Sunday, June 25, 2006

Working hard to engage in critical action research

Considering our discussions on power/knowledge/truth and critical theory I think Joe Kincheloe takes us to a different place and explains to us how we can construct knowledge through action research. Critical Action Research is a justifiable methodology which is under regular attack from "expert" researchers because of its value laden positions and its ultimate goal of constructing change (hence action). More troubling to us - which Kincheloe doesn't mention because of the sate of publication - is that NCLB defines (or regulates a regime of truth) experimental design research as the only acceptable mode of research for contemporary educators. So those of us who engage in C.A.R. or hope to engage in C.A.R in the future do so with little support and lots of risk. But that is okay right? After all even talking about Critical Theory is resistant - teaching for social justice within the contemporary political and economic context is resistant. Why should our research not also be resistant? It should and mine is (I hope!)

The problem that I often have is knowing whether my research is reflexive enough (am I looking inward at myself enough). I also wonder if I have involved the students enough. I have engaged in "member checking" and informal dialogue with the students - I have used their words and their work to spawn new lessons, discussions, and action but is this what Kincheloe means when he reminds us that we need to work with the subjects of our study not mearly study them? C.A.R. is a constant battle over what questions to ask, what data to collect, how to reflect on that data and how to determine if the interpretations of that data are trustworthy. AND, as I said before it is risky. Do I think I'll get hired somewhere as a new Ph.D. if my dissertation based on Critical Action Research as a methodology? Will I run into roadblocks if I am labeled as a Critical Educational Theorist? Will I ever be able to get ppast thejargon so that I may help other teachers examine their teaching and work sites critically? I don't know. I hope so because as one of the members of my Dissertation Committee said to me at the end of my proposal defense:

"Jay you are dealing with dangerous stuff. The people in places of power don't want to hear this. You have to make sure you are right. You have to be so much better than them because if you're not ... they'll eat you alive!"

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Following Bethany's Lead

I Liked how Bethany tried to situated herself, here I try to do the same...

In Teaching to Transgress: Educating as the Practice of Freedom (1994), bell hooks reminds us that “our lives must be the lived example of our politics” (p. 48). Despite their diversity, critical educational theorists share a “dedication to the education and development of individuals and society through a commitment to democracy, diversity, and social justice” (Heilman, 2003, p.248). Though I am not yet prepared to accept the title of critical educational theorist, as my experiences, analytical tools, and thought processes need to develop further, I share the commitment to educating individuals and society for democracy, diversity, and social justice. As such, my teaching is an attempt to live the example of my politics. The following is an attempt to explain how my life experiences have merged with critical educational theory to inform my practice as a teacher.
Life Experiences
My most concrete memories of childhood center on my parents’ struggle to provide food and shelter for our family. In the mid 1970s and my father, an Army Captain and helicopter pilot, was involuntarily released from the service do to post-Vietnam force reductions. Luckily my father had vocational training outside of piloting helicopters on which to fall back. Unfortunately, in the era of oil shortages, he was a Teamster truck-driver. Irregular employment prevented a steady income. The differences between our family and the affluent families in our town were readily apparent. At a young age, I could not figure out why our lives were so different from the people in our neighborhood and our church. The confusion did not turn to anger until my father was offered a new job. After years of trying to regain employment as an Army aviator my father’s dream finally came true when I was nine years old.
Our family packed up and left our day-to-day, hand-to-mouth existence behind and moved south for the opportunity that changed our lives. From the moment that we drove onto the military base in Virginia, I knew we were in a different world. Because of my dad’s new position, our family was met snappy salutes and obvious signs of respect, instead of the usual furrowed brows of contempt that we were accustomed to as a poor family in a wealthy town. I still remember wondering why people treated us differently. We had not changed; we were still the Walsh’s. I was mistaken. My dad’s uniform, his title, and our income, changed. Perhaps most significantly our address changed, we now living in Officer’s Quarters – the good part of town. I did not fully comprehend it at the time but, for the first time in my life, I had experienced the effects of class differences.
Our move forced me to confront race for the first time in my young life. Before moving to Virginia, I spent considerable amounts of time with my extended family in Cambridge, MA. There, my aunts and uncles were undeniably shaped by the struggles of our working-class backgrounds and the ongoing forced school bus situation occurring in Boston and had developed strong anti-minority feelings. “Nigger” was a word that flew from their mouths without hesitation. My only experiences with the Black community, until I moved to Virginia, were through the hateful words of my extended family who believed that all “other” were criminals intent on stealing their jobs.
My concept of “others” was challenged the first moment that I stepped onto the playground at my school. That morning I was being harassed by a tough White student. The only person to stand-up to defend me was a Black student named Ronnie. He jumped to my defense and, for reasons that I still do not understand, fought the White student. It was one of the most brutal school yard fights I had ever seen. In the end all three of us were called into the Principal’s Office in order to receive our discipline. The sound’s of the Principal’s paddle striking Ronnie still ring in my ears. This kid had fought for me and had taken a beating from the principal because he stood up for a White kid from New England. Every day from then until the day I left Virginia, I was fully accepted by the Black students and ostracized by the White students. It is still not sure to me what race had to do with that school yard fight or what it had to do with Black students teaching me everything I needed to know about surviving as an “other” in a rural southern school. What that experience did teach me was the experience of “otherness” and the humanity of students I would have otherwise defined as “other”
Eye opening experiences like these affected me through out my life. My father died a couple of years later and we left the Officer family’s elite lifestyle to return to the role of the poverty ridden family in a wealthy town. I attended an all-boys Catholic high school where racist, sexist, elitist, and homophobic themes were usually, if not always, the undercurrent to the formal and informal curriculum. The American Dream was the mantra yet it did not resonate with me because my mother and father both worked hard yet, do to circumstances beyond our control, my family lived in poverty. When I reflect on adolescence I begin to wonder if my poor performance in school was because the curriculum did not reflect my life experiences. I wanted to figure out why the world was unjust but explanations usually followed Catholic Doctrine. Why there was such a thing as second class citizenship? Why was a family considered different simply because of the father’s occupation? Instead I received a steady stream of the dominant ideology that did not mesh with reality. My reality did not match the rhetoric of the Reagan Administration which labeled welfare mothers as shiftless lazy women intent on bearing more children in order to collect more government assistance. I became one of those students who quietly rebelled by non-compliance. For years I resigned myself to learning how to play the game. Rather than expose myself as the type of inferior person who was a drain on society I joined the chorus of voices who condemned the poor, minorities, women, and homosexuals.
Years later, when I was a young adult living in San Diego, I was forced to further consider issues of “otherness” and injustice. First, I was challenged to reconsider previously held notions of homosexuality. Living in, working in, and socializing in a gay community brought me face to face with my own homophobia and heterosexism. These experiences with openly gay, lesbian and transgender people again transformed my understanding as “others” as I experienced the warmth, friendship, openness, and caring of people who I would have previously ignored, or worse ostracized and ridiculed.
Second, I worked as a cycling coach teaching inner-city youth how to race bicycles. I saw reflections of myself in these students, I saw Ronnie, and I saw students trying to figure the world out around them despite being force fed the dominant ideology and the goal of the American Dream. I knew from my interactions with them that they did not believe the adages “if you work hard you can make it” or “if you’re poor it’s your own fault.” It was then that I knew I could no longer continue to play the game. I was possessed by the need to figure out how to transform the world. It became apparent to me that change had to start in the schools. Even though I had no conception of critical pedagogy at the time I instinctively knew that students’ experiences in school need to be closely connected with the realities that they had experienced in their own lives. Education needed to be empowering. To me education became a means of establishing a just and democratic society.
Professional Experiences
I left San Diego and moved back East intent on returning to school to become a teacher, and begin the work of making the world a better place. While going to school I had the opportunity to work on a number of political campaigns that added to the experiences I had while growing up. While working on these campaigns my frustration grew. Voters believed that they had little or no voice. They gave up on the system. When I engaged them in issues that mattered to them suggesting were ways to contribute to society, other than voting, I met resistance. They were not empowered. They simply believed that the world was the way it was and there was little that they could do to change it. Their resignation strengthened my resolve to empower children through my own teaching.
A few years later, after completing my teacher education program, I landed my first teaching job in an urban high school in Massachusetts. During my first year of teaching I was persistent in asking my colleagues “Why do we do what we do?” I did not think that this was a difficult question to answer. If we did not know why we were teaching how could we plan our teaching? Unfortunately my questions were met with blank stares. Few people had even considered the question and fewer could answer it. I held the belief that education should serve to empower students so that they could affect change but I needed to further develop my thoughts.
The process of working through my thoughts usually took place in the office of my department chair. I had the fortune of having a department chair who was the same age, had a passion for teaching, was reflective, and most importantly was willing to help me work through my thoughts. We had the same planning period and would usually spend one to two hours a day discussing topics and issues that related to teaching and why we teach. He came into the office one day, after a vacation, very excited about a book he had come across. He was visiting his sister in New York City and discussing teaching with her friend, she showed him a book that she was reading in her teacher preparation program – Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Everything began to make sense to me the day that he shared passages of the book with me. The transformation was not immediate but gradual. Over time, my personal and professional experiences merged. I read and re-read the book and the realities of the world became clearer and clearer. It was not long after that I joined the doctoral program. I began the process of figuring out the things I needed to learn in order to provide better educational experiences for students so that they could become active participants in changing the world.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Does Ellsworth's critique still resonate today?

There were many thoughts running through my head while I read Elizabeth Ellsworth's piece.

  • Her struggles did not appear to be different than some of the ones that I feel like I have encountered. I always assumed that they were part of the dialectics of critical pedagogy and as other contradictions require critical analyses so to do these contradictions.
  • As for her critique of rationality, I'm not sure I get it. Critical Theory (at least from the Frankfurt School's perpective) is highly critical of rationality. Henry Giroux does a good job of explaining the historical roots of this in Theory and Resistance in Education p.11-17.
  • Hegel's conception of dialectic must be understood through reason, but Marx and Engels version of dialectics is understood through practice and though (praxis). I would have to go back and read the sources that Ellsworth cites but I am confused by her critque of CP's rationality.
  • I wonder how Ellsworth's critiques may be a result of little literature of teachers practicing CP? Could it be that praxis was missing and thus understandings of CP were limited? Could it also be that CP does not have a particular method, in essence it needs to be continuously reinvented because the subjectivity or the students and teacher changes? Also, the particular struggles are historically different.
  • The biggest thing I am left wondering is whether recent critical pedagogy (1990-Present) has developed theoretical works which address Ellsworth's concerns clearly. I think - though I havn't gone to look for it - that CP has moved in various ways since this piece was written 17 yrs ago.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

On Dialectic and Dialogic

  • dialactics is about contradictions, i.e. the contradicition inherent in capitalism which lead to the decling rate of profit
  • dialactics in the hegelian sense deals the the contradiction of ideas
  • dialactics in the Marxist sense (which is where Critical Theory begins whether you like it or not) deals with the contradictions of materialism and the economic relations to the methods of production
  • dialogics in the Bahktinian sense refers to an ongoing dialogue over time and between many sources including texts, literature, etc.

    Dialectic and dialogic are not the same thing

Monday, June 12, 2006

Living Critical Pedagogy

I have come to see critical pedagogy as a way of life. It is far more that simply a teaching method. CP is informed by a certain theoretical position (critical theory). Seeing the world through the lens of critical theory compells us to act in manners consistent with that world view. This is not to say that I will define my actions once and for all and continuously refer to some "Critical Theory/Critical Pedagogy How to Live Your Life and Act Politically Manual". That would be inconsistent with critical theory as an epistemological position. Rather, we must continuously engage in praxis.

Joe Kincheloe does so much to remind me of the things I do, the ways I think, why I think that way, and what I need to remain aware of.

Especially important to me are:
Critical pedagogy is dedicated to the alleviation of human suffering - this section has caused me to reconsider how I organize the 9th grade world history course that I teach. I am thinking about how I could problematize human suffering from 1500-present and use history to examine the ways that people have resisted suffering and the ways that power has been brought to bear to continue suffering.

"please support us in our explorations of the world" p 17. - I need to find a way to get students and parents to see the value in this statement rather than "tell me what I need to know and I'll give t back to you.

Teachers as researchers- I have collected my dissertation research within the action research paradigm. Kincheloe has helped me (again - see Critical Theory and Education Research: McLaren & Kincheloe) to put words to why what I am doing is so important.

Social Change and Cultivating the Intellect - When I read this section I thought of Carol's question in class on Monday. "If you want a revolution why are you in this program?" Social change can not happend without rigorous intellect - I was missing the tools of the intellectual. I needed to fill the tool box, learn how to use the tools, learn why I would use some tools often and others would never get out of the box (but I would still have them and know how they operate). I don't think that revolutionary actions require completely disassociating oneself from society (or the systems which opress). In fact freire tells us that the oppressed must liberate the oppressors. If we see those who write education reforms as the oppressors we need to be able to speak to them in a discourse they understand - hence my participation in this program. perhaps I am using the Master's tools to dismantle the master's house.

Kincheloe's critique of positivism was clearly stated and convincing. Enough said (Bethany?)

I am left wondering how Kincheloe's explanation of science as regulating may or may not be related to how Foucault discusses the regulation of regimes of truth.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

critical pedagogy as transgression

I have read many of Freire's books and each time I pick one up I am develop a deeper understanding of something I thought I already understood well. Reading this excerpt again from Pedagogy of the Oppressed was no different.

Some things that mattered to me this time:

  • "...The humanist, revolutionary educator cannot wait for this possibility (that people will someday recognize their oppression and then begin to work against it) to materialize."p 60 Those of us concerned about oppression and exploitation [regardless of its origin] must work to make it visible from the earliest moment possible - to hope that people recognize their own oppression later leaves too much to chance.

  • I have had colleagues ask if I thought critical pedagogy was indoctrinary. My reply is no - it is liberating because it allows students the opportunities to reflect on their world and to consciously act to reproduce or reconstruct it. (the choice is important...the existing reality benefits many people and they will not choose to transform it. Plus if the only option were transformation than CP would be indoctrinary and Freire explains why we can not suplant one indoctrinary system with another.) To me standards, cultural literacy, the 'cannon', and banking education are indoctrinary because they only allow students to 'know' the world as it is presented and limits them to fitting into the world rather than providing possibilities for transformation. The last paragraph on p.62 confirms this for me.

  • "Where as banking education anesthetizes and inhibits creative power, problem-posing education involves a constant unveiling of reality. The former attempts to maintain the submersion of consciousness; the latter strives for the emergence of consciousness and critical intervention in reality." This passage really struck me because I had a student describe my Senior Seminar class in the following way:

"I think we are more well versed in what’s going on now and I don't think we didn't learn anything but I don't know how much more we're actually prepared to make a difference uh but I think there's a big difference in being like unconscious of everything that’s going on like a lot of us were before we came to the class and now we can see the things going on around us so you know maybe some people are more ready to go make a difference but I think everybody sees what’s going on and doesn't just walk around saying yeah that’s the way it is you know what I mean like everybody the problems now I don't know who's ready to fix them but their visible" (transcript of student discussion)

  • "In problem-posing education, men develop their power to percieve critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves...as a reality in process, in transformation."

Following the reading of Freire with the reading of bell hooks was important to me for many reasons.

First she demonstrates that we can not abandon all of the contributions of one person simply because we may be critical of some of them.

Second, she encourages us to make our lives a living example of our politics. To me this is supremely important - and something that is difficult to do consistently.

Third, and most powerful, is the image of theory as a woven tapestry. We know that threads woven together into cloth (or tapestry) are stronger than single threads -so it also seems with theory. On p52 bell hooks describes taking threads of Freire's work and weaving it into versions of feminism which matter to her. This was useful to me because I have been trying to think about how Giroux, Gramsci, Althusser, Foucault, and Bourdieu (plus McLaren, Hill, Brosio, and Apple who we haven't read) can support a 'synthesized theory rather than looking at how they weaken each other.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Questions for Bourdieu

  • If the educational system "reproduces... the structure of the distribution of cultural capital among classes" in such a way that social injustices persist what is the way out?

  • Should schools function to "provide" cultural capital to those who don't have it?

  • Is there room for pluralism?

  • If capitalism was not the dominant economic system would cultural capital be different - closer to the working class than the capitalist class?

Tying Gramsci, Althusser, and Foucault together for...emancipation (Yes, Foucault I said emancipation!)

Ok here are some initial thoughts.

Gramsci, Althusser, and Foucault are not that different.

Combining the theories of Gramsci, Althusser, and Foucault together will help with the human emancipation project.

Humans are not able to reach their full potenital because they are:
exploited by the capitalist system (Marx)
dominated through hegemony or direct domination (Gramsci)
interpellated by the Ideological State Apparatuses (Althusser)
subjects to regimes of truth (Foucault)

Humans can emancipate themselves if:
the organize revolution (Marx)
construct counter-hegemonies (Gramsci)
they can't, their are always already interpellated (Althusser)
"who cares about emancipation" (Foucault)

But, if we think about these theories as being able to serve each other there is a way!
Assume that Foucault's theory of power is true- that power/knowledge is the supreme concept (?). Power then supercedes capitalism, hegemony, ISA/RSA. If that is true then why does power have power - Foucault says it is because of regimes of truth.

Ok, regimes of truth make power possible. How are regimes of truth constructed? They are constructed through hegemony and ISAs, which support the ultimate regime of truth. The ultimate regime of truth is the one which contributes to the organization of society. Which in this case is capitalism. Power can not exist without regimes of truth; regimes of truth are constructed by pursuasion (hegemony), direct domination (RSA); and, Ideology (ISA) which support the ultimate Regime of Truth