Blog#6 Applying Freire's concepts to modern society

"His task is to "fill" students with the contents of his narration-contents which are detached from reality, disconnected from the totality that engendered them significance...narrative education, then, is the sonority of words, not their transforming power" -Paulo Freire, on "The banking of Ed., p. 74

After reading Paulo Freire, I couldn't help but notice his infinite references to what I presume as a representation of humanity with none other than the male pronoun. I am not angered by this somewhat exclusive representation, it did however, seem important to highlight the subtlety of "his language “especially when referencing the “oppressed" and the "oppressor". The quote above is a term that seemed to be the groundwork for Freire's chapter on "the banking concept". When contrasting this idea of a "narrative education" with my own experiences, I can definitely attest to my learning environments being a sort of authoritarian hierarchy between my teachers, my classmates, and I especially within my k-12 years. It seems to me that a "narrative education" is a way to reinforce our current class systems. Meaning, only upper middle class and wealthy families have the opportunity to develop and nurture critical thinking skills and can experience what Freire refers to as a liberal education. This is evident within Milwaukee Public School systems, which are often attended by children of "working class" families. The curriculum of MPS consists of children being required to memorize their teachers, whom are simply transferring knowledge from textbooks to the students. This type of learning environment is mere preparation for joining the work force (blue-collar jobs) where there is a sort of mechanical, mundane task and where thought isn't required and memorization is applauded. There is no room for questioning what is being taught or ensuring understanding. Criticism is also something that isn't nurtured in MPS schools and there is definitely a lack between connecting the classroom with reality, especially the reality of their student’s life experiences. Criticism and this lack of reality can also be defined as what Freire refers to as "authentic thinking". It is impossible for "authentic thinking to take place when students are expected to simply prepare and become “proficient” through a series of standardized tests.

Throughout Freire’s chapter, it seemed as if his anticipated audience were teachers and maybe prospective teachers, but not students. For example, when he reference terms such as “narrative education”, “banking education”, and “dialogical relations” he is sort of mapping out different ways to incorporate his philosophy of creating a more liberal education, he also eludes towards what not to do when referencing “banking education”. This is another instance of contradiction/questioning with the first being usage of the male pronoun. My question is, who are the oppressed? Who is the oppressor? With so much emphasis on what educators can do to revolutionize education, I have to consider what can students do particularly, college students? Students have the right to demand a more liberal education, and if they did what would be the reaction? How can students demand freedom and a more all-inclusive education without jeopardizing their success? When students remain passive about their academic setting they aren’t developing their “consciousness” which means a less enlightened society and a continuation of this cycle of the “banking education” within our society.

Response to Melanie 2/15

I thought this essay was very complex and interesting. I had some troubles pin-pointing his own thoughts/perspectives because the words he used didn't seem to say much. He was kinda talking in circles yet there were strong implied messages/opinions such as his embarrassment towards his parents. I appreciate your comments on the term "scholarship boy" because it helped me to tie it all together. "Scholarship boy: good student, troubled son. The child is moderately endowed..."(Rodriguez 433). I find this sentence to be very complex and multifaceted. Does the comment good student, troubled son suggest the students alienation or the parents/families perception of the him becoming troubled? Perhaps it is both. The examples of his mother asking him what did he see in his books, or his brother calling him four eyes all seem to suggest that there is some sort of shared "troubling anxiety" between the student and the family.

I have a lot of criticism toward this essay because in the beginning Rodriguez was struggling with trying to reflect and understand his academic success and it seems that he was searching outside of himself instead of within. For example, he is searching through books which is how he discovered Richard Hoggart, he then finds a label/term in which to identify himself(scholarship boy) and then begins to recall examples from his childhood that are aligned with Hoggart's analysis. Throughout the essay, Rodriguez passively touches on his feelings of embarrassment towards his family and blames their "distant interactions" on the fact that they simply had nothing in common, however as I was reading his essay I never read anything about Rodriguez attempting to open up to his parents about his experience in school, particularly college. There is this assumption that they wouldn't be able to relate to him. I wonder why didn't he try to relate to them, find a common ground?

Lastly, I thought your final question was interesting, How will we as teachers be able to help students like this? This question is one of my strongest motivations for wanting to become a teacher. In my opinion, students such as Rodriguez, and students of color from working/middle-class all seem to develop some feelings of embarrassment/resentment towards their families and their backgrounds once they begin to enter the "commonplace" why? Perhaps it is because there is a lack of acknowledgement towards multiculturalism within the classroom. Would Rodriguez have felt embarrassed had his teachers assigned books by Hispanic American Authors? would Rodriguez have been happy to shed his accent had he attended a bilingual school? When thinking about the school setting, literary canons, and most of the teachers within these schools (In wisconsin 92% of teachers within public schools are caucasion) it is difficult to say whether or not students like these have the chance to bridge home life with school life. I am not suggesting that incorporating a more all inclusive curriculum from a multicultural standpoint will eliminate the anxieties and alienation Rodriguez faced I think that there will always be a double consciousness among students of color, that is having a fluid identity between their individual culture and aspiring to be american, a part of discourse, canonized, especially within an academic setting. I think teachers can and should use their curriculum to promote their students personal experiences and academic experiences as being equal and vital towards the shaping of ones identity.

Blog#3: How is writing an act of aggression disguised as an act of charity?

After rereading the article assigned by David Bartholomae, I noticed that there were a lot of details I had missed, but the most interesting phrase that stuck out to me was "...what is generally true about writing-that it is an act of aggression disguised as an act of charity"(Bartholomae 516). Question number nine asks, what is my understanding of this? When thinking about the word aggression, I naturally think of physical gestures, violence, attack, and force. However in this particular context I am "appropriating" the word as "proactive", "goal-orientated", and "willful". When thinking of the word "charity" within this context it seems to be a "foundation" to promote goodness, a "gift" that benefits all beings. The concept of charity seems to fit the results of language, dialogue and literature...after all, literary works are often viewed as collective outlooks on diverse human experiences. I think Bartholomae's reference to writing being a form of aggression disguised as charity is somewhat accurate and is expressed by his commentary on the "commonplace", "a commonplace then is a culturally or institutionally authorized concept or statement that carries its own necessary elaboration...provides a point of reference and a set of pre-articulated explanations that are readily available to organize and interpret experience"(Bartholomae 516). When talking about beginner writers, there is an understanding that they are "outsiders" of discourse trying to work themselves in, they can begin to do this by attempting to access these "commonplaces" which seems to be various voices/perspectives. For example, the student who wrote the clay model essay relied on his "scientific language" to try and dramatize his experience with building the earth model in order to orient himself within the college-bound setting. This is the aggression that Bartholomae is referring to. Aggression seems to be the "risks" that these beginner writers are taking in hopes of being considered worthy of gravitating more closer to this realm of discourse. The "charity" then seems to be the final product of this aggressive effort. As the writer takes more risks by practicing different voices and writing from different perspectives, their writing becomes more charitable. It is easier for the new found "expert" writer to "better imagine how a reader would respond to a text and can transform and restructure what they have to say around a goal shared with a reader"(Bartholomae 514).

In conclusion, this phrase that Bartholomae uses describes the journey/creative processes of becoming a "better" writer. Students are aggressively eager to imitate and anticipate how their teachers "know what they know" and how they would work out the problems that they assign in order to construct a good piece of writing. Students have to actively assume that they already are privileged without actually being so all while being completely in tune with their audience and anticipating the skepticism/ideals they hold. It is using this aggression to balance their own individual voice simultaneously and if done correctly, eventually these writers will be able to be a part of some charitable discourse that is privileged enough to partake in the writings of collective personalities within our human experience.

comment from Melanie's blog...

Erica Woods said...

I really enjoyed reading your blog and I thought your opening quote was interesting. I think that the admission essays written by prospective college students allow the "scholars and authoritative figures" to see if there is any potential for the student to be shaped and molded into an academic writer. I also agree with you when you said that we have to analyze our professors and understand their "coding" literary styles in order to succeed in their classroom. It is true that we are essentially altering our voice in order for our professors to understand our writings, which is similar to anticipating who our audience is and speaking through that perspective. I used to think that in doing that the writer would somehow lose themselves and that altering their language somehow disconnected them from their central experience or identity. After reading this article however, I am beginning to understand that the writer can and does still convey their own experiences and perspectives even when they alter their language style. Maybe learning to write from various perspectives and different audiences is a form of exercise for the writer, a way to sharpen their skills with language and learning how to efficiently flow in and out of various discourses in order to become "cultured" or "well-rounded".

Looking at the exercise from your english 420 class made me realize that we, the students are sharpening our minds through adaptations or mimicking various languages/discourses. At the same time we have the ability to filter our own experiences and perspectives within these frameworks. A word that comes to mind for me is "blending". All students are gathered together in this commonplace known as the university to become better writers. We can do that by navigating through the framework our professors line out for us, and we can evolve by blending in our own creativity, perspectives and experiences for multiple discourses.

On Bullshit...Blog 2

"Academics...believe their own bullshit. They hide behind language that may be as slight, or exaggerated...academic writing very seldom aims to deceive the reader about its content, but it certainly is meant to enhance the reputation...of the writer...resulting in tangible rewards for academic tenure,promotions, grants,etc."(Eubanks&Shaeffer 382-83).

I found both the article "A kind word for bullshit" and the book "On bullshit" a bit empty and over-saturated with adjectives for a term that is hard to pinpoint. It seems to me that bullshit is a "polite duck/exit" out of a dialogue/situation that a person knows little if nothing about. The exit is followed by filler words or in the case of academic settings more " intellectual,prestigious vocabulary" that sort of jumbles the brain of the person being bullshitted to into a frenzy of a confusing play on words. I thought the quote listed above was interesting because it was the one of the most honest realizations within the nine page article. Hopefully this article along with the book "On bullshit" will provoke some sort of personal reflection,particularly among students and professors. From my perspective, bullshit within the academic setting or even personal writings (such as Amy Tan and Barbara Mellix) stems from the societal and personal pressures/expectations to be smarter, more clever, or more scholarly. I wonder what would happen if we removed that pressure and allowed a more natural,observational flow to navigate our writings? Perhaps maybe bullshit would occasionally slip through the cracks of our subconscious state but at least our voices would be a little more authentic, real.