Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9KMh0911625; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <002301c03ae7$6af56f60$d5eeffd1@cbking> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Catherine King" <cbking@flash.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:203] Re: discussing racism X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 10930 Lines: 247 Hello Eileen: >From my own 5-year foray into developing a dialogue with and among my students regarding race in Central Virginia, here are a few insights I gleaned: First, the instructor is already a part of the ethnic, socio- economic context within which and out of which the dialogue will take place. Unlike other course work, we cannot "bracket" ourselves. To try to is false. Second, racism and all kinds of group biases have deeply set historical and psychological roots. It's not a matter of learning a skill. Third, teachers and students enter a dialogue with "flying assumptions" and tense questions about each other, depending on their own experience and ethnic background, and on how they perceive other's experience and background through that prism. Fourth, teachers and students enter a dialogue with fears and desires about "how I might sound," and about whether what I say may either "flag" me as the racist I'm not sure I'm not, or others may misinterpret me as a racist when I am not. Fifth, I may be entering a dialogue where others may be racist (sexist, etc.) against me, including the teacher who, regardless of her-his academic credentials, experience, references, or publications, if they are from the "dominant" culture, they probably don't know my and my group's experience. My grade may depend on that distinction. Sixth, whether we are student or teacher, we cannot get a certificate, or be graded, on whether we are or are not racist, sexist, anti-religious--nor should we be able to. All we can say is that we have participated in a dialogue and perhaps written essays or journals about it. There goes funding. Seventh, the dialogue is extremely important because of its potential to provide positive results. These positive results, I would generally say, are the occurrence of insights or clusters of insights in a student (and the teacher) that (1) help him-her understand deeper and more about his-her own situation and historical context, and that of others; (2) help him-her become more self-reflective about such internal change as a matter of developed habit, (3) provide a new internal pivot of understanding from which new actions will now spontaneously flow--different and better from prior unreflective and uncritically inherited positions. Eighth, these insights and clusters of insights may or may not happen depending on the amount of reflection and internal unraveling that needs to be done, and according to the attitude of the person towards openness to change--there is no guarantee that the questions raised in the dialogue will result in someone having life-changing insights. "Achievement" is person-specific and has more to do with their history and development than it does with learning a task. Ninth, often the results (of having life-changing insights where one's biases are challenged and begin to be dispelled) occur after a long time and in unison with some other historical intrusion in the person's settled assumptive life. The teacher (or the "outcomes" person) may not be able to collect data to show the dialogue has had profound results, even though those later profound results may not have occurred without the prior dialogue. If coursework and funding are tied to outcomes understood as they seem to be today, we may set ourselves up for missing deeply life-changing development. REGARDING THEORY We might want to make a distinction in general education, that would in turn apply to methods and expectations in developing criteria for racial dialogue, around "remote" and "proximate" learning--education? The remote dimension of education means the "constitutive" element of education--where a person changes how they are constituted, and therefore their actions in their across-the- board human living. Whereas the proximate dimension of education means the "referential" dimension of education where we learn about things and how to do things. For instance, we may be a good surgeon, but also be ethically or psychologically disturbed. In a whole human being these two dimension are interrelated and tend to subordinate one to the another depending on the context, but they can provide us with a beginning framework for understanding how methods and outcomes for humanities and the arts are legitimately different; and furthermore, that a "flat" application of methods and expectations of the natural sciences, including a "field expertise" differs in meaning between professions and activities. At this point in time, it seems to me, education is still under this "flat" paradigm of thought where the methods and outcomes of "proximate" education are uncritically applied to the "remote" dimension of education--which is counter-productive to say the least. Remote development is for the sake of qualifying the life of the student and needs no other justification. Though testing is important and even essential in some areas and for some things, testing for remote development is absurd, though this is where we want motivational change to occur. Creating a dialogue on race and other biases in adult education is even more interpersonal and requires more self-reflection for all concerned than in the humanities and the arts--both of which have their legitimate theoretical components and legitimate testing mechanisms. Because the teacher's own remote constitution with regard to biases cannot and should not be measured, this kind of dialogue cannot fall under the same auspices as learning to read, doing math, contributing to the field of art, poetry, writing, etc. all of which contribute to that remote development, but are measured by evidence of immediate output and "proximate" skill development. And because in opening the dialogue we are already **all** in the historical context of ethnicity, race, gender, etc., we can only refer to the canonization of secular law by which we all live and hope dialogue can be peaceful. PARTICULAR METHOD The best "results" I got for my students was to have them read, read, read--literature by black writers in the case of racism--and I gave theoretical lectures on the background conscious structure of "group bias" where they could open any newspaper and see the structure emerge in the dialogue about struggles across the world. There is an anthology of black writers that Norton puts out, and that Henry Louis Gates edits, I believe. And then we discussed it, and students wrote long reflective essays about the readings. I found that, because of the above scenario--which is only briefly explained--reading far outweighed face-to- face dialogue for provoking insights because the dialogue always has the social component of needing to "save face" in the midst of finding oneself on the wrong side of an argument--whether we as teachers like it or not. Reading gives a person reflective time to "face oneself," rather than someone who is too close to the problem telling someone how they feel about having been a victim. Having to defend oneself, or feeling shame, in the face of another leaves us no time to get some distance on our own doubts and self-change--which is after all what we want to happen. But as teachers, we cannot "bracket" ourselves and others when we are face to face with them talking about the extant problems. It's a social impossibility and actually can destroy interpersonal relations--Many Chinese know about this, and other Eastern peoples. But we Americans think we can bracket anything--as if we can stand outside of the history we are in. Western thinking has its limits on this very point, and we are experiencing it here on this forum. Perhaps in the dialogue between races and other groups where bias is concerned, we have reached the place where east meets west. In the "face-to-face" dialogue is where be must find a new tension between the interpersonal and the reflective distance we are used to in the classroom. We are in a new time. Perhaps this apparent impass is really the dawn of a new method, or a recovery of what the west has hidden for all too long. But after reading, my students wrote long papers in which they began to work out their established views, their questions and their insights on paper. The writing and reflective essays were the outcome--not that they agreed with me. They did have to recount the theory as given, and counter it if they had reasons to. But they dialogued with the books' authors more than with other students about the issue, and all I could do was hope that the experience made their own journey's more peaceful and their inner landscape more accepting than before they came into the course. This was at college--(1) at an "outback" community college where many of my students were in their 30s, and (2) at a four-year college where most of my students were just out of high school. Regards to all, Catherine King ---- Original Message ----- From: Eileen Eckert <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:26 AM Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:202] discussing racism > It seems that in addition to discussing issues of racism, we've mirrored the > process these discussions take in society. We started off with goodwill and > openness, and seem to have reached a point where everyone feels tense, maybe > defensive, and afraid to say anything further. So how do we deal with issues > of race and racism with adult literacy students (ABE, GED, ESL, etc.) when > we have a hard time getting past the initial stages of discussion ourselves? > > At the beginning of this discussion, I was impatient with the lack of direct > connection to adult literacy practice. As the discussion has continued, > flared up, and died out or taken a breather, my impatience has changed to a > realization that without a commitment to continue our own discussions, > explorations, and discoveries about the issues and our part in them, we are > unable to deal with oppression (racism especially) as an explicit part of > adult literacy work. > > I hope we can work together to find ways to explore issues of racism and > other forms of oppression with our students providing leadership. They have > more direct, first-hand, daily experience than many of us, and they are > often more open and able to speak their minds. I have heard few reactions to > the lesson/course outcomes I posted, but I have started working on fleshing > out the outcomes with objectives, activities, and assessments. If anyone is > willing to work with me, I'd welcome that-please respond to my e-mail > address instead of the whole listserv. > > Eileen > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:47:27 EST