My comment was going to be from chapter 3, pg. 45, about "internalized subordination and domination." I think once aware of this phenomenon it is difficult to overlook, especially for us introspective types. I feel that my experience of oppression as a female has been dramatically increased by my own internal and expressed resistance to acting "like a girl," thus admitting my stock in the unconscious belief that females are "less than" or that the "stoic male" is somehow a more worthy prototype than the "emotional female".
PS: The Vagina Monologues at NC State - Feb 17 & 18, 7pm, Witherspoon Campus Cinema! Tickets in Advance through Feb 16: Students $8, All Others $15. Tickets available through Ticket Central (Talley Student Center, 2nd floor) - 919-515-1100 or ticketcentral.ncsu.edu. Tickets available at 6:00PM at the Cinema (Feb 17 and 18 - cash & check ONLY) Students $15, All Others $20.
This truly is an amazing and eye-opening experience, relax, there's no man hating, --you might feel a little uncomfortable at times, it's heavy, but also provides plenty of opportunities for laughter. The proceeds always goes to a charity to stop rape and sexual violence. It's a book too!
My comment is from Chapter 2 (Pedagogical Frameworks for Social Justice Education), page 22, the section on “Black studies, ethnic studies, and multicultural education.” I particularly liked that it mentioned the Black Consciousness Movement and the Civil Rights Movement incorporated a powerful critique and questioning of what was being taught in the liberal arts curriculum in American colleges and universities and to whom, by whom, how, and why it was being taught.
For those unaware, the Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) refers to the reform movements in the U.S. that were aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against Blacks and restoring suffrage in Southern states. The Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) was a grassroots anti-Apartheid activist movement that emerged in South Africa in the mid-1960s.
Being a future educator, this section made me think intently about the differences in curricula at liberal arts institutions versus professional, vocational, or technical schools. Having attended a liberal arts school, as an undergraduate, I value that privilege of attending a school whose academic focus was to primarily aimed at imparting knowledge and developing intellectual capacities.
If these movements had not taken such a firm stand in these efforts, how long would it have taken for the liberal arts curriculum in America to evaluated? And what effects would have had on education?
My comment was going to focus around the information given on page 42 in Chapter 3, "Most of us have social identities that are disadvantaged by some forms of oppression and privileged by others." I enjoyed this quote as a continual reminder that peoples identities are often not static. People are dynamic and there identities are in a continual state of change, reshaping and remodeling and perhaps even adaptation. It seems like a simple idea but I think it is important to remember this fact and remind our students of this concept, as perhaps it will allow our future students to be more adept to accepting change and differences with those around them and spur them to find commonalities among what seems to be only differences.
In the pedagogical frameworks chapter (p. 18), the authors discussed that "we need to remember that the decision to shed these beliefs or attitudes belongs to the participant, not to us." To me, this kind of took the burden off of me. While I know it is important for me to do my best to educate for social justice, it is not up to me personally to shift the thinking of any one individual. All we are required to do is plant the seeds. It is such a daunting task to change socialized norms and manifestations of oppression, however, we can rely on not only our own abilities to be unbiased and impartial, but also on our students to see the need for a shift in thought. Then we are not individuals working for social justice, we are classes, then schools, then states, the countries. (I guess that's the goal...)
My question about pedagogical frameworks came from page 23 where they mentioned students coming to school without "specific kinds of cultural capital." What exactly is cultural capital? Can we identify some of the different kinds? The articles about Menominee American Indians and the Algebra Project are excellent examples of how culture influences our perspective and the way we learn, but I want more examples that I can meaningfully apply in the classroom!
For conceptual frameworks, I really liked the bit on pg. 60 that talked about how we are socialized into different belief systems. Thinking about things that way has really helped me to admit to and let go of certain prejudices. It removes the individual blame and shame associated with being prejudiced, and it's much easier to own up to something if you can also see how it's not all your fault.
The man said one or two sentences!!!! LOL I was going to talk about pg. 45 the idea of Conscious collusion. I had heard of the example of a rape victim blaming herself for the rape, but the application to oppressed groups was new to me. Sure we all don't say something in social situations so as not to rock the "boat" but I didn't know that there was a term to connect it to. The "live to fight another day" line really made me take pause and reflect on times I have held my tongue to preserve my position.
My question concerned Chapter 3 under the conceptual framework paradigm. The section on page 43 was particularly interesting to me about "Border Identities". I guess my concern, question, or comment (really all three) was don't we all at one point or another possess a border identity in some way and sometimes can that morph and change whereby making us more empathetic with some groups and less empathetic with another? I find this discussion particularly fascinating and believe it ties into our allied/oppressed conversation heavily from last night.
I was taken with the point on page 29 that, even when we are trying to challenge and upend the dominant structure and discourse, we must be aware that our viewpoint is partial and still contains some aspects of that dominant thinking which we are ostensibly opposing.
Chapter 2, page 22. I really like to concept of experimental learning and how it "starts with where children are, experiences they share, and asks them to reflect and form abstract conceptualizations from reflection." Students can "connect personal with political or historical which will empower students, drawing them out and them them make sense of what they have already experienced."
Culturally relevant teachers are also 'caring' teachers, and dare to use the language of love in their writing. (Duncan, 2002; Nieto , 205) page 23. Love it! Although I often wonder, how can we Not love them?
On page 30 of the Pegagogical Frameworks chapter under the Social Action heading it reads, "Beverly Tatum has said pointedly that raising awareness without also exploring the possibilities for change 'is a prescription for despair. I consider if unethical to do one without the other." I was pleased to see some possibilities for change in the following chapter, but am concerned that in the focus on raising awareness those possibilities for change seem to be a much less explored afterthought.
One point I enjoyed in chapter 2 was on page 21, when the author discusses culturally relevant teachers. I loved this line: "Culturally relevant teachers see knowledge as doing discuss their choices and strategies with their students, and teach against a 'right answer' apporach."
I brought up this line in my small group, but think it is important enough to mention again here on the blog. In chapter 2, on page 17, the author writes: “individuals of all social identity groups are affected by pervasive and interacting multiple oppressions, and may respond to situations differently, depending on their consciousness levels and worldview.” I think this means that each student needs to be treated as an individual, because there may be factors involved that we are unaware of.
In Chapter 2, I absolulely loved and agreed with the bottom of pg. 23 when it talks about teachers caring for students and treating them as people resulting in "students 'feel obligated to be worthy of being so honored'." From my personal experiences, this has always been true. I've heard it more in terms of respecting students resulting in students showing respect. Similar concept.
In Chapter 3, my overall knee-jerk reaction was that social oppression is so big and I'm so small; then my immediate reaction after that was the story (you all probably have heard it before) about the kid throwing the starfish back in the ocean (theres 1000s of them washed up on the shore) and some guy comes up and basically says that there's so many that the kid can't make a difference, and the kid throws one back and says "I made a difference to that one."
In Chapter 2, I really liked to think pedagogically as voicelessness not just being not talking, but not being allowed to be a true voice. This made me think a lot about my students and how, even if they say things to me, they may be changing the way they would say them to mold to the way I'm used to hearing things. Their own experiences and voices could add richness to the class that I may not realize because I don't even realize they are voiceless.
I also have a question from Chapter 3/ Conceptual Frameworks. On page 37, the authors mention that history is always in the form of the oppressor group. Our group briefly talked about this--is this statement always true? What about the American Revolution? It's presented from the American viewpoint, but wasn't America the oppressed group in this circumstance? Just curious if this is always the case.
I really liked one of the Freire quotes in chapter 2 (page 31), 'Only as they discover themsevles to be 'hosts' of the oppressor can they contribute to the midwifery of their liberating pedagogy'. Before this class I was unaware of the many processes of prejudice that existed and the ways that I sometimes contribute to them. Now that I'm aware of these problems I feel like I'm more conscious of my role and am in a better position to rectify the problem.
[i]I also have a question from Chapter 3/ Conceptual Frameworks. On page 37, the authors mention that history is always in the form of the oppressor group. Our group briefly talked about this--is this statement always true? What about the American Revolution? It's presented from the American viewpoint, but wasn't America the oppressed group in this circumstance? Just curious if this is always the case.[/i]
Some of the British commanders, especially in the South (Lord Dunmore is the most famous one) tried to undermine the resistance of the Americans by offering freedom to slaves who ran away from rebel-owned plantations. The white guys who won the war (often slaveowners like Washington, Jefferson, etc.) have gotten to tell the tale and the extent to which supporting the "oppressive" British could have been liberatory has been down-played. Indeed, interference with their human property was held up as an example by the rebels of how the British were tyrannical.
I was interested in the pedagogy discussed in chapter two. I focused mainly on the part where Adams discusses maintaining “equitable and reciprocal teacher-student relations.” I thought that she highlighted what I have been discussing as a main factor in my teaching and the way in which I want to run my classroom. She says that within these relationships “student expertise is highlighted; teachers encourage their entire class rather than singling out individual learners, and students share responsibility for each others’ classroom success” (pg 23). These teachers actively teach against the “right-answer approach,” which is what I am hoping to successfully accomplish in my classroom as I become a more knowledgeable teacher.
I appreciated Chapter two pages 19-20 it was the importance of “Reflective Practices”. It what we do every Tuesday night. Having a safe environment we are able to process an opinion and get instant feedback in a non threatening atmosphere
Chapter 17: I strongly agree with this chapter and believe that a teacher should meet the student WHERE THEY ARE as much as is possible. A student's social and cultural identities have incredibly significant influence on whether a student does well academically and affects his/her quality of life forever regardless of socioeconomic success.
I was just curious about what you guys thought about the chart (figure 3.2) on page 42. What do you guys think about the notion of modern religious oppression? The author lists Christians as a (US-Based) oppressor group and Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Atheists as oppressed groups. I'm not sure I see the validity in this, certainly there are instances of repression based on religion, but not sure if I agree that Christians (as a group) should be considered "religious oppressors"
My "like" comment was in regards to the last bulleted item in chapter 3, page 61, at the bottom. It talks about working class people feeling "not smart enough" and/or out of place amongst middle (and I would add, upper) class people. For me this rang true, because it's a dynamic I've experienced in my own internal life. I would also add another aspect to this idea, and that is that poor and working class kids often don't get exposed to many things in life that may be taken for granted by middle and upper class kids. That can include basic amenities, travel opportunities, or even the sorts of ideas that float around at home. It all seems rather obvious at first, but in fact the results can sometimes be insidious, and have ongoing effects throughout an individual's life.
My "dislike" comment was in regards to the 3rd bulleted item in chapter 2, page 19. It discusses the climate goals of d/sg training, and at one point uses the phrase "correct language and behavior that are inappropriate." Now, I know what they mean... but such language always makes me wonder. I'm in accord with the idea of honestly looking at the power structures in society, and some part of that relates to language. Who decides what language and behavior is inappropriate? That was my immediate reaction to that bulleted item. Now, if we're talking about kids (and we are), then we have school rules, standards and local/social norms of acceptable speech and expression to enforce. Understood. But amongst adults in d/sg training, I wonder what is "appropriate" and who decides. It's more of a rhetorical question and thinking out loud than anything. Maybe I just read too much into the phrase, but it's a phrase that rubs me the wrong way, just a little. If certain language and behaviors are to be changed - they should ideally be changed through a new understanding or enlightenment process inside the individual - not simply because they're following a set of rules from on high.
I really am interested in the idea of "border identities" from chapter 3, because I relate to it on some level. It talks of how some people with border identities may experience both priveledge and disadvantage in different situations due to their social or racial status.
I see this every day being a white woman in a white male dominant society. I am priveledged because of my race, but I am oppressed because of my gender.
I'm glad many people focused on their likes, but I want to share my dislike. Page 40 says an example of institutional oppression is the "lack of an exit interview policy with faculty person of color who take positions elsewhere to determine how a university an improve its ability to retain faculty of color in a predominantly white university (unconscious institutional norm)" While I agree the school should interview the faculty to find out why they lost a good teacher, I think it's important that they interview ANY leaving faculty to find out why they lost them. A good teacher should be valued as a good teacher, not just because of their positionality.
My comment was going to be from chapter 3, pg. 45, about "internalized subordination and domination." I think once aware of this phenomenon it is difficult to overlook, especially for us introspective types. I feel that my experience of oppression as a female has been dramatically increased by my own internal and expressed resistance to acting "like a girl," thus admitting my stock in the unconscious belief that females are "less than" or that the "stoic male" is somehow a more worthy prototype than the "emotional female".
ReplyDeletePS: The Vagina Monologues at NC State - Feb 17 & 18, 7pm, Witherspoon Campus Cinema! Tickets in Advance through Feb 16: Students $8, All Others $15. Tickets available through Ticket Central (Talley Student Center, 2nd floor) - 919-515-1100 or ticketcentral.ncsu.edu. Tickets available at 6:00PM at the Cinema (Feb 17 and 18 - cash & check ONLY) Students $15, All Others $20.
ReplyDeleteThis truly is an amazing and eye-opening experience, relax, there's no man hating, --you might feel a little uncomfortable at times, it's heavy, but also provides plenty of opportunities for laughter. The proceeds always goes to a charity to stop rape and sexual violence. It's a book too!
Leethaniel Brumfield III said...
ReplyDeleteHey guys,
My comment is from Chapter 2 (Pedagogical Frameworks for Social Justice Education), page 22, the section on “Black studies, ethnic studies, and multicultural education.”
I particularly liked that it mentioned the Black Consciousness Movement and the Civil Rights Movement incorporated a powerful critique and questioning of what was being taught in the liberal arts curriculum in American colleges and universities and to whom, by whom, how, and why it was being taught.
For those unaware, the Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) refers to the reform movements in the U.S. that were aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against Blacks and restoring suffrage in Southern states. The Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) was a grassroots anti-Apartheid activist movement that emerged in South Africa in the mid-1960s.
Being a future educator, this section made me think intently about the differences in curricula at liberal arts institutions versus professional, vocational, or technical schools. Having attended a liberal arts school, as an undergraduate, I value that privilege of attending a school whose academic focus was to primarily aimed at imparting knowledge and developing intellectual capacities.
If these movements had not taken such a firm stand in these efforts, how long would it have taken for the liberal arts curriculum in America to evaluated? And what effects would have had on education?
Things that make you go …”hmmmmm”….
My comment was going to focus around the information given on page 42 in Chapter 3, "Most of us have social identities that are disadvantaged by some forms of oppression and privileged by others." I enjoyed this quote as a continual reminder that peoples identities are often not static. People are dynamic and there identities are in a continual state of change, reshaping and remodeling and perhaps even adaptation. It seems like a simple idea but I think it is important to remember this fact and remind our students of this concept, as perhaps it will allow our future students to be more adept to accepting change and differences with those around them and spur them to find commonalities among what seems to be only differences.
ReplyDeleteMy comment was...
ReplyDeleteIn the pedagogical frameworks chapter (p. 18), the authors discussed that "we need to remember that the decision to shed these beliefs or attitudes belongs to the participant, not to us." To me, this kind of took the burden off of me. While I know it is important for me to do my best to educate for social justice, it is not up to me personally to shift the thinking of any one individual. All we are required to do is plant the seeds. It is such a daunting task to change socialized norms and manifestations of oppression, however, we can rely on not only our own abilities to be unbiased and impartial, but also on our students to see the need for a shift in thought. Then we are not individuals working for social justice, we are classes, then schools, then states, the countries. (I guess that's the goal...)
My question about pedagogical frameworks came from page 23 where they mentioned students coming to school without "specific kinds of cultural capital." What exactly is cultural capital? Can we identify some of the different kinds? The articles about Menominee American Indians and the Algebra Project are excellent examples of how culture influences our perspective and the way we learn, but I want more examples that I can meaningfully apply in the classroom!
ReplyDeleteFor conceptual frameworks, I really liked the bit on pg. 60 that talked about how we are socialized into different belief systems. Thinking about things that way has really helped me to admit to and let go of certain prejudices. It removes the individual blame and shame associated with being prejudiced, and it's much easier to own up to something if you can also see how it's not all your fault.
The man said one or two sentences!!!! LOL I was going to talk about pg. 45 the idea of Conscious collusion. I had heard of the example of a rape victim blaming herself for the rape, but the application to oppressed groups was new to me. Sure we all don't say something in social situations so as not to rock the "boat" but I didn't know that there was a term to connect it to. The "live to fight another day" line really made me take pause and reflect on times I have held my tongue to preserve my position.
ReplyDeleteHello everyone...
ReplyDeleteMy question concerned Chapter 3 under the conceptual framework paradigm. The section on page 43 was particularly interesting to me about "Border Identities". I guess my concern, question, or comment (really all three) was don't we all at one point or another possess a border identity in some way and sometimes can that morph and change whereby making us more empathetic with some groups and less empathetic with another? I find this discussion particularly fascinating and believe it ties into our allied/oppressed conversation heavily from last night.
I was taken with the point on page 29 that, even when we are trying to challenge and upend the dominant structure and discourse, we must be aware that our viewpoint is partial and still contains some aspects of that dominant thinking which we are ostensibly opposing.
ReplyDeleteChapter 2, page 22. I really like to concept of experimental learning and how it "starts with where children are, experiences they share, and asks them to reflect and form abstract conceptualizations from reflection." Students can "connect personal with political or historical which will empower students, drawing them out and them them make sense of what they have already experienced."
ReplyDeleteCulturally relevant teachers are also 'caring' teachers, and dare to use the language of love in their writing. (Duncan, 2002; Nieto , 205) page 23. Love it! Although I often wonder, how can we Not love them?
ReplyDeleteOn page 30 of the Pegagogical Frameworks chapter under the Social Action heading it reads, "Beverly Tatum has said pointedly that raising awareness without also exploring the possibilities for change 'is a prescription for despair. I consider if unethical to do one without the other." I was pleased to see some possibilities for change in the following chapter, but am concerned that in the focus on raising awareness those possibilities for change seem to be a much less explored afterthought.
ReplyDeleteOne point I enjoyed in chapter 2 was on page 21, when the author discusses culturally relevant teachers. I loved this line: "Culturally relevant teachers see knowledge as doing discuss their choices and strategies with their students, and teach against a 'right answer' apporach."
ReplyDeleteI brought up this line in my small group, but think it is important enough to mention again here on the blog. In chapter 2, on page 17, the author writes: “individuals of all social identity groups are affected by pervasive and interacting multiple oppressions, and may respond to situations differently, depending on their consciousness levels and worldview.” I think this means that each student needs to be treated as an individual, because there may be factors involved that we are unaware of.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 2, I absolulely loved and agreed with the bottom of pg. 23 when it talks about teachers caring for students and treating them as people resulting in "students 'feel obligated to be worthy of being so honored'." From my personal experiences, this has always been true. I've heard it more in terms of respecting students resulting in students showing respect. Similar concept.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 3, my overall knee-jerk reaction was that social oppression is so big and I'm so small; then my immediate reaction after that was the story (you all probably have heard it before) about the kid throwing the starfish back in the ocean (theres 1000s of them washed up on the shore) and some guy comes up and basically says that there's so many that the kid can't make a difference, and the kid throws one back and says "I made a difference to that one."
In Chapter 2, I really liked to think pedagogically as voicelessness not just being not talking, but not being allowed to be a true voice. This made me think a lot about my students and how, even if they say things to me, they may be changing the way they would say them to mold to the way I'm used to hearing things. Their own experiences and voices could add richness to the class that I may not realize because I don't even realize they are voiceless.
ReplyDeleteI also have a question from Chapter 3/ Conceptual Frameworks. On page 37, the authors mention that history is always in the form of the oppressor group. Our group briefly talked about this--is this statement always true? What about the American Revolution? It's presented from the American viewpoint, but wasn't America the oppressed group in this circumstance? Just curious if this is always the case.
I really liked one of the Freire quotes in chapter 2 (page 31), 'Only as they discover themsevles to be 'hosts' of the oppressor can they contribute to the midwifery of their liberating pedagogy'. Before this class I was unaware of the many processes of prejudice that existed and the ways that I sometimes contribute to them. Now that I'm aware of these problems I feel like I'm more conscious of my role and am in a better position to rectify the problem.
ReplyDelete[i]I also have a question from Chapter 3/ Conceptual Frameworks. On page 37, the authors mention that history is always in the form of the oppressor group. Our group briefly talked about this--is this statement always true? What about the American Revolution? It's presented from the American viewpoint, but wasn't America the oppressed group in this circumstance? Just curious if this is always the case.[/i]
ReplyDeleteSome of the British commanders, especially in the South (Lord Dunmore is the most famous one) tried to undermine the resistance of the Americans by offering freedom to slaves who ran away from rebel-owned plantations. The white guys who won the war (often slaveowners like Washington, Jefferson, etc.) have gotten to tell the tale and the extent to which supporting the "oppressive" British could have been liberatory has been down-played. Indeed, interference with their human property was held up as an example by the rebels of how the British were tyrannical.
I was interested in the pedagogy discussed in chapter two. I focused mainly on the part where Adams discusses maintaining “equitable and reciprocal teacher-student relations.” I thought that she highlighted what I have been discussing as a main factor in my teaching and the way in which I want to run my classroom. She says that within these relationships “student expertise is highlighted; teachers encourage their entire class rather than singling out individual learners, and students share responsibility for each others’ classroom success” (pg 23). These teachers actively teach against the “right-answer approach,” which is what I am hoping to successfully accomplish in my classroom as I become a more knowledgeable teacher.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated Chapter two pages 19-20 it was the importance of “Reflective Practices”. It what we do every Tuesday night. Having a safe environment we are able to process an opinion and get instant feedback in a non threatening atmosphere
ReplyDeleteChapter 17: I strongly agree with this chapter and believe that a teacher should meet the student WHERE THEY ARE as much as is possible. A student's social and cultural identities have incredibly significant influence on whether a student does well academically and affects his/her quality of life forever regardless of socioeconomic success.
ReplyDeleteI was just curious about what you guys thought about the chart (figure 3.2) on page 42. What do you guys think about the notion of modern religious oppression? The author lists Christians as a (US-Based) oppressor group and Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Atheists as oppressed groups. I'm not sure I see the validity in this, certainly there are instances of repression based on religion, but not sure if I agree that Christians (as a group) should be considered "religious oppressors"
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy "like" comment was in regards to the last bulleted item in chapter 3, page 61, at the bottom. It talks about working class people feeling "not smart enough" and/or out of place amongst middle (and I would add, upper) class people. For me this rang true, because it's a dynamic I've experienced in my own internal life. I would also add another aspect to this idea, and that is that poor and working class kids often don't get exposed to many things in life that may be taken for granted by middle and upper class kids. That can include basic amenities, travel opportunities, or even the sorts of ideas that float around at home. It all seems rather obvious at first, but in fact the results can sometimes be insidious, and have ongoing effects throughout an individual's life.
ReplyDeleteMy "dislike" comment was in regards to the 3rd bulleted item in chapter 2, page 19. It discusses the climate goals of d/sg training, and at one point uses the phrase "correct language and behavior that are inappropriate." Now, I know what they mean... but such language always makes me wonder. I'm in accord with the idea of honestly looking at the power structures in society, and some part of that relates to language. Who decides what language and behavior is inappropriate? That was my immediate reaction to that bulleted item. Now, if we're talking about kids (and we are), then we have school rules, standards and local/social norms of acceptable speech and expression to enforce. Understood. But amongst adults in d/sg training, I wonder what is "appropriate" and who decides. It's more of a rhetorical question and thinking out loud than anything. Maybe I just read too much into the phrase, but it's a phrase that rubs me the wrong way, just a little. If certain language and behaviors are to be changed - they should ideally be changed through a new understanding or enlightenment process inside the individual - not simply because they're following a set of rules from on high.
I really am interested in the idea of "border identities" from chapter 3, because I relate to it on some level. It talks of how some people with border identities may experience both priveledge and disadvantage in different situations due to their social or racial status.
ReplyDeleteI see this every day being a white woman in a white male dominant society. I am priveledged because of my race, but I am oppressed because of my gender.
I'm glad many people focused on their likes, but I want to share my dislike. Page 40 says an example of institutional oppression is the "lack of an exit interview policy with faculty person of color who take positions elsewhere to determine how a university an improve its ability to retain faculty of color in a predominantly white university (unconscious institutional norm)" While I agree the school should interview the faculty to find out why they lost a good teacher, I think it's important that they interview ANY leaving faculty to find out why they lost them. A good teacher should be valued as a good teacher, not just because of their positionality.
ReplyDelete