing the role that regular people play in the making of history are fundamental in that quest for liberation. Explaining how, instead of working within the system, the largest gains have been made when struggling against the system, is one step to empowering not only the students we teach and the communities they live in, but ourselves as well. It is our job, in dialogue with our students and the community, to smash through purported truths and reclaim the educational system which we, and the students, sustain with our labor and creativity.

This can be difficult when functioning within the confines of a hierarchical, non-democratic school structure. At the moment progressive teachers and students are on the defensive against a myriad of attacks; privatization, lack of resources, budget cuts, No Child Left Behind, etc. all represent conservative aggression intended to consolidate and centralize power in the hands of the few and leave the rest of us begging for crumbs. However, we have a wide range of tools available to help combat misinformation, selective omission, and the dominant ideology. We must make use, both inside and outside of the classroom, of educational resources such as Howard Zinn’s A People's History of the United States to challenge the whitewashing of history, periodicals such as Rethinking Schools to help articulate our arguments for a critical pedagogy, Jonathon Kozol’s The Shame of the Nation to combat American-style educational apartheid, and various other materials which can help in the struggle. Indeed, when Huey P. Newton said that people learn best by observation and participation, his words could not ring any more true for educators today; it is our role to be models of the struggle for our students. The fight for quality educational standards, equal funding for all children, and the removal of reactionary policies and programs for our schools will have many similarities to the struggle for racial equality, better wages and unionization, and the GLBT movements of both past and present. It is time that teachers stand up and fight back.

Works Cited

Haley, A. (1964) The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York, NY: The Random House Publishing Group.

Tozer, S., Violas, P., & Senese, G. (2009) School and Society: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

On Education Part One: Banking or Problem-Posing Education?

This mini-series "On Education" is a compiled list of short essays concerning theoretical approaches to classroom pedagogy and their broader implications upon us as educators and our students. I hope to continue it for a while, and, of course, any critical dialogue upon what is presented is more than welcome. I will try to space these out weekly.

Other Contributions
Part Two: Selective Omission and What We Learn from Malcolm X's Schooling Experience
Part Three: Education, for Liberation or Domination?

----------------------------------------------------

One of the most fundamental distinctions educators must explicate upon and understand completely is the training-education dichotomy. The role of the educator, functioning within a purported democratic institution (i.e. school), is to democratize society and the schooling process to the fullest extent. This prodigious challenge can be met in various ways, including the engagement of students in dialogue, fostering critical thinking abilities, helping students understand the totality of both society and their schooling experience, and finally how the dominant ideology and the political and economic institutions which it arises from affects them. These vital concepts cannot be overemphasized. However, without the proper educational approach, or with a narrow training-centered praxis, the above mentioned topics become nearly impossible to communicate to students, let alone effectively foster understanding and critical engagement required for democratic participation by the majority.

Thus, the training-education dichotomy becomes a vital aspect to understanding how democratic education should be approached. “Training may be described as a set of experiences provided to some organism (human or not) in an attempt to render its responses predictable according to the goals of the trainer” (Tozer, 8). Training, in some limited sense, is of course a prerequisite for education (being taught to read prior to engaging historical or philosophical works). Humans, however, differ from animals in that they have the potential to transform society by their own self-activity. Animals live only for the present, the concept of time is absent and altering one’s destiny is an impossibility for the animal that simply acts (responding to environmental stimuli) and does not reflect. Humans have the capacity, given certain conditions are met, to perform both action and reflection and thus have the potential to transform society. Despite this, humans, like animals, can be trained to simply act in accordance with the dominant ideology and institutions of society. They can be psychologically manipulated to accept societal structures as unchanging and historically ossified; they can be taught that society is beyond their own capacity to alter. Functioning in a society where the goal is conservation of the social order, this style of top-down training serves its purpose; this applies to “democracies,” monarchies, and bureaucratic regimes alike where the ruling elite wish to conserve their dominance. However, if humanity is to fulfill its “historical vocation” of becoming more fully human and thus be able to collectively assert its democratic will as Paulo Freire articulates in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a more profound educational pedagogy must be developed.

The pedagogy, extending beyond the narrow goals of training, is a true education which emphasizes various human capacities:

Education involves reason, the intellect, intuition, and creativity. It is a process or set of experiences that allows humans to ‘create’ themselves. The educated person’s responses to a problematic situation [emphasis added] are based on trying to understand and make calculations about that situation. (Tozer, 9)

This distinction is necessary to understanding how pedagogy in a democratic setting should be constructed. What has been articulated here is not simply the distinction between training and education, although this is essential; it also presents the conflicting models of the banking style education and problem-posing education. The former, where information is simply deposited in the student and regurgitated, facilitates the preparation of the student for a job of unquestioning exploitation and alienation within the current economic and social structures. The latter, stressing problem-posing to allow creative responses and foster analytic skills engages the students and presents society as a problem which can be transformed through human activity.
As Freire explains, “the dominant elites utilize the banking concept to encourage passivity in the oppressed” (95). On the contrary, the program of a problem-posing education must differ drastically:

The starting point for organizing the program content of education or political action must be the present, existential, concrete situation, reflecting the aspirations of the people. Utilizing certain basic contradictions, we must pose this existential, concrete, present situation to the people as a problem which challenges them and requires a response – not just at the intellectual level, but at the level of action (Freire, 95-6).

Broadly, this means that the material conditions within which the students function must be discussed and analyzed. The dominant institutions and structures of society which dictate these conditions must also be critically challenged and scrutinized. The issues facing society, such as poverty, war, racism, sexism, exploitation, etc. are all problems which the students can be challenged and urged to help propose solutions to. They must first, however, be convinced of the immense significance of their own historical vocation (that of becoming more fully human) and thus, to determine the destiny of their community and humanity in the broadest sense.

More concretely, this means in the classroom that students should be engaged in the course material. They should have a say in the material covered, in how it is presented, in the structure of the classroom. These issues should be posed as problems for the students, who in conjunction with the educator will help formulate a solution, a plan of action. History should not be taught as a static, unchanging sequence of facts and dates and events in isolation from one another, but rather as a dynamic interplay of contradictory forces which have forged human history to the point it has arrived at today. The problems within the school and within the community are not only to be passively reflected upon, but also acted upon; both action and reflection, in constant and dynamic integration, are essential. This manifestation of collective action and reflection in dialectical relation to one another is the truest form of democracy and plays a pivotal role in empowering students to actively pursue progressive change for themselves and future generations.

This also means that educators should be able to effectively communicate with students. Dialogue is vital to any sort of positive, trusting, and democratic teacher-student relationship. To postulate a hypothetical situation: an educator in an urban setting where black vernacular is the most often expressed dialect would only effectively isolate him or herself by moralizing to students about utilizing “proper English” (this term, at any rate, is not only completely irrational given the nature of language but carries with it implicitly racist undertones). Instead, the true educator would both respect the creativity of oppressed communities in formulating language which articulates their own objective conditions and also emphasize the importance of language as an expressive tool. The educator should “understand the structural conditions in which the thought and language of the people are dialectically framed” (Freire, 96). Dialogue is the tool which allows problem-posing education, and simultaneously, democracy, to flourish. Without it, education is nothing more than passive assimilation into a culture of oppression and alienation.

Works Cited

Freire, P. (2006) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Tozer, S., Violas, P., & Senese, G. (2009) School and Society: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.