Radical heroes

: Gramsci, Freire and the politics of adult education. Coben, Diana. (1998). New York and London: Garland publishing.

Forward (pp. vii-x, Joe Kincheloe)
Kincheloe stated that radical adult education focus on pedagogical intervention to develop practical forms of resistance to escape constraints of hegemonic power placed in people's lives. From his stance, therefore, adult educators are "facilitators of empowerment" (p. x).

Radical heroes in an age of uncertainty (pp. 3-8)
Criticizing the theoretical weakness of adult education, Coben pointed out as its reasons that the widespread assumption that education has to do with children and young people resulted in a low research profile and even in that research, most focused on political theory; in addition, the education of adults has dealt with practice in a field and thus theory has been placed in a back seat.

Against this background, Coben read Antonio Gramsci and Paulo Freire to theorize adult education in the political context. Specifically, she examines Gramsci's educative concept of politics and Freire's political concept of education liberating the oppressed.

Antonio Gramsci: politics as educative (pp. 9-52)
Coben explored Gramci's educative concept of politics focusing on "hegemony" and "intellectuals". (Then, education)

Although Gramsci was not the first Marxist to use the term hegemony and the precise meaning is contested, Coben agreed that "Gramsci's concept of hegemony is a major contribution to Marxist theory and key to an understanding of his educative conception of politics" (13-14). His concept of hegemony is a way of a state's ruling and comprises the "'spontaneous' consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group" (SPN:12, as cited on the page 15). Important to this concept, Coben noted, is that the state maintains its hegemony by presenting dominant class interests as universal:

It is true that the state is seen as the organ of one particular class, . . . But the development and expansion of the particular group are conceived of, and presented, as being the motor force of a universal expansion, of a development of all the 'national' energies. In other words, the dominant group is coordinated concretely with the general interests of the subordinate groups, . . . (SPN:183)

Coben stressed Gramsci's attention to the state's ethical role in education as a means of maintaining hegemony. Gramsci put it, "Every state is ethical in as much as one of its most important functions is to raise the great mass of the population to a particular cultural and moral level . . ." (SPN: 258).

This particular level of achievement corresponds to the productive force and thus to the interests of the ruling classes, emphasized Coben.[Think about NCLB, the achivement is for what?] For Gramsci, therefore, education interweaves with the maintenance of hegemony. He put:

Every relationship of 'hegemony' is necessarily an educational relationship and occurs not only within a nation, between the various forces that comprise it, but in the entire international and world filed, between complexes of national and continental civilizations (FSPN:157, cited on the page 17)

Putting forward the notion that "all men are intellectuals" (SPN:9) as his theory of the intellectuals, Gramsci pointed out that their intellectual function should be developed through experience and education, noted Coben. Here rejected is the idea that intellectuals are independent of class and social context. Instead, Gramsci conceptualized organic intellectuals as opposed to traditional. Organic intellectuals are rooted in their class and perform an educational role to organize the class hegemony over society, whereas traditional intellectuals are intellectuals of the ruling class. Gramsci stressed that despite the difficulty of producing working-class organic intellectuals, the creation of such intellectuals was key to social revolution.

[Reading this passage, I think of the notion of elite professors OP students mentioned. Here the elites are far from the students' class, yet the instructors are seen as elite intellectuals, which can be categorized as traditional intellectuals according to Gramsci, although the two concepts, traditional and organic, are not mutually exclusive in Gramsci (Quintin, 1980; Coben, as cited on 19.)]

p. 22

Coben sharply pointed out that for Gramsci, the organization of hegemony of a subjugated class was key to opposing the ideological structure of a dominant class. The process of organizing the hegemony suggests Gramsci's idea of adult education. One of the activities that Gramsci empathized for the organization was a forming cultural group through journalism. This cultural group "aims to spread an integral conception of the world through various journalistic activities" (SCW: 430, as cited 23-24). Defining this type of journalism as "integral" one, Gramsci elaborated:

[Integral journalism is] one that seeks not only to satisfy all the needs (of a given category) of its public, but also to create and develop these needs, to arouse its public and progressively enlarge it. (SCW: 408, as cited on 23)

In his term, culture means "thinking well, whatever one thinks, and therefore acting well, whatever one does" (SCW:25). Here, culture means praxis, informed action (Freire, Pedagogy of the oppressed). More clearly, he wrote, "Study and culture for us are none other than the theoretical consciousness of our immediate and supreme goals, and the way in which we will succeed in translating them into action" (FSPN: xxxiii, cited 33).

For Gramsci, education is organizing culture and this organized culture becomes hegemonic. He summarized the tasks of cultural organizations:

"Its task is to offer a forum for a through and popular discussion of the economic and moral problems which life brings or will bring to the attention of the proletariat" (SCW: 23, cited 32)

His criticism on philanthropic institutions for adult education further illuminates his perspective on adult education:

[We need] the detailed work of discussing and investigating problems, work in which everybody participates, to which everybody contributes, in which everybody is both master and disciple" (SCW: 25, cited 34)

This perspective also suggests that the process of education is similar to journalism.

Coben concludes Gramsci's perspective on education:

"The education of adults, broadly conceived in Gramscian terms, is a means through which revolutionary organic intellectuals may be developed and equipped to undertake the crucial, painstaking work of organizing revolutionary hegemony" (p. 50).

//////

FSPN: Further selections from the Prison Notebooks/Antonio Gramsci, edited and translated by D. Boothman. Mineapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press (1995)

SPN: Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. London: Lawrence and Wishart (1971)

SCW: Selections from cultural writings. edited by D. Forgas and G. Nowell Smith, translated by W. Boelhouwer. London: Lawrence and Wishart. 1985

///
Paulo Friere: Education as Political (53-114)

His ideas of adult education are well explored in two articles, "The adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom" and "Cultural action and consicentization" published by Harvard Educational Review (1970) and later as a book titled Cultural Action for Freedom (Harvard University Press, 1970).

Coben noted that for Freire, conscientization is the aim of education and the concepts of praxis and dialogue are its two principles. Freire wrote, "Consicentization represents the development of the awakening of critical awareness" (EPF: 19). He wrote that typically poor people are concerned only with survival and fall prey to magical explanations because they do not understand true causality (EPT). He argued that this tendency is characteristic of people trapped in the "culture of silence", which Coben explains, "unable to discover and articulate their view of the world and therefore unable to act to change it" (p. 73). For Freire, the goal of conscientization is characterized by "the depth in the interpretation of problems; by the substitution of causal principles for magical explanations; by the testing of one's "findings" and by openness to revision..."(EPF:18) In fact, this is what researchers try to do. Thereby, Freire suggested that concientization, the aim of education, should enable individuals to undertake these perspectives of doing research in their everyday life. For Freire, in other words, the conscientization is the process of interrogation and dialogical forms of life (EPF:18, as cited 75).

Limitations of Freire's concept of oppression, in particular, from the feminist perspective, Coben argued:

"Lacking an understanding of power, his model of oppression is just too simple and indiscriminate to accommodate the multifaceted and contradictory nature of differential power relationships in terms of gender, class or any other social category" (p. 97)

Coben takes a critical stance on Frerie's pedagogical process, criticizing the divisional pedagogical relationship: "the learner is constructed at the outset as passive, silent, ignorant, unaware, inexperienced, possibly fearful but acquiescent. By contrast, from the outset the educator is active, in control, free, aware, experienced, wise, fearless and self-sacrificing" (112-113). Further, Coben described this relationship as a sexualized one, the educator cast as the male lover and the learner as the female virginal beloved. This interpretation led her to the following conclusion of the concept of conscientization:

"This feminization and, to an extent, also, infantilization of the learner is the nub of the inequality at the heart of the Freirian pedagogical relationship. Conscientization, which Freire conceives as an act of love, is revealed as at best a consensual but unequal coupling, at worst an invasion, a rape" (p. 113). [ I would argue that participatory research should overcome this dichotomy by achieving mutual goals through research. Researchers/Facilitators are not an educator. This situation can lead to another form, more liberating, less assumptive, of adult education.]

Criticizing his universalist concept of oppression devoid of consistent class analysis as well as patriarchal leardership for revolution, Coben raised an essential question: "It is not enough to say that political leaders, or educators, must commit class suicide and devote their lives to the people. Without a clear political framework such action is a sacrifice, but to what end?" (p. 113)

///
EPF: Education: the practice of freedom, Writers and Readers, 1976.
CAF: Cultural action for freedom, Penguin, 1972.
///

Gramsci and Freire: apologias, critiques and interpretations (pp. 148-202)

I also would argue whether the literacy program that Freire advocated systematically leads to conscientization, self-reflection and criticality. Brian Street (CHECK OUT Literacy Theory and Practices (1984) Cambridge University Press.) Criticizing the "great divide" between literacy and illiteracy, he argued that self-reflection and critical thought were seen in nonliterate societies, undermining Freire's assmuption of literacy as a ground base for critical enlightenment (cited p 154).

Quoting Kidd and Kumar (1981) and Kidd and Byram (1982), Coben cautioned pseudo-Freirian adult education, which substitutes a concern with poverty with a liberatory concern with oppression, which corresponds to the argument that M.D. James (1990, Demystifying literacy: reading, writing, and the struggle for liberation, Convergence, 23(1), 14-26) made.

Coben noted the link between participatory research and adult education, quoting Ted Jackson (1981, Convergence, The influence of Gramsci on Adult Eduction, Convergence, 14(3), 81-6). Here, tracing participatory research around the world, he interpreted participatory research as an attempt to apply Gramsci's work to the field of adult education.

Coben read Peter Mayo's (1994, Synthesizing Gramsci and Freire: possibilities for a theory of radical adult education, Int'l journal of lifelong education, 13(2), 125-48) analysis of Gramsci and Freire as a foundation for a radical theory of adult education.

Again, Coben took on critical stance on Freire, arguing:

Freire's vision of the oppressed as humanized (civilized? redeemed?) through a process of conscinetization initiated and controlled by a born again leader/educator, motivated by love, may be inspirational for those who identify with the educator/leader/lover, but what of the other, the oppressed, who has not sought--any may not want--the educator's love or leadership?

Gramsci and Freire: Radical Heroes? (203-223)
Finally, Coben asked whether we need heros for adult education for social change and urged us to go beyond "hero worship" (p. 222) toward a politics of adult education engaging with purpose, process and content within the context of social change. In this light, she suggests that raising intellectuals "to practice their capacity for self-reflection" (p. 222) is a more sound purpose of educational activity in contrast with revolutionary commitment.

Roger Kimball

Ian Buruma and multiculturalism (April 29, 2007)
Arma Virumque, web blog of New Criterion.

Roger Kimball writes, "multiculturalism [is] university-nurtured version of cultural relativism that has now firmly ensconced itself wherever politically correct college-educated elites congregate, which is to say just about everywhere." He detests multiculturalism. Connecting to multiculturalism, he maintains a pejorative perspective on PC.

Introduction: What was a liberal education?
New Criterion; May2008, Vol. 26 Issue 9, p4-8, 5p

He moans the demise of liberal education, writing:

"Indeed, until at least the early 1960s there was robust agreement about the intellectual and moral goals of a liberal arts education even if those goals seemed difficult to achieve. There was, for example, a shared commitment to the ideal of disinterested scholarship devoted to the preservation and transmission of knowledge—which meant the preservation and transmission of
a civilization—pursued in a community free from ideological intimidation." (p. 4)

"[In the 1970s and 1980s] despite the rise of alternative voices here and there, those dominating the discussion at most institutions are committed to discrediting the traditional humanistic ideals of liberal education by injecting politics into the heart of the educational enterprise."(p. 5)

He finds the root of the demise in multiculturalism and PC. He criticizes:

"what generally travels under the name of "multiculturalism" is really a form of monocultural animus directed against the dominant culture...[Multiculturalists] encourage an orgy of self-flagellating liberal guilt as impotent as it is insatiable. Hence the sensitivity of the multiculturalist is an index not of moral refinement but of moral vacuousness. Multiculturalism is a paralyzing intoxicant; its thrill centers around the emotion of superior virtue; its hangover
subsists on a diet of ignorance and blighted good intentions...The most ironic aspect of this whole spectacle is that what appears to its adherents as bravely anti-Western is in fact part of tlie West's long tradition of self-scrutiny...No civilization in history has been as consistently self-critical as the West." (p. 5)

To Kimball, multiculturalists are enemies of Western civilization and values of American identity grounded in individual liberty and public virtue and these traditional values are "deeply at odds with the radical, de-civilizing tenets of the "multiculturalist" enterprise of political correctness." (p. 5)

He denounces PC resulted in students' poor acquisition of American history while promoting intellectual conformity and sentimentality. He criticizes academics' "self-infatuating embrace of political correctness" for the quintessential Western ideas under attack. He calls attention to:

"Respect for rationality and the rights of the individual; a commitment to the ideals of disinterested criticism and color-blind justice; advancement according to merit, not
according to sex, race, or ethnic origin."

Individual rights, blind justice and meritocracy are highlighted here. Politicization of campus is his ever concern, saying, "it is this failure—the colonization of intellectual life by politics—that stands behind and fuels the degradation of liberal education. (p. 8)

Institutionalizing our demise: America vs. Multiculturalism
New Criterion; Jun2004, Vol. 22 Issue 10, p5-16, 12p

He denounces, "Multiculturalism is a moral intoxicant" (p. 7) in that it threatens Western civilization and national identity; what's more, it fosters social and intellectual consequences beyond an academic phenomenon. He writes:

"One consequence has been a sharp rise in the phenomenon of immigration without--or with only partial--assimilation: a dangerous demographic trend that threatens American identity in the most basic way. These various agents of dissolution are also elements in a wider culture war: the contest to define who we live and what counts as the good in the good life." (p. 8)

Affirmative action is an irony and reverse discrimination from his perspective. He writes, "Multiculturalism and 'affirmative action' are allies in the assault on the institutions of America identity" (p. 10)

He refuses the notion that America is a nation of immigrants, insisting on a country of setters [sic]. He maintains that predominantly Anglo-Protestant settlers defines American culture, founding a state and making possible immigration later on. [In his view, there is no native American before the settlers.] In his view, immigrants became American "by embracing the Anglophone culture of the original settlers" (p. 10)

He asserts that immigration, characterized with Americanization or assimilation to the original culture, became a dangerous matter since the 1960s with the massive immigration from Asia, Latin America and Muslim countries. He criticizes that a great number of immigrants do not make concerted efforts, thus leading to disastrous and potentially irreversible impact on American identity. He rebukes multiculturalism for abetting such phenomenon at school. Thus, he continues to denounce multiculturalism, saying, "The combined effect of the multicultural enterprise has been to undermine the foundation of American national identity" (p. 12)

19 Urban Questions: Teaching in the City

S. Steinberg & J. Kincheloe. (Eds.). (2004). NY: Peter Lang.

Kincheloe, J. Why a Book on Urban Education? (pp. 1-27).

Kincheloe theorizes urban education, a neglected subject in reality but an overwhelming topic in hyperreality. He states that many Americans from suburban and rural areas know about urban youth and ethnic groups more through media than from real contact. He argues that a sociocultural chasm between pre-serivce teachers and their students produced through media even entails real obstacles to urban students' success in schools. Nevertheless research about urban educaiton is often done through its media representation. Henke argues that this frivolous form of study contributes little to the study of teaching and learning. (cited on p.4). Here are the unique features of urban education defined by Kincheloe:

- operates in areas with high population density.
- have more students.
- funtions in areas marked by profound economic disparity.
- have a higher rate of ethinic, racial, and religious diversity.
- less likely to have policy-level discussion over student success,etc.
- more likely to have health problems.
- have higher student/teacher mobility.
- higher immigrant populations.
- linguistic diversity.
- transportaion problems.
- teachers who don't belong to the community.

It seems not so common that urban students are described as dangerous criminals or savage animals. In emphasizing teacher education in urban context, Kincheloe stresses, "urban teacher education must work to help teachers avoid the prejudiced view of poor urabn students as dangerous criminals incapable of learning or, at the other extreme, as communicants who may be reformed bu the gospel of white culture as pedagogy" (p. 12).

S. Steinberg. What didn't We Ask? Keepin' It Real. (p. 281-286).

"Part of understanding urban schools is to keep it real; the only way to enlighten and empower ourselves and our students is to tell it like it is, analyze it; understand how power works to maintain conditions--and then change it" (p.284).

"Urban life is not gentle, yet it is not always rough. It is not spacious, yet it is not necessarily cramped; it is energetic, yet it can be lazy" (p. 282).

A Pedagogy For Liberbation

Shor, Ira & Freire, Paulo. (1987). New York: Bergin & Garvey.

In their dialogue about liberating educators, Freire says, "To the extent I could prove to them that they could learn, when I challenged them, they felt more free" (p. 27). This means liberating educators are more demanding. This statement resonates with his perspective about learning: "Knowing demands discipline! Knowing which demands many things from you, which makes you tired in spite of being happy. It is not something which just happens" (p. 80). He demands intellectual responsibility from truly liberating teachers.

To Freire, liberating education requires transformation. He says, "[E]ducation per sé is not the lever of revolutionary transformation. The school system was created by political forces whose center of power is at a istance from the classroom. If education is not the lever of transformation, how can we understand liberating education? ... Liberatory education is fundamentally a situation where the teacher and the students both have to be learners, both have to be cognitive subjects, in spite of being different. This for me is the first test of liberating education, for teachers and students both to be critical agents in the act of learning" (p. 33).

Freire states that dialogical/democratic relationship between the educator and students do not make them equal. There is and should be difference. The central question for him is that whether the difference become 'antagonistic', which entails an authoritarian educator. At the same time, he stresses that students need to know their freedom that goes beyond the limits of democratic authority must be punished and the punishment has to be made by authority (p. 92-93). To him, democracy, freedom and authority are one entity.

Shor regards the 'culture of silence' as passive tolerance of domination, which has a aggressive dimension. He argues that aggression is inevitable because passivity is not a natural condition of childhood or adulthood and it is a response to symbolic violence imposed by the school through curriculum, punishments, manipulation, subordination, etc. He contends that this symbolic violence causes the culture of sabotage, which he calls 'performance strike', as a negative resistance, or falling into deeper silences. Aggressive students create disorder and alienate themselves from the school environment. Thus Shor calls for a counter-alienation pedagogy on the side of student subjectivity (pp. 123-125).

Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction

Bourdieu, Pierre. (1977). In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and Ideology in Education. pp. 487-511. New York: Oxford University Press. (Originally from Knowledge, Education and Cultural Change, R. Brown(Ed.), London: Tavistock, 1973)

Bourdieu reveals that the level of education plays the major role in cultural consumption, "legitimate" activities. He emphasizes, however, that the education can reach the full effectiveness among individuals who bring acquired culture and familiarity with the appreciation of art by their family upbringing. In short, the education system proportions academic success to the cultural capital. He further argues that the education system reinforce the initial inequality and contribute to reproduction of unequally distributed cultural capital among classes because it tends to transmit dominant culture, thus forming the monopoly of that culture. This[symbolic violence*] results in self-elimination of children from culturally unfavored classes in the form of self-depreciation, devaluation of the school, or a resigned attitude to failure and exclusion.

In terms of legitimizing the reproduction process, Bourdieu writes, "[B]y converting social hierarchies into academic hierarchies, the education system fulfills a function of legitimation which is more and more necessary to the perpetuation of the "social order" as the evolution of the power relationship between classes tends more completely to exclude the imposition of a hierarchy based upon the crude and ruthless affirmation of the power relationship" (p.498).

In his analysis about the relations between economic capital and cultural capital, he writes those who have less economic capital among the dominant classes invest more in education of their children so that they can at least maintain their social classes. His analysis about meritocratic ideology is sharp. He writes,

"the value of the diploma, outside the specifically academic market, depends on the economic and social values of the person who possesses it, inasmuch as the yield of academic capital (which is converted form of cultural capital) depends upon the economic and social capital which can be put to its valorization" (p. 506).

Thus, "the diploma is all the more indispensable for those from families less favoured in economic and social capital," however, "the possession of a diploma, as prestigious as it may be, is in any case less and less capable of guaranteeing access to the highest positions and is never sufficient to guarantee in itself access to economic power" (p. 507).

* The term of symbolic violence doesn't appear in this article. See in Bourdieu and Passeron, Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture (1977).

Hollywood's Depiciton of Urban Schools: Documentary or Fiction?

Amanda M. Rudolph. (2006). In J. Kincheloe et al. (Eds.), The Praeger handbook of urban education Vol. 2. (pp. 421-429). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

The author emphasizes the importance of demystification of urban schools represented in Hollywood movies because this representation influences our perception of the schools strongly, thus affecting policies and regulations. In this article, she reviews three movies, Lean on Me, Dangerous Minds, and 187 in terms of demographic representation and Hollywood influences in the films.

First, the representations of ethnicity, poverty level, facilities and violence level are not correct, she argues.

"According to the U.S. Department of Education, minorities may comprise the majority of the student population in some larger schools. By no means are all large schools solely composed of Hispanic and black students. as Hollywood films may lead the audience to believe. " (p.425)

"Up to one-fourth of a school population could be poor based on the statistics, but in the films of Hollywood the majoirty of the students are depicted as living in poverty."(p.425)

"The representation that schools are forced to use portable building may be accurate, but it is not a problem exclusive to urban schools" (p. 425).

"The percentages of schools reporting less serious or nonviolent crimes were higher for the urban fringe and town schools than for the central city schools" (p.425).

Second, Rudolph analyzes 'the heroic individual teacher' and 'the domineering bureaucratic administraion' as Hollywood contributions to perpetuate the sterotype of urban schools. Bulman argues that this lone figure escapes the bureaucracy, speak directly to the hearts of the troubled youth and transforms them into studious and sincere students with middle-class aspirations; furthermore, these teachers succeed without training, any partnership or other necessary resources (cited on p.426). Rudolph underpins Bulman's argument by writing that problematic is that Hollywood signals only an untrained educator can make changes at school. With regard to uncaring bureaucracy, Rudolph asserts that Hollywood continues to emphasize the disconcertment between the faculty and administration to better urban education.

As for implications of these films for the general public, Rudolph argues that the urban school movie helps to maintain the sterotypes of minority groups and the urban school. Bulman contends that by simplyfing the phenomena of urban schools, Hollywood reflects middle-class anxiety about the problems of inner-city schools; simulataneously, implys that the problems can be solved through individual moral conversion of poor students, not involved with political commitment. (cited p.427).

Education and The Politics of Difference

Canadian Perspective. Ghosh, R., & Abdi, A. (2004). Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.

Introduction (pp. 1-12)

The authors states that equality is necessary but not sufficient in education and it should aim for empowerment of students. Giroux (1992, p. 11) refers to empowerment in education as "the ability to think and act critically" (cited on p. 3). The authors criticize the prevailing paradigm of education that claims to provide equal opportunity but not means for the attainment either in practice or through the curriculum. In particular, denouncing assimilation, the dominant educational policy of assimilation in North America, they call for a radical paradigm shift to multiculturalism, where differences are respected. They write, "To minimize those differences is to ensure the continuation of the status quo" (p. 6).

*Giroux, H. (1992). Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Redefining Multicultural Education

Ghosh, Ratna. (2002). (2nd Ed.). Scarborough, ON: Nelson Thomson Learning.

1. Multicultural Education (pp. 1-22)

Ghosh criticizes the liberal perspective of multicultural education in that it attempts to accommodate other ethnocultural groups within a dominant educational framework of a monocultural pedagogy. In lieu of ethnic cultures she stresses multicultural education should emphasize the politics of difference such that difference is considered a right, views and experiences of all students both dominant and minority are incorporated in class, and differential treatment of students with dissimilar experiences. Besides, Ghosh puts an emphasis on identity development as a critical element of multicultural education. The teacher's role is, she asserts, to create unity within the diversity by helping stuents interpret their multiple social relations that contribute their identity construction. By unity within diversity she means "to integrate a positive ethnic and gender identity at the individual level with a national Canadian identity" (p.8) and states that the success of multiculturalism depends on this ability. [Why identity construction is a critical part of multiculturalism and why towards a Canadian identification?]

Ghosh states that multicultural education also challenges objective universal knowledge and thus curricula, i.e. how are students with different backgrounds affected by the dominant curriculum? How can those students become active participants in learning process?

Radical theories focus on structural discrimination that originates from the view of homogeneous student population. Based on these theories, Ghosh stresses that class is the first factor of student's failure and seconds the argument that education reinforces class differences (p. 13, Berstein, 77; Bourdieu & Passeron, 77; Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Besides she notes that the structure and process of education classify students, thus dumping a large number of students into special-education classes or dropping out of school. The problem is not individuals but the school system to which many do not fit, she argues. Therefore she underlines that the goal of multicultural education at the institutional level is to provide an equal chance to all students to develop their full potential by offering different needs to different students.

3. A Framework for a Redefined Multicultural Education (p. 39-67)

"Besides being an act of knowing, education is alos a political act. That is why no pedagogy is neutral" (Shor & Freire, 1987, p. 13; as cited on p. 40).

Bourdieu (1979, Symbolic Power, Critique of Anthropology, 4, 77-85) refers the maintenance of dominant-group power both in school and in society as symbolic violence (as cited on p. 57). Ghosh argues that traditional pedagogy techniques and content make minority students feel unworthy and "culturally deprived" and lose selt-esteem. Noting an important role that schools play in constructing self-esteem, Ghosh proposes involvement of parents in school activities as a good way of developing positive self-concept. (p.57).

*Shor, I. & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

4. The School Environment (pp. 69-86)

Ghosh continues to criticize the exclusion of parents of ethnic/racial minority and working-class students from the educational environment. It is, Ghosh argues, because of "culturally embedded perceptions of and communication difficulties with school administration and teachers" (p. 74). Ghosh stresses that this communication gap, which is reiterated elsewhere in the book as an important issue in anti-racist education, should be bridged such that parents and school share a shared responsibility for education, for example, by seeking cultural and linguistic translators and the assistance from community leaders.

With regard to school discipline, Ghosh contests that the symbolic violence (Bourdieu & Passeron, 77) that results from a school environment of rules, test and punishment based on manipulation and subordination causes a "performance strike" (Shor & Freire, 1987, p. 127), and writes, "this takes the form of passivitiy and rebellion: refusing to perform and do homework, using bad labguages, missing classes, dropping our literally or figuratively (passivity), using drugs and alchol, and engaging in crime. Passivity is not a natural condition of childhood; it is proviked, and can produce aggression" (p. 79).

*Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J.C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.

5. Teacher Education and Classroom Interactions (pp. 87-109)

Ghosh contests that pre-service teacher education in North America is far behind changing society in the multicultural environment, thus leaving most of multicultural education to individual teachers' ad hoc initiatives due to their situation or their own moral imperatives. Among several factors that influence this reluctance to change, Ghosh writes teacher themselves have tended to avoid discussing politically controvertial issues, which resulted in taking nonracist/nonsexist approach rather than anti-racist/anti-sexist strategy, and "neutralize inequality and mask unequal power relations" (p. 90).

Ghosh continues to argue that teachers who believe in transformative education dare not "rock the boat" for fear of losing their jobs and stresses that the system has little incentive for teacher to undertake changes (p. 92).

"Students come in as curious individuals. The manner in which traditional education tends to subdue and silence children is well documented" (Holt, 1982; Kozol, 1991; cited on pp. 102-103).

*Holt, J.C. (1982). How children fail. NY: Delta/Seymour Lawrence.
*Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequlaities: Children in American Schools. NY: Crown Publications.

6. Teaching Strategies and Evaluation (pp. 111-125)

With regard to a neutral approach taken by teachers with concern of indoctrination, Ghosh stresses that teachers must address the fundamental values of justice, fairness and respect. Taking a neutral approach, in other words, avoiding discussion of racism and sexism, under the guise of avoiding indoctrination, she argues, is harmful and evasive becasue neither school nor society is neutral. She writes, "A 'neutral' approach is a stance that serves to perpetuate inequality. While the teacher must protect divergent views, teaching is designed to bring about certain outcomes. Tacism and sexism are wrong; to say so is not indoctrination" (p. 121).

Public Education and Multicultural Policy In Canada: The Special Case of Quebec

Ghosh, Ratna. (2004). International Review of Education, 50 (5-6), 543-566.

[Through a historical and comprehensive review of the multicultural policies in Québec, Ghosh critically examines the policies reflected on education.]

In her criticism of rising voucher-like system in certain provinces, she contests that the provincial governments help private schools by subsidizing the cost of their tuition. Explosive immigration had a great impact on the government policy entitled "Bilingualism within a Multicultural Framework" in 1971. As to bilingualism, Ghosh criticizes that the Official Languages Act, which acknowledged French and English as the two official languages at the federal level in 1969 as an honor of of the "founding nations", totally ignored Canada's Natives. Multiculturalism, which was federally legislated in 1988, is rephrased by the author, "consensus within the rhetoric of a 'just' society where there is to be 'unity within diversity'. By reviewing four stages of the objects of multiculturalism, Ghosh pays attention on its interpretation from the recognition of diversity to the promotion of equitable participation of all Canadians after the Multiculturalism Act of 1988.

Ghosh, however, maintains multicultural practice in education has been negligible in Quebec such that the province has historically sustained the assimilation and the exclusion of the 'other' as a policy. Since 1974 when French became the official language of Quebec, the government's effort to safeguard French brought about intercultural education policy. Interculturalism, Ghosh explains, 'a Quebec that will be pluralistic in outlook, but Francophonic through its reliance on the medium of the French language.' In this pluralistic society, Ghosh states, "Fear of racial tensions and happenings is the least of their apprehensions. The real danger is perceived to be the threat posed to the French culture by the multiplicity and vigor of other cultural groups" (p. 559).

In her conclusion, she states that despite three decades of multicultural policy, discrimination against visible minorities, in particular, immigrant youth, still exists both at personal and at structural levels and racism is on the increase, thus multicultural education has failed.

Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste

Pierre Bourdieu. (1984). Richard Nice (Tr.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

5. The Sense of Distinction (pp. 260-317)
Bourdieu examines patterns of consumption shown in life-styles which are largely composed of distribution of economic/cultural/educational capital. He contrasts intellectuals who enjoy 'cultural profit' from work itself for minimum economic cost with dominant class's conspicuous consumption as seen in a 'night-out' for instance. He compares teachers' and professionals' aesthetic choices, which reflects their cultural capital, which is reinforced by economic capital. Their social perspectives stemming from the disparity between cultural and econmic capitals are explained as following: "The disparity between economic capital and cultural capital, or, more precisely, the educational capital which is its certified form, is undoubtedly one of the foundations of their propensity to contest a social order which does not fully recognize their merits because it recognized other principles of classification than those of the educational system which has classified them...In contrast, for those who, like the professionals, live on the sale of cultural services to a clientele, the accumulation of economic capital merges with the accumulation of symbolic capital, that is, with the acquisition of a reputation for competence and an image of respectability and honourablility that are easily converted into political positions as local or national notable." According to Bourdieu, intellectuals and artists have a particular interest in disinterestedness and universal and highest values, and thus make a virtue of necessity of their activities in order to discredit the activities of the dominant class.[What does this mean?]

Democracy and Education

John Dewey. (1916; 1966). Toronto: Collier-Macmillan Canada.

The Democratic Conception in Education (81-99)

In his view of intelligence, Dewey expresses that intelligence lack of social/human factors is narrowed down only to factors concerning technical production and marketing goods to the extent that emotional life is distorted. He emphasizes enlarged physical environment and social contacts for tolerant mental life, and asserts that frequent travels and commercial tendencies contributed to the broaden contacts, thus alleviating tensions among people. [But this last view is very naive because those travels and economic flows do not necessarily bring people closer in reality. Most of all, he does not identify what he means by the closeness. He is lack of economic and political connotations in the smaller world.]

By democracy he means a "mode of associative living and of conjoint communicated experience," and writes as its characteristics increasing shared concerns and the liberation of personal capacities. As the purpose of education he writes,"a freeing of individual capacity in a progressive growth directed to social aims." [As he indicates, a common pitfall throughout the history is that social aims and its direction are hardly defined and so does his case.]

He reviews educational philosophy in three different epochs: (1) Plato believed the great truth and the society reflecting it should be stable, which is achieved by arranging individuals' roles based on what they are good for. Thus, discovering the personal aptitude and training it is the purpose of education. Dewey's criticism of Plato includes that Plato categorized individuals into three classes and did not recognize individual uniqueness. [Dewey's perspective of education is very individualistic without paying much attention to what each bring into educational environment, thus, very idealistic.] (2) With the significant studies in Nature, the eighteenth century Enlightment influenced education philosophy, namely by Rousseau. Its emphasis was given to development of individualism. Dewey, however, sees that its chief interest was in social progress toward a freer society with two distinctive aspects--cosmopolitanism and humanity. Thus in this view, individual emancipation was the agent of a progressive society, Dewey denotes. Dewey's criticism comes from the way of conducting education, which followed the natural environment--in other words, education means filling individual mind with something good and true just like seen in Nature.[This perspective is clearly shown in Emile by Rousseau.] (3) Under the German influence in the 19th century state-run public school system and nationalism spread out and the purpose of education in this paradigm was to form the citizen who can serve for the state interests and social efficiency, thus the idea of individual development receded and disciplinary training became far the most important aim of education. Even it was said that the attainment of true personality is obtained through institutions organized by the state.

Dewey poses the question of how to conduct education that preserves humanity and he answers that it should be done by the efforts of enlightened men in their private capacity. [While he criticizes Plato for his aristocratic perspective that a smart ruler will know the orderly rules and law, his idealistic individualism does not go beyond. He thinks we should rely on those few. Isn't there any systematic way of approaching the problem?]


Experience and Thinking (139-151)
Emphasizing experience, Dewey argues that even a humble experience has possibility to generate any amount of theory, but theory without an experience cannot be established. Thinking and reflection are the agent that connects experience to theory as we do not really know unless bringing certain things in relation to something else.

Thinking in Education (152-163)
For Dewey, "thinking is the method of intelligent learning" and it requires an experience. The problem in school setting is that this out-of-school ordinary experience is not reflected in pupils' learning, thus mind and activities are divorced and learning is isolated from the rest of social engagement. This separation hinders the process of thinking and creativity, which lies in putting familiar materials in an unusual context. "Only silly folk identify creative originality with the extraordinary and fanciful, " said Dewey. Therefore, his emphasis on interconnection between real life experience and school lessons becomes an core idea of curriculum development to the extent that real life materials such as 'shops' and 'gardens' integrated into class will provide opportunities for acquiring information and knowledge while carrying on progressive experience. [Although his emphasis on real life experience is agreeable in general, bringing in a model of society poses a problem because of his neglect of diversity of individual pupils' lived experience based on their cultural/social/economic/political background. Remodeling a society is not transparent as he insinuates because individuals live in different contexts. In addition, it is my ever-lasting rejection to Dewey is why we don't allow pupils to bring their own experience to class and/or dream a new society, which is totally different from the current one, for a moment.]

Intellectual and Practical Studies (262-276)

The Individual and the World (291-305)
Individualism is a modern concept. While in both Greek and medieval periods, individuals were regarded only as a channel through which a universal or divine intelligence or "reason" operated, a latent individualism smeared as a religious individualism--the salvation of individual soul-- in the medieval period, thus knowledge itself is something built up within the individual through his acts and mental states. This aspect gave birth to the 'practical individualism' that knowledge is obtained through personal experience. It, however, originates from the notion that mind is isolated from the world, which is left to be discovered, and spurred philosophic subjectivism. Dewey argues that men strive for freedom in nature and society and initiate changes in the world instead of isolating themselves from the nature. Thus self, mind and knowledge constitute a unity achieved through interactions: "The self achieves mind in the degree in which knowledge of things is incarnate in the life about him; the self is not a separate mind building up knowledge anew on its own account."

Dewey maintains that every new idea different from the custom must originate from an individual, however, sprouting it is suppressed in society because of its tendency of continuity and stability. In this light, the notion of intellectual individualism guides us further as a moral and social individualism. While intellectual activities of the individual are agencies of social progress, conformity is that of social conservation. Then, the question arises: how egoistic consciousness is related to the public world? Dewey introduces three philosophic branches with regard to this question: (1) French rationalism, which emphasizes general and impersonal forms, argues that activities will be externally consistent and thus always reach a uniformity through argument and persuasion. (2) English thought is centered on individual own pleasure and pains. The main idea of this thought is that in order to maximize the pleasure, each should be considerate of others' circumstances as well and thus a harmony is achieved. (3) German philosophy lies in between in that individuals become rational only if they absorbs the rationality of the universe and social institution. Often called absolute or objective idealism, it is termed as institutional idealism by Dewey. He evaluates that while this idealism overcame isolated individualism fallen in France and England and served to arouse state-wide public education, it tended to reinstate the principle of authority and thus left political democracy foreign.

In stating educational implication of these philosophies, Dewey emphasizes learner's perspective: originality springs from unforced response of student's own individuality, which leads to their own discovery and allows them to obtain new points of view and intellectual companionship. Intellectual servility and subjection will only serve the purpose of authority, Dewey argues. His perspective of education and democracy is unfolded as following: "A progressive society counts individual variations as precious since it finds in them the means of its own growth. Hence a democratic society must, in consistency with its ideal, allow for intellectual freedom and the play of diverse gifts and interests in its educational measures."

Vocational Aspect of Education (pp. 306-320)
By vocation Dewey means a direction of life activities in relation to others and social accomplishment that individuals play in various roles. Criticizing Plato's idea of the purpose of education, which is to discover what each person is good for and train them to master that area for social harmony, Dewey argues that he not only limits the scope of vocation but also ignores infinite capabilities that individual may possess. As seen in his note that "the vocation acts as both magnet to attract and as glue to hold," he regards vocation from a very macroscopic view to the extent to realize well-rounded personality in society. From this stand, he also writes, "the dominant vocation of all human beings at all times is living--intellectual and moral growth," thus denotes that restricting education for future occupation not only injures present development but also hinders exploring proper future right employment. In relation to the current industrial society, he asserts that increasing 'conspicuous' industrial process has brought social importance and brought to light questions of school learning to industrial life and demanded trade education. This tendency is twofold: it maintains higher education as a threshold for social status and prestige to a certain class while for the rest it turns occupation to only means for surviving, thus making education become an instrument to perpetuate the existing industrial social order--in his word, "to accomplish the feudal dogma of social predestination." Nevertheless, his pragmatic/progressive perspective is preserved in his purpose of vocational education and the way to achieve the goals: as education lies in the process of constructing a gradual transition from school materials to real life, vocational education, under the conspicuous industrial society, should integrate scientific factors that the society offers into curriculum to develop intelligence and make it more practical. [He admits that this process is not easy and emphasize the preparation to vocation should be indirect, but does not explicitly explain how to use the industrial context in such a peculiar way. Materials borrowed in class brings not only itself but also the context it is created. Without carefully conceived criticality in the adaptation, it is not an easy task.]