Foucault and Me: Discipline in Education
In Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison, Foucault’s discusses that in the 18th century execution was a political operation. This demonstrates an example of how discipline is rooted in control and power over individuals and groups. Although Foucault uses an 18th century example of execution to show this, there are many examples of how disciple in education is rooted in politics in the way it engages power to force people to assimilate and gate keep. This is important for me because Foucault’s use of discipline can be very helpful in my research. Through research I would like to explore how schooling is used to discipline social actors. In the paper I will attempt to make connections to Foucault’s examples of discipline and the politics of education.
During the time of his writing, Foucault talks about how discipline also had a function of reducing gaps. One example is the use of discipline to marginalize and reduce gaps in cultural differences through schooling. This can be noted in the early history of the United States in the ways that rapid immigration created cultural conflict and cultural stress in schools (Collins, n.d.). Hence, the schools became a site for cultural hegemony (Collins, n.d.). Although there has been a push for multiculturalism and intercultural teaching and learning, there are still tensions in schools around culture.
I would argue that multiculturalism and intercultural competence in schools is almost nonexistent. Due to most schools inability to do this, cultural conflict escalates creating the need for more discipline. Gloria Ladson-Billings, in a talk at the University of Minnesota on November 7, 2008, proclaimed that schools focus more on discipline than on teaching. This focus on discipline is between dominate and target cultures in conflict stemming from resistance to cultural assimilation and a history of oppressive colonization.
An example of Foucault’s notion in education is between African American and Native American communities in relation to Eurocentric schooling. When examining the trends of this society, this kind of power is exercised in a systemic way to force the target culture to assimilate. A Native American example is boarding schools. These schools were systemically created to punish Native American children if they did not take up Eurocentric culture (i.e. cut hair). This acculturation can been see in other examples such as examples include young people wearing their pants lower on their waist (“sagging”) than what is articulated to be acceptable by the dominate culture. These young people tend to be stereotyped and/or forced to conform especially in schools.
There are several other examples of the use of power for gap reduction in schools. These power plays include adults showing power over students through discipline. When a student does something that is not cohesive with the culture of the school penalties can range from what Foucault calls micro-penalties to more severe penalties. In the schools that I have worked in examples of micro-penalties would include instances such as requiring students to line up and silent in hallways or students arriving to class on time. The purpose of these micro-penalties in school is to control behaviors and ways of being. These penalties are punished to different degrees and are ways to control people and maintain the systems status quo. These systems included the status quo of my particular school to the larger society.
An example of a sever penalty includes paddling (corporal punishment). My personal experience with paddling is very intimate because I was paddled when I was in 7th grade. The reason was that I stopped attending classes (also known as skipping). When I was discovered by school personnel, I was made to go to the office. The consequence of skipping was two smacks (also known as licks). The principal made me put my hands on the edge of her table and administered the punishment. I remember it was not very painful, but very effective at that time. It was not the actual paddling itself that was effective but it was that immediately after my punishment (I think I may still have been in the office) my mother consequentially showed up at the school to pick me up early. She never found out about what happened until I confessed many years later (as an adult). I did not skip again at that school (I started skipping at other schools instead).
Another example of discipline to reduce gaps in schools is the practice of teacher evaluations. Teachers are evaluated a certain amount of times every year or every few years depending on if they are tenured or not. These evaluations are usually developed by the school district and administered by the principal. The principal is directly exhibiting power and professionally disciplining teachers by using his/her professional filters to evaluate a teacher on external criteria. Principals will also professionally discipline by going into teachers’ classrooms unannounced. Although in many Minnesota districts, they cannot formally evaluate you when they go into a room unscheduled, but are exhibiting their authority by shear presence as a way to discipline teachers to conform to a standard.
In addition to preK-12 schools, discipline is also manifested in post-secondary institutions’ doctoral examinations. As Foucault writes about how examinations serve a socializing normalization function. One example of how examination normalizes in education is the dissertation exam. This ritual is a gate keeping mechanism to examine if an individual has been normalized to traditional academic standards. It gives a person permission to “join us”, “you are now one of our colleagues”, or “you can be called a doctor now just like us”. Wasley gives an example of how this form of discipline through examination for some students can be very stressful and causing some students to take as long as ten years to complete their degree. Due a rethinking of educational practices, Wasley illuminates how some examinations have given way to alternative forms of assessments (discipline) such as portfolio. Regardless how a universities grant permission to “join the doctor club” and pass the examination gate, it is still a form of the type of normalization Foucault reminds us of.
As demonstrated institutionalized schooling socialize people through the use of discipline. The younger the student the more this institutions penalizes the body (i.e. tardiness and paddling). The older the student and the more advanced the degree is when the institution disciplines the mind to conform to the standards of that group of scholars/thinkers. For example, as a student in curriculum and instruction many professors expect me to narrow my discourse of schooling to preK-12. However, there have been times when I have been penalized when I attempted to write about institutional schooling beyond preK-12. This type of discipline is called the null curriculum. It is a mechanism to get students to perform in a certain culture (culture of power). Despite my misfortune, I do believe institutions are attempting to be more interdisciplinary and train students to be able to operate in the discourse of many disciplines but the progress is slow.
Attending to the topic of conditioning the mind to be anti-interdisciplinary, Foucault talks about how discipline is used to train, divide, and split things into separate cells (individuals). This notion is similarly related to how education separates subjects into single cells instead of interdisciplinary systems. The elementary schools I have worked in separates the subjects making it more difficult for students and teachers to see the interdisciplinary nature of these subjects.
Maybe this practice is based in a Western-Eurocentric way of thinking. Western culture has a strong focus on individuality (boot straps mentality) instead of collectivity (like in other cultures). When I went to Japan, I was able to visit many schools and students were expected to be collegial in more than just school work. They were expected to collaborate during lunch time (serving each others’ lunches and waiting until everyone is served before they eat) and cleaning the building (students cleaned a section of the building, i.e. hallway floors). However, many Japanese educators expressed their desire to replicate U.S. educational practices such as individuality. On the other hand, many U.S. educators want to replicate Japanese educational practices such as cooperation. Both Western and non-Western cultures have their educational strengths and weaknesses. They realize their limitations and are working to find a balance.
Conclusion
Foucault early writings allowed for me to make personal connections in how discipline is linked to schooling an a disciplinary institution. As discussed, one reason instructional schooling disciplines is to normalize and reduce cultural gaps. As I conclude this examination, a pondering question still remains: How can discipline be used for intercultural competence and social justice in schooling institutions?
References
Collins, R. (n.d.). The rise of the credential system. The credential society: An historical sociology of education and stratification (pp. 90-130). New York: Academic Press.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline & punishment: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Wasley, P. (2008). Portfolios are replacing qualifying exams as a step on the road to dissertations. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(44), A8.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Bauman on Globalization
Bauman argues that globalization unites as well as divides. I think this is basically true. He reminds us that it is a force that brings people closer together and helps people understand cultures. But it can also divide especially along class lines (a social issue that he specializes in). The reason I agree with this is because how wealth is distributed and also how culture is more fluid. Globalization exacerbates this problem on international terms. He also goes on to talk about how we are on the move physically and that immobility is not a realistic option in the world of permanent change. I also think this true. However in education (also other fields) people have a hard time changing especially regarding culture. One reason for this is because it is hard for people to engage multiple perspectives.
Also he discusses that a cause for worry is the breakdown in communication in the world. So a question for educator is how can we help people have better cross cultural communication skills? I think we should increase cultural self awareness including communication styles.
Later he argues that in modern civilization people stop questioning. I also agree with this. As educators we must teach teachers to learn to ask questions more often and to teach student of all ages to question. He says that we stop asking the “right” questions. I think people stop asking questions overall. Anyway what defines right or wrong questions? Questioning is important regardless if someone things they are right or wrong.
Bauman argues some problems with territorial constrain of locality and that it can be marginalizing. He always has rigid lines for the rich and poor, but regardless of how much money you have we are all marginalized in issues with locality. This collective pain always brings me back to the miner’s canary in how we all suffer but the most vulnerable suffer more and first. He says that rich people are free from territorial constraints. This is where I start to disagree with him more. I don’t know if people are totally free from territorial constraints (not that they are not influenced by them, but I wonder how much). Although these territories are problems, they create culture even if you consider yourself a global citizen. I always think about how culture is changing even due to globalization (i.e. hip hop). Hip hop is a global culture.
On the same note, he says that geographical boarders are increasingly difficult to sustain. That notion really shocked me. Hello, I think political boarders are real. I don’t even know if they are difficult to sustain b/c they create serious consequences for poor countries. These boarders are probably very real for them (I think of Mexican boarder crossings into the United States and how immigrants become citizens).
Bauman summarizes President Clinton saying that there is not difference between domestic and foreign politics. I know he was going a different direction with this but this comment immediately brought out for me how President Clinton and other people from dominate cultures have an ethnocentric way to look at different culture “They are just like us” “Their politics are the same as ours”. I know this is though was a little off topic, but it is hard to stay on topic reading Bauman.
Later in the book he starts to talk about identity. I do not know what he means by identity. I think he is saying that a consequence of globalization is that people can’t form an identity. I hope this is not what he is saying because people find new ways to form identities. People change with their times. Just different because we are more connected than ever it will look different.
Again, he looses me later in the book regarding his prose and siding with his arguments. He proclaims that people watch helplessly while their locality moves away from them underneath their feet (saying that the more powerful leave and everyone else is desolate). I agree with this to a certain extent. However, I do not think I agree that I would use the term helpless. Instead of look at how they empower themselves and are helpful and hopeful in their own communities. He sees them as poor old me that we can’t live without rich people. Maybe he things that they are not smart enough to do that. This reminds me how some teachers use the deficit theory by arguing that some kids just do not have culture and they must have us in order for them to have culture.
Overall reading Bauman is difficult for many reasons. One of them is that he is too much of a pessimist and seems not to be able to see the power that marginalized groups have within themselves. He looks at them in a deficit sort of way, as if they can not do anything without the elite. This linear perspective becomes boring very quickly.
Also he discusses that a cause for worry is the breakdown in communication in the world. So a question for educator is how can we help people have better cross cultural communication skills? I think we should increase cultural self awareness including communication styles.
Later he argues that in modern civilization people stop questioning. I also agree with this. As educators we must teach teachers to learn to ask questions more often and to teach student of all ages to question. He says that we stop asking the “right” questions. I think people stop asking questions overall. Anyway what defines right or wrong questions? Questioning is important regardless if someone things they are right or wrong.
Bauman argues some problems with territorial constrain of locality and that it can be marginalizing. He always has rigid lines for the rich and poor, but regardless of how much money you have we are all marginalized in issues with locality. This collective pain always brings me back to the miner’s canary in how we all suffer but the most vulnerable suffer more and first. He says that rich people are free from territorial constraints. This is where I start to disagree with him more. I don’t know if people are totally free from territorial constraints (not that they are not influenced by them, but I wonder how much). Although these territories are problems, they create culture even if you consider yourself a global citizen. I always think about how culture is changing even due to globalization (i.e. hip hop). Hip hop is a global culture.
On the same note, he says that geographical boarders are increasingly difficult to sustain. That notion really shocked me. Hello, I think political boarders are real. I don’t even know if they are difficult to sustain b/c they create serious consequences for poor countries. These boarders are probably very real for them (I think of Mexican boarder crossings into the United States and how immigrants become citizens).
Bauman summarizes President Clinton saying that there is not difference between domestic and foreign politics. I know he was going a different direction with this but this comment immediately brought out for me how President Clinton and other people from dominate cultures have an ethnocentric way to look at different culture “They are just like us” “Their politics are the same as ours”. I know this is though was a little off topic, but it is hard to stay on topic reading Bauman.
Later in the book he starts to talk about identity. I do not know what he means by identity. I think he is saying that a consequence of globalization is that people can’t form an identity. I hope this is not what he is saying because people find new ways to form identities. People change with their times. Just different because we are more connected than ever it will look different.
Again, he looses me later in the book regarding his prose and siding with his arguments. He proclaims that people watch helplessly while their locality moves away from them underneath their feet (saying that the more powerful leave and everyone else is desolate). I agree with this to a certain extent. However, I do not think I agree that I would use the term helpless. Instead of look at how they empower themselves and are helpful and hopeful in their own communities. He sees them as poor old me that we can’t live without rich people. Maybe he things that they are not smart enough to do that. This reminds me how some teachers use the deficit theory by arguing that some kids just do not have culture and they must have us in order for them to have culture.
Overall reading Bauman is difficult for many reasons. One of them is that he is too much of a pessimist and seems not to be able to see the power that marginalized groups have within themselves. He looks at them in a deficit sort of way, as if they can not do anything without the elite. This linear perspective becomes boring very quickly.
Bourdieu, Education, and Me
In my conceptualization of education research, several theoretical tenants of Bourdieu’s sociology are useful. My underlying research interests encompass how power is reflected in the discourse on race from postsecondary teacher educators who teach future education faculty. Bourdieu’s sociology connected to some of the concepts I think are important when researching race in the United States such as sociology as socioanalysis, field, reflection, and cultural capital.
Sociology as Socioanalysis
Bourdieu approaches sociology as socioanalysis. It is best described by using an analogy: the sociologist researcher is to the social unconscious of society as the psychoanalyst is to a patient’s unconscious (Swartz, 1997). This approach is similar to the notion of cultural encapsulation. Cultural encapsulation is when people are immersed in their culture and are unaware of cultural differences. Their level of cultural awareness is heightened when they are immersed for long periods of time in a different dominate culture (similar to what a psychoanalyst can do for a patient’s unconsciousness). The concept of sociology as socioanalysis is important when researching how race and racism encapsulate people. Researching power reflected in discourse brings the social unconscious to the social conscious because people tend to be culturally encapsulated.
Field
Not only do I have an interest in individual discourses, but also how these discourses interact in group dynamics. Field is important because can addresses racialized group dynamics. Field is described a social space where people are connected and negotiate cultural capital (Swartz, 1997).
Field is considered a “corrective against positivism”(p.119). This is important to me because I planned to use qualitative methods in research. Although important, I do not see field as a corrective but as a tool in the research toolbox. Neither field nor positivism are correctives of each other, but they have different purposes. I think that positivistic ways of conducting research are is appropriate at times, but it depends on effects of politics of race the researcher is trying to illuminate. This is one reason why field is important as I think about conducting research about cultural/racial allies.
Field also “encourages the researcher to seek out underlying and invisible relations” (p. 119). I am going to use the example of racial ally to illustrate his point because this is my research interest. When considering the role of a racial ally, sometimes the work of these allies (and maybe even the allies themselves) may be elusive to the oppressed in how they resist racism. Oppressed people do not always know where or who these allies are. The use of field to examine the concept of elusive racial allies could be successful because it encourages seeking out these kinds of underlying relationships for research. The types of research questions that can be constructed considering field are: Who are elusive racial allies? How and why do they consider themselves allies? If an ally is elusive in their relations, why do they choose to do work in an “invisible” way?
The notion of fields of struggle can also be used to thinking about race research. These types of fields are sites where resistance as well as domination is linked (p. 121). This link (fields of struggle) is very important because racial actors are situated in these fields of struggle. Fields of struggle can be seen in what Omi and Winant calls racial projects. Racial projects are ways in which a reorganization and redistribution of resources along racial lines occur, and racial dynamics are concurrently interpreted, represented, or explained (Omi and Winant, 1994). Everyone is part of a field of struggle in racial projects at some points in our lives. As I think about studying racism, it is important to understand how racialized groups are situated in fields (resistance as well as dominated) within racial projects.
Reflection
Bourdieu’s reinforced the use of reflection in research and this resonated with me especially as I think about researching race in education. We all are part of fields of struggles at different times and this is a reason I think Bourdieu’s call for a reflexive practice of sociology is important (Swartz, 1997).
Bourdieu goes on to further call for researcher critical reflection on their theoretical practices as part of his metatheory of social knowledge (Swartz, 1997). Critical reflection is a deeper level of reflection because it calls for a self questioning of our own beliefs. We need to be able to engage critical reflection on race and racism as researchers in order to be able to step back and look at our own racial biases as they relate to racial projects. As race is a very fluid notion and very complex, it is important that researchers engage in a self interrogation of race and racism.
Cultural Capital
Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital is the notion that culture is a power resource and it includes things such as cultural awareness, information about school systems, and education credentials (Swartz, 1997). He argues that education systems are principal institutions controlling the allocation of this cultural capital (status and privilege) (Swartz, 1997). Cultural capital is a very important concept to consider in educational research concerning race and racism.
One reason is because in education, sociocultural variables interact and some have more capital than others in various settings. Dominate sociocultural variables include things like direct eye contact, competition, a larger range of proximity, and low levels of touching. These ways of being are considered to have a higher level of capital in the dominate culture. This poses a problem in educational settings because not having a high level of cultural capital to navigate the dominate culture in schools creates a barrier to teaching and learning.
A way to deconstruct these barriers includes things like teachers teaching their students cultural capital. This is supported by Delpit (1995) who argues that educators should be explicit in their teaching of the culture of power. Instead, some educators penalize their students because they do not know (or know how to use) certain types of cultural capital. Many look at the culture their students possess as a deficit, instead of teaching cultural capital while being transparent about it.
In an education workshop I attended, many educators discussed practices that may contribute to teaching cultural capital. Carole Gupton (personal communication, September 30, 2008) explained that teachers can adjust their rules and parameters to be flexible, while maintaining beliefs that are important and non-negotiable to the integrity of the school (i.e., we cannot talk in the class no matter what). Namita Vatsa Eveloy (personal communication, September 30, 2008) explained that teachers can be upfront and explicit about their rules (cultural capital). However, educators must engage in a type of Bourdieuian critical reflection to understand their own rules and norms. Once this is done they can begin to explicitly teach cultural capital.
Critical reflection can cause disequilibrium in some because their beliefs may be challenged. In the workshop, Carole also explained that they may realize that some of these norms may not be important (C. Gupton, personal communication, September 30, 2008). If educators do not come to this realization it may lead to misunderstandings in the classroom (i.e. a student tapping a pencil ends in the student attempting to hit the teacher) (C. Gupton, personal communication, September 30, 2008). If teachers do not have a working level of intercultural competence, they will have more misunderstandings and will not be able to teach cultural capital to their students.
Teaching cultural capital also reduces the effects of cultural adaptation. Some of these effects include (Collier, 1988):
o Heightened anxiety
o Withdrawal
o Fatigue
o Distractibility
o Disorientation
o Confusion in locus of control
o Silence or unresponsiveness
o Code-switching
o Resistance to change
For students, normal effects of cultural adaptation may look like disability. This symptom contributes to the over representation of African Americans and American Indians in special education.
The lack of transmission of cultural capital and intercultural competence is at the center of many of the racial and cultural inequities in education in the United States. There is a dire need to continue to research cultural capital in all levels of education because of these inequities. There are many aspects of cultural capital that education researchers can study. It would be important to understand more how faculty teach future education researchers about researching culture and cultural capital. I am considering related questions such as: How are teacher educators teaching future faculty about how to teach the notion of cultural capital in a social justice framework? How are postsecondary teachers using discourse to teach future education faculty about racial inequities in higher education as they relate to issues such as cultural capital mismatch in higher education?
Conclusion
Bourdieu’s sociology is very transferable to education research. Sociology as socioanalysis, field, reflection, and cultural capital can inform my theoretical stance about race research. As I continue to think about my dissertation, I will continue to be mindful of how philosophers in other countries can be helpful to understanding race research in the United States.
References
Collier, C. (1988). Assessing minority students with learning and behavior problems. Lindale, Texas: Hamilton Publications.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Culture and conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.
Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sociology as Socioanalysis
Bourdieu approaches sociology as socioanalysis. It is best described by using an analogy: the sociologist researcher is to the social unconscious of society as the psychoanalyst is to a patient’s unconscious (Swartz, 1997). This approach is similar to the notion of cultural encapsulation. Cultural encapsulation is when people are immersed in their culture and are unaware of cultural differences. Their level of cultural awareness is heightened when they are immersed for long periods of time in a different dominate culture (similar to what a psychoanalyst can do for a patient’s unconsciousness). The concept of sociology as socioanalysis is important when researching how race and racism encapsulate people. Researching power reflected in discourse brings the social unconscious to the social conscious because people tend to be culturally encapsulated.
Field
Not only do I have an interest in individual discourses, but also how these discourses interact in group dynamics. Field is important because can addresses racialized group dynamics. Field is described a social space where people are connected and negotiate cultural capital (Swartz, 1997).
Field is considered a “corrective against positivism”(p.119). This is important to me because I planned to use qualitative methods in research. Although important, I do not see field as a corrective but as a tool in the research toolbox. Neither field nor positivism are correctives of each other, but they have different purposes. I think that positivistic ways of conducting research are is appropriate at times, but it depends on effects of politics of race the researcher is trying to illuminate. This is one reason why field is important as I think about conducting research about cultural/racial allies.
Field also “encourages the researcher to seek out underlying and invisible relations” (p. 119). I am going to use the example of racial ally to illustrate his point because this is my research interest. When considering the role of a racial ally, sometimes the work of these allies (and maybe even the allies themselves) may be elusive to the oppressed in how they resist racism. Oppressed people do not always know where or who these allies are. The use of field to examine the concept of elusive racial allies could be successful because it encourages seeking out these kinds of underlying relationships for research. The types of research questions that can be constructed considering field are: Who are elusive racial allies? How and why do they consider themselves allies? If an ally is elusive in their relations, why do they choose to do work in an “invisible” way?
The notion of fields of struggle can also be used to thinking about race research. These types of fields are sites where resistance as well as domination is linked (p. 121). This link (fields of struggle) is very important because racial actors are situated in these fields of struggle. Fields of struggle can be seen in what Omi and Winant calls racial projects. Racial projects are ways in which a reorganization and redistribution of resources along racial lines occur, and racial dynamics are concurrently interpreted, represented, or explained (Omi and Winant, 1994). Everyone is part of a field of struggle in racial projects at some points in our lives. As I think about studying racism, it is important to understand how racialized groups are situated in fields (resistance as well as dominated) within racial projects.
Reflection
Bourdieu’s reinforced the use of reflection in research and this resonated with me especially as I think about researching race in education. We all are part of fields of struggles at different times and this is a reason I think Bourdieu’s call for a reflexive practice of sociology is important (Swartz, 1997).
Bourdieu goes on to further call for researcher critical reflection on their theoretical practices as part of his metatheory of social knowledge (Swartz, 1997). Critical reflection is a deeper level of reflection because it calls for a self questioning of our own beliefs. We need to be able to engage critical reflection on race and racism as researchers in order to be able to step back and look at our own racial biases as they relate to racial projects. As race is a very fluid notion and very complex, it is important that researchers engage in a self interrogation of race and racism.
Cultural Capital
Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital is the notion that culture is a power resource and it includes things such as cultural awareness, information about school systems, and education credentials (Swartz, 1997). He argues that education systems are principal institutions controlling the allocation of this cultural capital (status and privilege) (Swartz, 1997). Cultural capital is a very important concept to consider in educational research concerning race and racism.
One reason is because in education, sociocultural variables interact and some have more capital than others in various settings. Dominate sociocultural variables include things like direct eye contact, competition, a larger range of proximity, and low levels of touching. These ways of being are considered to have a higher level of capital in the dominate culture. This poses a problem in educational settings because not having a high level of cultural capital to navigate the dominate culture in schools creates a barrier to teaching and learning.
A way to deconstruct these barriers includes things like teachers teaching their students cultural capital. This is supported by Delpit (1995) who argues that educators should be explicit in their teaching of the culture of power. Instead, some educators penalize their students because they do not know (or know how to use) certain types of cultural capital. Many look at the culture their students possess as a deficit, instead of teaching cultural capital while being transparent about it.
In an education workshop I attended, many educators discussed practices that may contribute to teaching cultural capital. Carole Gupton (personal communication, September 30, 2008) explained that teachers can adjust their rules and parameters to be flexible, while maintaining beliefs that are important and non-negotiable to the integrity of the school (i.e., we cannot talk in the class no matter what). Namita Vatsa Eveloy (personal communication, September 30, 2008) explained that teachers can be upfront and explicit about their rules (cultural capital). However, educators must engage in a type of Bourdieuian critical reflection to understand their own rules and norms. Once this is done they can begin to explicitly teach cultural capital.
Critical reflection can cause disequilibrium in some because their beliefs may be challenged. In the workshop, Carole also explained that they may realize that some of these norms may not be important (C. Gupton, personal communication, September 30, 2008). If educators do not come to this realization it may lead to misunderstandings in the classroom (i.e. a student tapping a pencil ends in the student attempting to hit the teacher) (C. Gupton, personal communication, September 30, 2008). If teachers do not have a working level of intercultural competence, they will have more misunderstandings and will not be able to teach cultural capital to their students.
Teaching cultural capital also reduces the effects of cultural adaptation. Some of these effects include (Collier, 1988):
o Heightened anxiety
o Withdrawal
o Fatigue
o Distractibility
o Disorientation
o Confusion in locus of control
o Silence or unresponsiveness
o Code-switching
o Resistance to change
For students, normal effects of cultural adaptation may look like disability. This symptom contributes to the over representation of African Americans and American Indians in special education.
The lack of transmission of cultural capital and intercultural competence is at the center of many of the racial and cultural inequities in education in the United States. There is a dire need to continue to research cultural capital in all levels of education because of these inequities. There are many aspects of cultural capital that education researchers can study. It would be important to understand more how faculty teach future education researchers about researching culture and cultural capital. I am considering related questions such as: How are teacher educators teaching future faculty about how to teach the notion of cultural capital in a social justice framework? How are postsecondary teachers using discourse to teach future education faculty about racial inequities in higher education as they relate to issues such as cultural capital mismatch in higher education?
Conclusion
Bourdieu’s sociology is very transferable to education research. Sociology as socioanalysis, field, reflection, and cultural capital can inform my theoretical stance about race research. As I continue to think about my dissertation, I will continue to be mindful of how philosophers in other countries can be helpful to understanding race research in the United States.
References
Collier, C. (1988). Assessing minority students with learning and behavior problems. Lindale, Texas: Hamilton Publications.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Culture and conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.
Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Bourdieu and researching race - Hot Stuff
Bourdieu’s concept of field is important for me because of my interest in how things are interrelated. Field is described as a “corrective against positivism” (p. 119), however, I think it would be best described as another tool in the toolkit. Field nor positivism are correctives of each other, but they have different purposes. In regards to how I see research, I think using the concept of field when conducting research is useful when thinking about cultural/racial allies. One reason is because it “encourages the researcher to seek out underlying and invisible relations” (p. 119). I am going to use the example of racial ally to illustrate this point because (again) this is where my research and theoretical interest focus. When considering the role of a racial ally, sometimes these allies are invisible in their relations. Oppressed people do not always know where or who these allies are. The use of field to examine this concept would be a very good match because it encourages seeking out these kinds of relations (interactions among actors) for research. Who are racial allies for people they do not know or will never meet? How and why do they consider themselves allies? Why do they choose to do work in an “invisible” way?
The notion of fields of struggle can also be used to thinking about race research. It is defined as sites of resistance as well as domination and are linked (p. 121). This is also an important concept for me because as I am thinking about Omi and Winant’s racial formation, I am struck by how they historically looked at racial formation (“sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabitated, and transformed” p. 55 in Omi & Winant) and racial projects (how people are situated, in Omi & Winant) historically. Bourdieu, Omi & Winant theories overlap because, many fields of struggle took part within racial projects. As described in the Bourdieu book, we are all part of these fields of struggle and that is why he is calling for a “reflexive practice of sociology” (p. 122). This call for practice of reflection, I would argue critical reflection, is very important because we cannot escape society and these racial projects and racial formation within it, so we need to be able to engage critical reflection on race and racism as researchers in order to be able to step back and look at our own bias. Bourdieu also calls for researcher critical reflection on theoretical practices as part of his metatheory of social knowledge (p. 58). I wonder if Bourdieu is using the concept of reflection and reflexivity the way Schön (reflective practitioner) and some of the earlier scholars uses it? I wonder how Bourdieu suggests facilitation of critical reflection and does he write more about this? I wonder how Omi and Winant think about researcher critical reflection the way Bourdieu calls for it? This is how I’m thinking of fields of struggle and why I think it can be so useful in researching race.
The notion of fields of struggle can also be used to thinking about race research. It is defined as sites of resistance as well as domination and are linked (p. 121). This is also an important concept for me because as I am thinking about Omi and Winant’s racial formation, I am struck by how they historically looked at racial formation (“sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabitated, and transformed” p. 55 in Omi & Winant) and racial projects (how people are situated, in Omi & Winant) historically. Bourdieu, Omi & Winant theories overlap because, many fields of struggle took part within racial projects. As described in the Bourdieu book, we are all part of these fields of struggle and that is why he is calling for a “reflexive practice of sociology” (p. 122). This call for practice of reflection, I would argue critical reflection, is very important because we cannot escape society and these racial projects and racial formation within it, so we need to be able to engage critical reflection on race and racism as researchers in order to be able to step back and look at our own bias. Bourdieu also calls for researcher critical reflection on theoretical practices as part of his metatheory of social knowledge (p. 58). I wonder if Bourdieu is using the concept of reflection and reflexivity the way Schön (reflective practitioner) and some of the earlier scholars uses it? I wonder how Bourdieu suggests facilitation of critical reflection and does he write more about this? I wonder how Omi and Winant think about researcher critical reflection the way Bourdieu calls for it? This is how I’m thinking of fields of struggle and why I think it can be so useful in researching race.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Bauman's Consuming Life
Consuming Life talks about the over indulgence of material goods in Western Culture.
I think Bauman is saying that our culture is out of balance regarding consumerism vs producer and that it has societal consequences.
For example, at the beginning he talks about how in the late 1920s society moved from producers to consumer (p. 7). How is this shift related to the Industrial Revolution? Before then people were more dependent on physical labor for production and consumption. Now with mass production maybe access to products became cheaper hence the producer to consumer shift. Also, I think that there is a relationship with the increased consumerism and more people working away from home (i.e. in factories). I know for myself when I’m away from home for long periods of time (vacation, conferences, ect.) to I begin to sift to a more consumer stance. At home I can balance my own production for consumption. I also think there is a connection between globalization and the global markets increasing consumerism (Bauman addresses this also).
He goes on later to talk about waste and excess (p. 38). This notion of waste and excess is also very cultural even within the US because from what I’ve experienced I feel that middle class Midwesterners tend to have a higher level of excess. This is seen in the big yards, large houses, and large vehicles. I think Midwesterners also tend to be larger people (height &/or weight)! I think know this is historical and related to topography. I’ve noticed compared to the east coast, people seem to have fewer cars and smaller dwellings. I’m not exactly sure about the west and south but I think it may be the same for similar reasons. I have not done or read studies or articles on this, but it would be interesting to find out more.
Would Bauman consider education consumption/consumerism? I think so. I don’t think he addresses education in particular, but I see some qualities of education reflected in the text. One example I’m thinking of when he explains that consumerism is a type of social arrangement that has a socializing effect (p. 28). This is the primary goal of education in the US. Also, at the beginning of chapter 2 he talks about reflexivity and personal excitement (p. 52). He is saying that people should be more thoughtful about their goals and life’s meaning. I think Parker Palmer also talks about this regarding the culture of teaching. He asks us to think about why we became teachers and to tap into the love of the work. Sometimes teachers get too caught up in external demands and forget why they joined the profession. Although there is always a call for reflexivity in teaching, but it is very difficult as it is a cultural shift.
I also can connect academic achievement to p. 68, because I think Bauman is discussing how a system is designed to get the results it is supposed to (such as education systems). Many kids that don’t do well in school underachieve because the system is under-serving them. It is a cultural mis-match and schools have a difficult time changing.
I love in Ch. 3 when he says “As a rule, they accept the short lifespan of things” (p 86) [regarding consumers]. The reason this connected with me is because teachers would tell me that they would wait out education initiatives because these initiatives would come and go like the wind (Bauman again discusses on p. 107). I believe that this is what many educators may say across the country. I noticed that things are not given a chance to work (3-5 years for change efforts) before they are completely discontinued. Instead of organizations reflecting on what has worked to move forward, a new model is introduced which does not take the learning from the old model. “Consuming life cannot be other than a life of rapid learning, but it also needs to be a life of swift forgetting” (p. 96)…
I enjoyed the section on Collateral Casualties of Consumerism because it talks a lot about intent vs. impact (i.e. war section) and how people don’t intend to do damage/hurt other people, but do so (sometimes large scale damage to other people and their lives). This problem is grounded in not enough perspective taking and relationship building in which the participants talk about their differences. As educators, we should be sure to attempt to instill this quality in our students and encourage them to use it regularly. Although I liked this session, the criticism I have with it is the politically loaded word terrorist (p. 118). “Terrorist” is heavily grounded in perspectives. Furthermore some of the text makes me uncomfortable due to its broad sweeping generalizations about people (“since those who planned and delivered it did not particularly care” p.119). Maybe they did care. Who is to say that they DID NOT care? I think that sometimes the language is overboard and promotes stereotypes.
Overall, I like reading Bauman’s book. I think maybe it was too loaded in his perspective and maybe he should have addressed the critics. If he had have done this, I would have thought that the work would have been more thorough. For example on p. 17 he says life’s necessities were “once upon a time obtained the hard way”. For example, a person living in poverty has to go through a very extensive and sometimes demeaning process to get food (i.e. food lines, food stamp office, etc) or clothes. This is getting life’s necessities in a hard way. His idea of the “hard way” is very culturally loaded. He took very hard lines on many issues. However, maybe that was Bauman’s goal.
I think Bauman is saying that our culture is out of balance regarding consumerism vs producer and that it has societal consequences.
For example, at the beginning he talks about how in the late 1920s society moved from producers to consumer (p. 7). How is this shift related to the Industrial Revolution? Before then people were more dependent on physical labor for production and consumption. Now with mass production maybe access to products became cheaper hence the producer to consumer shift. Also, I think that there is a relationship with the increased consumerism and more people working away from home (i.e. in factories). I know for myself when I’m away from home for long periods of time (vacation, conferences, ect.) to I begin to sift to a more consumer stance. At home I can balance my own production for consumption. I also think there is a connection between globalization and the global markets increasing consumerism (Bauman addresses this also).
He goes on later to talk about waste and excess (p. 38). This notion of waste and excess is also very cultural even within the US because from what I’ve experienced I feel that middle class Midwesterners tend to have a higher level of excess. This is seen in the big yards, large houses, and large vehicles. I think Midwesterners also tend to be larger people (height &/or weight)! I think know this is historical and related to topography. I’ve noticed compared to the east coast, people seem to have fewer cars and smaller dwellings. I’m not exactly sure about the west and south but I think it may be the same for similar reasons. I have not done or read studies or articles on this, but it would be interesting to find out more.
Would Bauman consider education consumption/consumerism? I think so. I don’t think he addresses education in particular, but I see some qualities of education reflected in the text. One example I’m thinking of when he explains that consumerism is a type of social arrangement that has a socializing effect (p. 28). This is the primary goal of education in the US. Also, at the beginning of chapter 2 he talks about reflexivity and personal excitement (p. 52). He is saying that people should be more thoughtful about their goals and life’s meaning. I think Parker Palmer also talks about this regarding the culture of teaching. He asks us to think about why we became teachers and to tap into the love of the work. Sometimes teachers get too caught up in external demands and forget why they joined the profession. Although there is always a call for reflexivity in teaching, but it is very difficult as it is a cultural shift.
I also can connect academic achievement to p. 68, because I think Bauman is discussing how a system is designed to get the results it is supposed to (such as education systems). Many kids that don’t do well in school underachieve because the system is under-serving them. It is a cultural mis-match and schools have a difficult time changing.
I love in Ch. 3 when he says “As a rule, they accept the short lifespan of things” (p 86) [regarding consumers]. The reason this connected with me is because teachers would tell me that they would wait out education initiatives because these initiatives would come and go like the wind (Bauman again discusses on p. 107). I believe that this is what many educators may say across the country. I noticed that things are not given a chance to work (3-5 years for change efforts) before they are completely discontinued. Instead of organizations reflecting on what has worked to move forward, a new model is introduced which does not take the learning from the old model. “Consuming life cannot be other than a life of rapid learning, but it also needs to be a life of swift forgetting” (p. 96)…
I enjoyed the section on Collateral Casualties of Consumerism because it talks a lot about intent vs. impact (i.e. war section) and how people don’t intend to do damage/hurt other people, but do so (sometimes large scale damage to other people and their lives). This problem is grounded in not enough perspective taking and relationship building in which the participants talk about their differences. As educators, we should be sure to attempt to instill this quality in our students and encourage them to use it regularly. Although I liked this session, the criticism I have with it is the politically loaded word terrorist (p. 118). “Terrorist” is heavily grounded in perspectives. Furthermore some of the text makes me uncomfortable due to its broad sweeping generalizations about people (“since those who planned and delivered it did not particularly care” p.119). Maybe they did care. Who is to say that they DID NOT care? I think that sometimes the language is overboard and promotes stereotypes.
Overall, I like reading Bauman’s book. I think maybe it was too loaded in his perspective and maybe he should have addressed the critics. If he had have done this, I would have thought that the work would have been more thorough. For example on p. 17 he says life’s necessities were “once upon a time obtained the hard way”. For example, a person living in poverty has to go through a very extensive and sometimes demeaning process to get food (i.e. food lines, food stamp office, etc) or clothes. This is getting life’s necessities in a hard way. His idea of the “hard way” is very culturally loaded. He took very hard lines on many issues. However, maybe that was Bauman’s goal.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
