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).
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
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).
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).
Friday, April 24, 2009
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).
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).
Thursday, April 16, 2009
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).
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).
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
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).
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).
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Bertolt Brecht on Film & Radio
(2000). Marc Silberman (Trans. Ed.). London, UK: Methuen.
In the introduction, Silberman defines Brecht as an experimenter who was enthusiastic about new technology as a means of achieving alienation effect, 'making the familiar strange'. Silberman, in particular, notes Brecht's attention to radio broadcasting that could transform the listerner from a consumer to a producer through the two-way communicative function of the radio technology.
Observing film's revolutionary role, Brecht writes:
Since film can represent in such an abstract way, it lends itself to confrontations with reality. It can confirm or dispute. It can recall or prophesy. It can assume the role of those spectral phenomena without which for a long time--even at the best times--there were no great dramas. And yet here it plays a really revolutionary role, for as spectre it causes naked reality to appear, the good deity of the revolution. (p. 7).
Brecht, as a dramatist, approaches radio as a place where art can be created and delivered to the mass. Concerning the combination of art and the technology, he writes the following in his unfinished manuscript.
The questions of how art can be utilized for the radio and how the raido can be utilized for art--two very different questions--must at some point be subordinated to the much more important question of how art ahd the radio can be utilized at all. If we are right or are jufged to be in the right, then this auesion will be answered in the following way: art ahd the radio must be put to pedagogical purposes. The possibility of implmenting such a direct pedagogical utilization of art does not seem feasible today because the state has no interest in educating its youth about collectivism. Art must intervene where the defect is to be found. (p. 38)
Reflecting on technological possibilities of the radio, Brecht calls for its re-functionalization, that is, turning the radio from a distribution apparatus to a communications apparatus. Hence, the radio, he asserts, could be the finest possible communications apparatus in public life. With this new technology advance, Within this climate, he maintains, the listener is no longer an isolated entity and becomes a producer in a vast network. Thus, he continues to write, "As for the technology that needs to be developed for all such undertakings, it must work according to the principle that the audience is not only to be instructed but also must instruct" (p.43).
I think that Brecht emphasizes collective knowledge production and dissemination among the mass, or the proletariat, as often he mentions. With the advent of new technology, consumer video and the Internet, we may adapt his argument to the discourses about contemporary issues surounding participatory media production.
In the introduction, Silberman defines Brecht as an experimenter who was enthusiastic about new technology as a means of achieving alienation effect, 'making the familiar strange'. Silberman, in particular, notes Brecht's attention to radio broadcasting that could transform the listerner from a consumer to a producer through the two-way communicative function of the radio technology.
Observing film's revolutionary role, Brecht writes:
Since film can represent in such an abstract way, it lends itself to confrontations with reality. It can confirm or dispute. It can recall or prophesy. It can assume the role of those spectral phenomena without which for a long time--even at the best times--there were no great dramas. And yet here it plays a really revolutionary role, for as spectre it causes naked reality to appear, the good deity of the revolution. (p. 7).
Brecht, as a dramatist, approaches radio as a place where art can be created and delivered to the mass. Concerning the combination of art and the technology, he writes the following in his unfinished manuscript.
The questions of how art can be utilized for the radio and how the raido can be utilized for art--two very different questions--must at some point be subordinated to the much more important question of how art ahd the radio can be utilized at all. If we are right or are jufged to be in the right, then this auesion will be answered in the following way: art ahd the radio must be put to pedagogical purposes. The possibility of implmenting such a direct pedagogical utilization of art does not seem feasible today because the state has no interest in educating its youth about collectivism. Art must intervene where the defect is to be found. (p. 38)
Reflecting on technological possibilities of the radio, Brecht calls for its re-functionalization, that is, turning the radio from a distribution apparatus to a communications apparatus. Hence, the radio, he asserts, could be the finest possible communications apparatus in public life. With this new technology advance, Within this climate, he maintains, the listener is no longer an isolated entity and becomes a producer in a vast network. Thus, he continues to write, "As for the technology that needs to be developed for all such undertakings, it must work according to the principle that the audience is not only to be instructed but also must instruct" (p.43).
I think that Brecht emphasizes collective knowledge production and dissemination among the mass, or the proletariat, as often he mentions. With the advent of new technology, consumer video and the Internet, we may adapt his argument to the discourses about contemporary issues surounding participatory media production.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
