Written by Peter McLaren
Response by Julie Tompkins, Kayla Kitchell (Hibner), and Lisa Nestor
This article was definitely something I had to really think about as I read it. The article was at times a difficult read, due to the vast amount of new vocabulary it contained. Although, the author did do a fantastic job of explaining what the vocabulary meant throughout the article. I noticed that McLaren started the article by explaining his purpose for writing the article and the basic theory the reader needed to understand the author’s viewpoints. I noticed that one of McLaren’s main points was that, “The purpose of dialectical educational theory, then, is to provide students with a model that permits them to examine the underlying political, social, and economic foundations of the larger society” (72). When I read that quote, I was able to make a connection to my pedagogy, as I believe that my main purpose for educating my students is to inspire them to become active and responsible citizens in our democratic society.
McLaren discusses the “power relations” between members in our society and how through hegemony, the dominant culture continues to dominant the subordinate class through “the church, the state, the school, the mass media, the political system, and the family" (76). I think it is an interesting theory that teachers help continue the cycle of oppression by what they teach. If teachers teach their students to think critically and to question what they learn, students can rise above anything. Likewise, if students are never taught to questions anything or want more for themselves, they may continue to oppressed. I never thought about the fact that I would not have started second guessing the government and some of its policies if my high school government teacher had not asked me to think critically about my government. I can see where the author is coming from and it is definitely something to think about. The whole idea of hegemony is very thought provoking; I’m just not sure if I am convinced that it is true. I can’t help but wonder if there will ever be a culture where all citizens are on an equal playing field? Does a city or country on earth exist like that? I do know that I will continue to educate my students about thinking for themselves because they are the future of this country. They are the people who will have to make decisions for the greater good of the United States.
Following his discussion of hegemony, McLaren focuses on ideology and describes it as "natural and common sense" (79). He connects ideology with hegemony with the "customs, rituals, beliefs, and values often produce(d) within individuals distorted conceptions of their place in the sociocultural order and thereby serve to reconcile them to that place and to disguise the inequitable relations of power and knowledge" (79). To me, this says that we live our lives with values bestowed from our families and thus continue the social structure phenomenon. If you are from the culture of power, you live with values and beliefs that sustain that culture. The same is true for cultures of minority groups. McLaren goes on to say that without these structures, we couldn't make sense of the world! This is interesting for me because I don't see a way out of the current social structure if this is true.
In describing ideology as a negative function, he gives some examples that are thought provoking - especially for a white, middle-class teacher. He describes schools as helping upper-class students the most, that academic tracking is really the dominant culture sorting kids by class, and that by studying great books minority cultures are ignored. He does not list what the "great books" are, but looking at it from a literacy point of view, I think that "great books" are studied for literary merit - that these books are not considered great because they are written by a white male or convey the dominant culture's values. I would like to think that these books have more to them and then I think that maybe I am playing right into McLaren's view of someone from the culture of power. I do think that books written by minorities and about minority cultures should be studied in school, but I don't see that studying great books of literature as a conspiracy to keep minorities out of the culture of power. McLaren doesn't attend to the idea that minority students need to find their way through the culture of power in order to create change. I think this is important for teachers to help students navigate their way.
McLaren went on to describe dominant ideology of which I was surprised to read and hope is not true for most people - though the label "dominant" would lead to that conclusion. One aspect of dominant ideology is that men are more capable to climb corporate ladders and women are more suited to the home. I can only hope that most people do not think this. His point here is that teachers need to be "aware of the ideologies that inform their...teaching" (82). He poses a question for teachers, "To what extent do such pedagogical practices serve to empower the student, and to what extent do they work as forms of social control that support, stabilize, and legitimate the role of the teacher as a moral gatekeeper of the state?" (82).
His ideas thus far are connected to teaching in that teachers need to be aware of power and knowledge relationships. "Teachers need to recognize that power relations correspond to forms of school knowledge that distort understanding and produce what is commonly accepted as 'truth'"(85). In this way, teachers do serve as gatekeepers of knowledge and need to decide the background for the "truths" they relate to students. Knowledge students gain in school should not serve the corporate world, keep the dominant culture in control and minorities outside the culture of power.
McLaren compares the curriculum to "an introduction to a particular form of life; it serves in part to prepare students for dominant or subordinate positions in the existing societies" (86). Basically he is trying to say that the curriculum favors certain students based on a particular set of criterion and that the "hidden curriculum," as he calls it, refers to outcomes that we do not intend as teachers to promote.This reminds me of Catherine Au and her book, Multicultural Issues and Literacy Achievement that discusses the Literacy Achievement Gap and why it exists.
McLaren focuses on two key issues that he feels makes our students the way they are. The first is Social Reproduction and the second is Cultural Capital. Social Reproduction is the theory that students tend to remain in the same social class into which they are born. This theory can have many effects (both positive and negative) for students depending upon which socio-econmoic class they were born into. McLaren feels that Social Reproduction deals with not only socio-economics, but also social, cultural and linguistic factors as well (90).
Cultural Capital is the theory that a students cultural background, knowledge, disposition and skills are passed on from one generation to another and effects a student's education(93). Obviously, views of these vary and the fact that they are not intended outcomes for students is a problem. McLaren offers a variety of reasons and offers suggestions for educators to end this cycle. Some of his suggestions are as follows:
-Make schooling a process of examination
-Teachers should make learning a process of inquiry and constructing
-Make sure lessons allow students to draw upon their background knowledge to make connections
-Try to understand what makes students' resistant to learning
Basically, no matter what, students are the way they are for whatever reason. It is our job as educators to determine how we can best help them in the classroom and beyond and to choose what form of pedagogy is best suited for all concerned.
I think you've done a good job at outlining McClaren's arguments here, but you also raise good questions about how we can negotiate the ideals of this pedagogical approach with practical application. In my reading of the article, I found that I could best apply the theory by using it as a tool to question my own practice. For example, I found myself asking "What is my 'hidden curriculum'--what kind of values do I reinforce implicitly in my instruction, and are these the 'right' values?" I was also moved to think about what kind of cultural capital I value in my students and how this impacts the way that I treat them. I think that to be a critical pedagogue, these self-reflective questions are essential to reforming our approaches with students.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to add one more reflection here that I think the article could have touched on, as well as where I think some other writings on pedagogy fall short. Though we need to teach students to be critically literate individuals, we also need to teach them to be successful producers of conventionally valued literacies. A good example of this is ACT essay writing. While I want my students to be critical of this writing assessment and be able to examine the issues of power and oppression inherent in standardized testing, I also want them to be really good at writing ACT essays and taking standardized tests. If I only spend class time analyzing why standardized tests are bad and don’t provide them with tools to do well on them, am I really fulfilling my job as an educator? I think it's important that we keep in mind the balance of preparing students to be successful and critical producers/consumers of texts. This is, of course, a very challenging juggling act and not one that I’ve mastered. This balance, however, is perhaps one of the best ways we can empower students.
Very good insight. I too want my students to think critically. I feel this is a high prioity. I do not what them to take everything they hear as fact! But alas, we too need to help them succeed in the standardized world they live in as they continue through thier education.
ReplyDeleteI found McLaren's article a bit disturbing. Yes, we teach our culture. In my classroom, students from other cultures come here at great expense to their parents to learn about our culture. That is not to say that we can't learn from them while they are here. I thrive on learning about other cultures.
The whole idea that we treat boys and girls differently struck me. I even thought about it the next day in my classroom. I seemed to go just the opposite. Give the boys the answers and making the girls think more. I think this steriotype is not as prevelent as it may have been 20 years ago. I think for me it is more, my motherly instinct than my teaching style. I have just a boy and tend to have more compation for the boys,several of whom struggle in my class.
As for "the battle for hegemony that can be seen in the challange by Christian fundamentalists to public scholling" well, I would consider myself a Christian fundamentalist and yes, I think we should be challanging the text books of our public schools. We should teach our children all the theories of origins, not just "The big Bang" Scientifically speaking, Creation by some ultimate power (God) is much more believable than, it just all happened (evolved)that way!
Teaching our students to think critically about their lives, their relationship, their education and their beliefs is all important. The absolute truth of the Bible is something that I want my student to hold onto. It doesn't matter what you hear or read, if it doesn't line up with that absolute truth then we need to rethink it. We must all question the "norm" and see where it fits into what we believe.
I found McLaren's article something I could pattern my teaching after one minute yet, was disturbingly oppossed to the next. Cindy Rogers
I enjoyed reading your analysis of McLaren’s article “Critical Pedagogy”. I agree with your statement that your “main purpose for educating your students is to inspire them to become active and responsible citizens in our society”. As teachers, I think we are able to prepare our students for life after school by creating safe “test” communities within our classrooms. Here, diverse students learn to function together in a supportive environment where they can determine how to make progress and set goals for class conduct and personal improvement. This helps them to navigate through what works and will not work when trying to achieve their goals in the greater community.
ReplyDeleteIn response to, “whether we will ever be in a culture where citizens are equal and hegemony no longer exists?” I think we must prepare students to enter this type of world, but we can strive to give them the means to change this habitual hegemonious thinking. Teaching students to become independent thinkers is the key to breaking current social patterns. Informing students to weigh their options, give consideration to all viewpoints, and embrace the differences they encounter will help them discover the meaning behind the way society operates and other options that could improve their way of living. It is important for educators to encourage students to question why current social structure exists and realize that within this structure exists the opportunity for change. I liked McLaren’s statement, “We do not stand before the social world; we live in the midst of it.” This emphasizes that viewpoints are always changing and with this is the opportunity for individuals and society as a whole to progress and evolve.
I disagree that there is no way out of the current social structure due to social reproduction. I think teachers and students are capable of rising above this pattern, but we must learn and believe that we can break the cycle of hegemony. This emphasizes the reason why teachers must present other options to students. We must not only portray positive social change but must provide an explanation of how the current structure has come to exist and why change is needed. A better understanding and critical analysis of the current structure will empower students and urge them to think and believe that they are capable of change. This reminds me of interview with Carol Dweck, who discussed the benefits of teaching students a “growth mindset”. This means that students are in charge of their own intellectual growth and their resulting change in attitude increased motivation and the willingness to learn. In relation to Critical Pedagogy, student accountability and increased internal locus of control motivates students to view the current social structure as malleable and prepares them to take an active role in transforming the world in which they live.
Overall, I think there is hope for admonishing hegemony within the classroom and throughout greater society. We, as teachers, have the ability to prepare our students for what they may encounter outside of the classroom as we become more conscious of the forms of domination and oppression in our social structure. By cultivating students as a group of independent thinkers that question the current system and feel empowered to approach the world from a different point of view, we have already taken the necessary steps to begin to negate hegemony.
References:
McLaren, P. 2003. Critical Pedagogy. In The Critical Pedagogy Reader. NY: Routeledge-Falmer
Trudeau, M. 2007. Student’s View of Intelligence Can Help Grades: An Interview with Carol Dweck, NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7406521
so in response to all of this, I think I want to share a story of something that just happened in my 302 class last week. we too, have been discussing critical literacy in this class-spending a lot more time on the media and it's impact on us...so we talked about Disney in great depth. after we had watched several video clips and a bit from the movie Mickey Mouse Monopoly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byaMd_PNyIY)my students got into a debate about whether or not they felt like they were personally effected by these images (remember-critically evaluating our own lives is the hardest part). several girls could connect with the idea of trying to 'save/change' the beast and had been in relationships like this...one student said that she grew up on Disney-that it in fact gave her her imagination (?) and that there was nothing wrong with her or her relationships. Another student talked about being brought up in a predominately White community-going to a White school (this student is Black), going to Disney 12 times as a child and can now honestly say that throughout most of this student's childhood/adolescence there was always a feeling of wanting to be White. This student wasn't represented on TV, in movies and when Black was 'represented' in school it was through novels like Native Sun. This student talked about forming a protest group and trying to get better literature that represents the 'common' experience of Blacks, rather than that poverty, rape and murder in the school curriculum. The argument the school used was that Richard Wright was considered good literature and a part of the canon, so that is what they would read.
ReplyDeleteI ask you...does this trouble you? it troubled me. these students exercised their critical thinking skills-yet they were squashed by the school...does this give us hope for the critical thinking abilities of students and their ability to make change or does it just tell us that we can't beat the system or really make any change at all?
Native SON-sorry about that
ReplyDelete