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.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
