5016 enable
From Studyplace
[edit] what remains of the notion of "acquisition" if one follows Rancière?
[edit] how might one rewrite the common sense that some people are educationally disadvanted (disadvantaged - sp?)?
To me, Ranciere’s message is that we all possess equal levels of intelligence, that we have the power to teach ourselves when the will is there, and that learning without explication takes place all the time. This all makes sense to me, and I agree with these arguments, but I feel these messages are almost moot when it comes to addressing issues of educational disparities in our society and the “educationally disadvantaged”. I see the true purposes of public schooling not as being to academically nurture students, but to instill national values and prepare them for the larger labor market -- any academic growth gained is just a lucky by-product. The skills and values that get rewarded and nurtured within school are those skills which will be most useful in the work place. Some students are born into families which provide the language skills and resources consistent with those valued in school and which translate into academic success. Some students are not. The fact that the latter group of students may be of equal intelligence and have the power to teach themselves becomes irrelevant when the cultural capital they bring to the table is not what is valued within schools or in the work place, placing them a disadvantaged starting point. —Kara Balemian
I don’t think people having the power to teach themselves can ever become irrelevant, not even in and education system whose values reflect the larger labor market. Actually, it’s a perfect context for Ranciere’s point to be applied to. First of all, I think the widespread idea that, ‘People are poor because they are not integrated into the world market’ is a slippery slope and possibly leads us into one of those traps that Professor Varenne keeps talking about because it does not address the power structure nor this fact: the poor ARE integrated into the world market, integrated precisely in a certain way that MAKES people poor. It is the very throwing up of our hands in saying that we cannot change this because its a fundamental part of a market economy that is functioning as a social cement of a class society.
The poor, however, are wedded by necessity to looking at basic change in a social system—and this is where Gundaker’s account of the “hidden processes of deliberate change” (Varenne) brings us to understand just why Jacotot’s intellectual adventure was key. Because if we only look for the most efficient way of improving people’s positions within the limits and the barriers created by the existing social and economic organization (of which schools are part), then we would not notice how enslaved African Americans developed “A double language that addressed both the world as it ‘is’ and the world as it could or should be”. We would not notice how workers often discounted and misinterpreted as marginal and ‘imported’, making use of social capital, collective spirit, networks, and reciprocity, go from being low productivity marginal actors to something of economic heroes in the informal economy.
History is continually reconstructed into neat means-ends narratives, when the actual process of reaching a goal required on-the-spot decisions, sudden improvisation, and numerous departures from the intended course. The latter is a survival way of doing things which poor people all over the world are familiar enough with to be considered the EXPERTS. It is this contrary-to-expectations family of outcomes that holds what I believe to be both the basic promise and the principle challenge for educators. Paying attention to these unlikely stories is the only way we can learn what may have deadened our society’s attributes, and what will bring vitality. --Dhyana Kuhl
Dhyana, I follow the flow of your argument, but in a practical, real-life sense, what does it really mean? 1) I agree that the poor are integrated into the labor market: they are the backbone of capitalist society – they are the ones who submit to the managers, while the managers work under better conditions and receive more compensation. School is where students get sorted out into these two groups mainly based on the social and cultural capital they possess when they come to school. And yes, this does make me throw my hands up often because it doesn’t look like this educational or economic structure will change in any significant way, anytime soon. Any gains made through self-teaching, therefore, still need to be reckoned with existing institutions. 2) Can you give some examples of “economic heroes in the informal economy”? Is it enough that a few heroes might emerge when the bulk of the poor do not enjoy hero status? 3) When you say, “The poor, however, are wedded by necessity to looking at basic change in a social system”, doesn’t this put the burden on them to change the social, educational and economic institutions in our society, in their own ingenious ways? Yes, the poor have the power to make meaningful change, but the journey would be long and tedious. I am arguing that the brunt of the burden of change should be on society. Maybe the skills and knowledge that schools and the labor market value should be opened up to include the capital that everyone brings, not just that of the middle class. One way to do this is to open up the criteria by which we evaluate academic achievement. 4) “It is this contrary-to-expectations family of outcomes that holds what I believe to be both the basic promise”. A student may possess “contrary-to-expectations” skills, but unless schools and the labor market recognize them, how does the possession of them benefit that student’s life course? -- Kara Balemian
The concept of being ‘disadvantaged’ is relevant when one looks at the world as divided into experts and novice or the ripe minds and immature ones and when certain knowledge is important than other to be considered an expert. Since the job of the teacher/school in this framework is to measure the gap between immaturity and expertise and bridge it, the person starting lower on the scale is ‘disadvantaged’. But if we take Jacotot’s view then the concept of ‘being educationally disadvantaged’ as we understand it in the schooling sense is not relevant.
On the other hand from Ranciere or Jacotot’s view, a person who does not get the benefit of learning from an ignorant schoolmaster might be educationally disadvantaged because learning from an expert might lead to a learned incapacity to learn without an expert’s explication. - Devayani
Devayani, You may be right, I may have misintrepreted “educationally disadvantaged” in a way other than that defined within these particular readings. -- Kara Balemian
Sure, the ‘brunt of the burden of change’ SHOULD be on everyone theoretically, but again, being in really grim circumstances because of what is in place structurally, one feels a lot more urgency about that. If you’ve been trying for a long time and you really can’t get by, you’re pretty motivated for change. It’s precisely where there’s discontent that we can always see movement. That’s where the beginning of change shows up. Although we can only recognize it for what it is if we get over the pathologizing of the places and the people it comes from (as we spoke about in class, the Oscar Lewis-like cases).
Kara, I couldn’t agree more with what you said about, “include the capital that everyone brings, not just that of the middle class”. That’s just it. But if our only approach to doing that is to take all kinds of structures that have clearly been set up by an elite and have what they have (so narrowly) defined as our goals—as if to assume everyone should aspire to the behaviors and institutions of the middle class—then access to the teaching of what is valued by the labor market doesn’t really equalize anything, does it? Because that labor market’s still got to have its bottom rung anyway (and we’ll just use a labor pool from other countries to get it). Apparently, nobody who’s in control of resources has been able to lead us out of this predicament. Doesn’t that mean we need to be looking for answers in places we haven’t spent much time looking at yet?
You suggested opening up the criteria by which we evaluate academic achievement and I second that. I think maybe that’s part of what professor Varenne has designed his class around here. Ranciere’s story of Jacotot and Gundaker’s bringing to our attention the fact that some enslaved African Americans were able to see beyond their conditions and educate themselves towards a ‘could or should be’ to show that cultural capital and people being able to teach themselves DOES NOT HAVE TO BE VALUED TO BE RELEVENT. The slaves didn’t have to be recognized by those who controlled them in order to give validity to the clandestine ways which they managed to educate themselves. There was tremendous value just as there is tremendous value in what so-called marginal actors come up with in order to get by. Truly brilliant (yes, ingenious, in my opinion), often hidden, not invisible though; the stories are there and, more importantly, so are the people who have lived them and can teach them! Although, important to keep in mind is the case of the slaves and the fact that their masters mostly didn’t see the way they were learning as significant which proved eventually advantageous. The opportunity for emancipation did come and while we would not say that the slaves made that happen alone, it certainly was not something that ‘society’ (whatever that means) determined would now be changed for them and then doors magically flew open. Change after a structure like that has been in place? It was and IS ‘long and tedious’.
I’m also interested in the way you responded to my idea of those who are seen as marginal actors who I believe to be more like economic heroes. And I do mean this all in a ‘practical, real-life sense’. I certainly would say that no, it is NOT enough that there are few of the contrary-to-expectations, against-the-odds survival occurrences. Probably the fact that they are so uncommon makes people seem hero-like to me. I guess from the scope of trying to imitate the way the middle class does it however, the same people might look very different. Honestly, the way things are right now we can feel like heroes sometimes just for having come up with a way to get by. But also, there are neighborhoods, communities, groups, entire countries—a whole lot of people around, who would be really content to be where they are, with the people they’re with, even without enjoying ‘hero status’, as you called it. It would be enough just to BE ABLE to get by, doing something that still has dignity in it, and have the ‘larger labor market’ stop fighting wars in our countries when we are trying to make things better while living our way .
As for examples of economic heroes in the informal economy (now that I’ve clarified my meaning of that a bit more), you can find them everywhere in NY—all over the boroughs, you don’t even have to be looking—although I actually think it’s pretty important that we are. –Dhyana Kara, thanks for this diologue, you truly made me think and clarify how it is I should express this.
And thanks to you too, Dhyana. This back and forth has helped me work through at least some of the concepts we’ve been covering. I have to admit that some of the material in the class has been difficult for me to wrap my head around because it has a somewhat of a philosophical feel about it – exploring these very large and taken-for-granted questions such as “what does it mean to learn” or “how do we learn”. My background is in sociology and public policy, so my focus is on phenomena that are most amenable to policy change through the quickest route possible. – Kara Balemian
[edit] if Teachers College is dedicated to "equity," what is one who appreciates Rancière to propose, practically?
Previous Discussion Contrasting Ignorance: Disabling--Next Discussion Communities of practice
