Theory @ MindSay



 

   
The problem with multicultural education

The following are the beginning ideas of my dissertation.  I have provided excerpted parts for reading and feedback.  Please do not reproduce without explicit permission from the author.

Sincerely,

Antonio Garcia

Indiana University

Wrong again, what to do?

     I have had many experiences negotiating what multicultural education is that I have come to understand that it is fundamental to begin a conversation of what it isn’t.  This can be exemplified in an interaction I had with a lady recently.  She asked me what I was studying in school and I told her “education, more specifically multicultural education.”  Her immediate response was “so you want to teach in urban schools.”  Before I countered her stereotypical response I asked her “why do you say that?”  She replied with “well those schools are the ones that are multicultural.”  This friendly exchange held deep underlying assumptions and misconceptions of not only what multicultural education is but also more specifically “who” it was for.  This is only one of many similar perceptions of multicultural education.  The underlying idea becomes understood by many as “cultural” being contingent on racial representations.  So when there are only white students many people often say that there isn’t much multiculturalness or “other” cultures present.  My goal is to counter that assumption by interviewing white teachers in predominantly white rural areas in southern Indiana.  

Defining Multicultural Education

     When people speak of diversity, multiculturalism, or pluralism they are often speaking in black and white terms.  The general notion of diversity and culture has become relegated to a misconceived categorical realm of racial visibility.  Such perception predicating race as the definitive factor on which one perceives culture to be visible is reductionist when considering the grand narrative of multicultural education seeks to manifest an egalitarian society that is just and transformative (Banks, Bennett, Gay).  Due to the historical legacy of slavery in the U.S. much of what has been considered diversity has often been racially portrayed.  Despite the fact that racism has been a central struggle in U.S. history we must also considered the struggles that have not been predicated on the color of one’s skin, i.e. class, sexuality, language, religion, politics, etc...  In looking beyond strictly racialized notions we can begin to identify the true complexity of what scholars (James Banks, Christine Bennett, Geneva Gay, Henry Giroux, Gloria Ladson-Billings, SoniaNieto, Christine Sleeter) assert to be multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism has been perceived as a racial epidemic in a sense that it poses a threat to unified national identity and monolithic culture (D’Souza, Schlessinger).  The 1960’s was not only an era of Civil Rights contestation, but also a time period of poorly defined political policies surrounding immigration, urban development and education, and addressing the politics of representation (Giroux, Mclaren).  In the decades following the civil rights the U.S. became more than a melting pot, it became a new terrain of struggle for identity, representation, and confrontation of old world ideals that othered or marginalized individuals and groups(Apple, Giroux).  Although at the forefront the struggle was waged on racism (primarily black racism) and unequal practices among a majority white society, there was much more that preceded this violent upheaval.  To reduce issues of inequality solely to a matter of race in a supposed egalitarian society is to reduce the complex nature of struggle itself.  The recognition of struggle comes through conscientização, critical consciousness (Freire, 1974).

Having consciousness is not enough to see the world and penetrate the blindness of struggle.  We must also develop a “critical” theory with our consciousness in order to participate in “the nature of self-conscious critique… develop a discourse of social transformation and emancipation that does not cling dogmatically to its own doctrinal assumptions…the necessity of ongoing critique, one in which the claims of any theory must be confronted with the distinction between the world it examines and portrays, and the world as it actually exist” (Giroux, 1983, p.8).  Critical theory as outlined by the Frankfurt school of sociology was an influential entity in the development of Paolo Freire’s ideals of critical consciousness.  I will later elaborate on the notions of critical theory as laid out by Herbert Marcuse and Max Horkheimer.  

The consciousness of culture and defining culture is the central tenet of examination in this work.  My assertion is that the idea “culture” in multiculturalism is reductionist and antithetical to the true goals of multicultural education.  In order to overcome such an obstacle in revealing a broader campaign for social justice, equality, and equity in education and society scholars must work to formulate and approach multicultural education through novel means that attempt to redefine culture as it is defined by scholars.  Moreover, it is not just culture that needs to be centralized as problematic but also the lack of considerable attention to building a critical consciousness to locate struggle and inequality in the most hegemonic and supposed monolithic cultural settings.  

Defining culture

[…] everything in education relates to culture-to its acquisition, its transmission, and its invention.  Culture is in us and all around us, just as is the air we breathe.  It is personal, familial, communal, societal, and global in its scope and distribution (Banks & Banks, 2004, p.31)

      For the purpose of analyzing teachers perceptions of culture I have categorized six conceptions of cultures: Anthropological, Ideological, humanistic, Semiotic, Critical, and Null.  The conceptions, which may overlap or draw from one another in such a way that one may not be purely one or another categorically, allow for me to analyze how culture is conceptualized by teacher in order to addressing themes and patterns.  I am still working on developing and articulating these categories, but I will share a few here.

Anthropological

Ang’s (2005) perspectives of culture are drawn from the conceptualization and problematizing of defining culture in cultural studies.  In the general notion “culture” becomes significant of art or other people(Ang, 2005).  It becomes an ideal or abstractness removed from out life, yet “Culture is integral to and constitutive of social life, not something outside of or a mere addition to it (Ang, 2005, p.477).”  Everything, practice, habit, and even intellectualism can be considered “culture.”  So why is it that some people see culture as something outside of their own life?  One speculation is that white people in the US do not believe they have a culture.

Humanistic

A differing dimension of culture stems from the malconjoined idea of culture and civilization.  Postmodern critique calls into question the notions of civilization which is predicated on industrialization and economic variance.  Culture is often misrepresented as being synonymous with civilization, yet the two are independent of one another.  If we were to look at third world countries, more politically correct called “underdeveloped nations”, we would see a huge economic disparity among the rich and poor; however, culture is very much present according to the anthropological definition of daily practices and habits practiced by the people.  Marcuse, a neo-marxist sociological critique, proposes culture as something more than rote daily practice.

[C]ulture is more than a mere ideology.  Looking at the professed goals of Western civilization and at the claims of their civilization, we should define culture as a process of humanization, characterized by the collective effort to protect human life, to pacify the struggle for existence by keeping it within manageable bounds, to stablilize a productive organization of society to develop the intellectual faculties of man, to reduce and sublimate aggressions, violence, and misery” (Feenberg & Leiss, 2007, p.14-15).

Critical Cultural theory

     Struggle, inequality, and exploitation become naturalized and neutralized as cultural difference.  These becomes divisional “ ‘ways of life’ which are something given, something that cannot be overcome(Zizek, VIOLENCE, 140).  Such neglect to engage our human intellectual faculties to challenge and seek transformation, as well as a solidarity in humanity, relegates culture, according to Zizek, as the ultimate source of barbarism as “one’s direct identification with a particular culture, which renders one intolerant towards other cultures (141).  In this sense, culture becomes almost a mystification practice for a pedagogy of isolationism and preservation of one culture over another.  This disregard for cultural adherence and solidarity as something shared and practiced among multiple people is one argument of why multicultural education has reached a plateau of achievement in predominantly white conservative areas.

 

MORE TO COME....

 
 
   
 

Philosophical Question: Does Paris Hilton Make the World a Better Place?



Pro:

*Like a model, she represents a certain style that moves style as such forward. Style and fashion, like different forms of art and expression, make life more interesting and better, in addition to being an economic-cultural commodity.

*As an heiress and "famous for fame's sake" celebrity, she takes we peons out of our daily lives and entertains us with her dalliances, celeb friends, and run-ins with both morality and law. Famous people serve an end-in-itself function: entertaining and delighting we the audience.

*Negative-positive role model: Ms. Hilton represents the worst of American culture, but paradoxically, its best. Andy Warhol would surely both love and despise Paris Hilton: her vapidity, self-aggrandizement, her triangulation, her shallowness, all emblematic of a post-WWII American economy based on a flight from Marxist materialism and a race to the pop-cultural dreamscape, not poorly represented by the delusions of grandeur and flights of fancy of our President, George W. Bush -- famous lover of "cowboy" iconography.



Con:

*Paris Hilton seems to be of low morality, i.e. her sex tape

*Hilton is rich because of an accident of birth.

*Her media personality, and coverage of her frivolous lifestyle, annoys people.

*She does not use her wealth for the betterment of the world's poor and needy.

*Hilton represents a consumerist approach that is economically exploitative and fosters inequality.

*Hilton makes young women insecure by causing them to unsuccessfully imitate her looks, disposition, and lifestyle.

*Her singing and acting are both atrocious; as a celebrity, she has little talent other than looks and style sense.

*On a personal level, Hilton makes the citizens of Los Angeles County less safe with her poor driving.

*Hilton has uttered racial and homophobic slurs, accessible on YouTube.

*The list does not end here.

Commentary:

Ever the apologist for the famous, I believe that on the stat sheet, Paris Hilton makes the world a better place -- in the same way that Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan benefit the world. Simply by being themselves, they generate wealth for media outlets and garner the attention of bored people looking to step out of their dreary lives for just one moment with an InStyle or US Weekly magazine. Spears, Lohan, and Hilton are all superstars in their own right, as evidenced by their year-after-year place in the celebrity headlines.

All have their personal peccadilloes, which make them more accessible and more interesting to an American culture less interested in fiction than celebrity "nonfiction." While Samuel Richardson's Pamela found an eager audience in 1740s Great Britain, we have "real" celebrities. Coincidentally, the character Pamela has much the same personality as a Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan, when their "media personalities" are considered -- namely, character traits of a lack of self-knowledge, naivety, natural looks and talent, and -- most importantly -- the ability to force others to desire.

Yes, desire -- get with it, people. Those who would argue that desire cannot make us better lead us not. While I teach English in Midwestern Outpost, my heart is in Los Angeles, where the wonderful world of mechanical reproduction, so supple, its semantic beauty so far-reaching, now resides in, but not within, the personalities of people like Paris Hilton. And thereby she has elevated us.



Deny not the power of kitsch!!!

 
 
 

   
My mind.. out of my mind.. in my mind's.. eye..

Today I was talking to my friend Laura .  She asked me how I got into sculpting.  It was a bit of a long story, I probably put her to sleep. ;)  But anyway, somewhere or somehow I got to thinking... about art, sculptures, what it means to me and what I want to accomplish with myself.  I have studied art a bit, and its history.. well, not as much as I would like to, but that is something for another day... but what is on my mind now, is that I wonder how art is evolving and changing over time.  And, I wonder if my art is a step forward in sculpture.  I wonder if art as a whole is growing because of what I do.  Even if not very many people have seen it, I know it is unique and different then all other sculpture.  It reminds me of another theory, that every time someone breaks a new world record, our species evolves on some small level; as we are pushing our boundaries and capabilities as human beings.  So I wonder if the same is true for art, and what I do.  I think about artists like da Vinci, Dali, Van Gogh, and others.. who have each their individual styles and have influenced art throughout their time and our time.  It seems like da Vinci's style has been lost on many levels in modern art; like the way he created a portrait isn't being used today.  Well, it probably is, but perhaps isn't as popular (I don't really know).  So anyways, I would like to see myself creating sculptures on higher levels of art, meaning that I want them to push the limits of what we know about art and sculpture today.  To see if I can create a new type of art or expression or something from what I do.

 

You can see my work at www.futantshadow.deviantart.com/gallery/

 

Peter

 
 
   
 

The way to get ahead in life.

This is a strictly mathematical viewpoint...it goes like this:

What Makes 100%? What does it mean to give MORE than 100%? Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life?

Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:

If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

is represented as:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

Then:!
H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%


and

K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%

But,

A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%

And,

B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%

AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.

A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%

So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that While Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, it's the Bullshit and Ass kissing that will put you over the top.

 

Smiley

 
 
 

   
I have a theory. . .
I have a theory about why we all dismiss inconvenient science. . . Well, obviously with any topic this big there are lots of influences. People using the same word to mean different things has come up other places around me, and I think it directly applies here as well. The offending word here is "theory." There is little 

resemblance between a scientific theory and a "conversational" theory (as this entry is). Let's look at the two uses.

To a scientist a theory is a set of explanations with no known contradictions--either internally or with other observations--that describe some observations. Perhaps one of the least controversial examples of this is the Germ Theory of Disease which says that germs make you sick. I don't think many people doubt this idea--after all that's why we spend so much on antibacterial everything's, right? (And don't get me started on all that stuff!) But it's still "just a theory," and always will be. Being a theory doesn't mean that there's any doubt about it or that we aren't confident in it, but it does mean that it's an explanation of observed phenomena that fits all the known facts.

Just because "theory" doesn't imply doubt it doesn't mean it's certain either. New evidence may not fit with previous theories. When this happens the theory either has to be adjusted to accomidate the new facts or a whole new theory has to be constructed that covers all the evidence. That's how science moves forward.

Ok, so what about us average folk, what do we mean when we say "we've got a theory." Usually we just mean that we're guessing about something. For example, I started this out by saying that I have a theory about a language problem between scientists and the rest of us. I have no evidence and have done no studies to back this up. This could all be completely wrong (though obviously I don't think it is), and someone else could have a different theory about it with no real way for either of us to prove why our theory is preferred. Clearly this is a very different kind of theory from science.

Confusing these meanings causes us to dismiss scientific theories out of hand. Don't ignore a scientific theory just because it's uncomfortable. It may be wrong, but it isn't just a guess.

 
 
   
 

Showing 1 - 5.   [ Next ]
 
Latest Comment
Re: What Do 300 Calorie Meals Look Like? - That's nothing compared to how many calories Asians and probably...

Read...


 
© 2005-2007 MindSay Interactive LLC
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy
My Account
Inbox
Account Settings
Lost Password?
Logout
Blog
Update Blog
Edit Old Entries
Pick a Theme
Customize Design
Modify Plugins
Community
Your Profile
Wiki Pages
MindSay Tags
Video & Photos
Geographic Directory
Inside MindSay
About MindSay
MindSay and RSS
Report Spam
Contact Us
Help