Reading the Schutz piece reminded me of a number of encounters that I have had with inmates in prisons and the city jail that just kind of fell outside of the bounds of what I was used to dealing with. I taught reading in the city jail this summer, and as each class ended, I felt like I learned something new about interacting with the inmate population. Sometimes it was just something about how to stand or behave in a particular space, sometimes it was just the tone of my voice, sometimes it was just paying attention to the atmosphere in the room because the energy was different. I think the biggest lesson I learned was that just because someone says something doesn't mean it is literally true. "True" in the corrections population is a very nebulous concept.
I think Schutz's article really provides a great framework for correctional education. I wish I could have read it before the first time I went into the jail classroom. I think that many people--especially people out of university/college settings--really come to corrections classes with the Dewey perspective. This shiny view of the world can't last long though, and Schutz puts it clearly:
"From the perspective of organizers, the idea that one could act in public in the trusting, open manner that Dewey recommended is a dangerous fantasy. And it is a fantasy most often clung to by the relatively privileged, by those who have never really experienced the iron fist of power."
The next lesson that middle-class people who have never been incarcerated need to keep in mind if they're going to teach in the correctional classroom is this line between private and public, which Schutz gets to next. When I first started going into the jail and prisons, it was kind of common sense to me that I would not share a good deal of my "private" self. However, I have known some people who share their private selves fully; this is dangerous because the culture of the incarcerated is not to share, but to protect the private self.
"Most fundamentally, the public arena is no place for people to attempt to (nonstrategically) reveal what organizers refer to as their ‘‘private’’ selves, to seek a unique identity with respect to a common effort. Partly, as I have noted, this is because any information that is revealed is likely to be used against one by others in that space who are not so na¨ıve. But a more important reason is that any group that seeks to operate effectively in this realm must act in solidarity. To generate collective power, the rich diversity of any group must be collapsed into a single voice. In other words, the public space of organizing is not the place for me to appear as myself; instead, it is a space where, to be effective, I must appear in roles and wear masks. This is, if you will, a pragmatic requirement."
I think incarcerated people would agree that this "mask" is necessary for survival in the prison or jail setting.
In short...Schutz's article has a lot of applications to correctional educators!
Of tangential relation to what I've written above, seeing Habermas and Arendt's work on public/private spheres cited in the Schultz piece and the Critical Theory encyclopedia entry make me wish that I had been able to follow the Habermas book when we read it for the critical reading group. I'm glad I kept my copy so that I can return to it someday.
My reading of Schutz had me thinking about Teaching to Transgress by bell hooks (the book I have read for this class), and wondering how hooks would respond to Schutz’s article as a black, feminist intellectual who believes in the importance of truly democratic (or “liberatory” in her words) education. Like Schutz, I think hooks understands the lessons and realities of “the iron fist of power.” Unlike him however, she believes that providing “a democratic setting where everyone feels a responsibility to contribute is a central goal of transformative pedagogy” (p. 39, TtT). hooks states that it is only through the acknowledgement of and respect for differences of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and nationality that all voices can be both heard and respected. I think that hooks might argue that engaging students in truly “collaborative dialogues” (p. 509, Schutz) is, in fact, the first and very necessary step in public action. Doesn’t true transformation begin with understanding?
Aaron Schutz is the bomb! Ok… sometimes I don’t feel like being scholarly and I just have to let the words flow. As I finished up my book review on Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinksy’s most noted work, I reflected on Alinsky’s continual references to pragmatism and wondered what he would have to say about Dewey and vice-versa. I actually looked up when each of them was born and died to consider whether the two could have ever crossed paths in Chicago. And then I turned to tonight’s reading… where Schutz considers using Alinsky as a starting point for how progressive educators might contribute more effectively to social justice! Talk about the Universe at work!
What Schutz writes about jives with my experience as a lobbyist and organizer. I saw too many instances of the “public realm rife with inequality and danger.” I frequently taught seminars to teachers on the difference between public and private relationships, coaching them on how to develop public relationships. It’s ironic that in an era of social media gone wild people believe they are more “public” when they are actually only revealing more of their private selves. The public self is one that holds people accountable, and seeks others’ respect, as opposed to their love and approval. I saw so many new teachers enter the workforce seeking their students, peers and administrators’ approval and love versus their respect.
As much as I love the ideas of the progressives, they do seem to operate in the “ideal” world, as opposed to the world as it is. (I think of my friend who attended a Montessori school until the 7th grade and then entered public school. She refused to send her own child to a Montessori school because of the culture shock she experienced when transferring to the public school in 8th grade). An Alinsky line I’m almost tiring of using because I spew it out so often is that we must learn to live in the world as it is as opposed to the world as it should be. I know we need a vision of the world as it should be, but if we don't accept the world as it is, we can’t begin to change it. I’m probably getting too tangential now, but I’ve been in too many meetings for too many years where people want to appeal to the moral sense of the oppressors to change… and frankly that baffles me. I don’t think they actually recognize that as their approach, but without power, that is essentially where you are left, appealing to your oppressors’ reason or their morals. If they were reasonable or moral they likely wouldn’t be creating the oppressive situation. They are operating from a place of power. I consider myself an optimistic realist and I stand behind Frederick Douglass’ quote: “Power concedes nothing without demand.”
I am especially drawn to Shutz's concept of the "civic" - this gray space that represents a middle ground on the continuum between public and private. As he notes, and I agree, there are no pure public and private spaces in the realm of organizing. As he also notes, the civic space is "where groups can come to some level of agreement about public action and where they can learn some of the skills they need in order to play their more fully public roles". I also agree with Shutz idea that schools are often places where students are not taught the actual power dynamics of the world around them, but rather are taught the "ideal". The question is how do we get to the "ideal" from within the power plays of the "reality"? The example he gives of the youth fighting for change through InnerCity Struggle was powerful! It reminds me of the students I work with and forced me to reflect on what I teach them about organizing for social change in their own communities. I admit that I am guilty of sometimes painting the "ideal" picture and guiding them to move forward by playing on the "morality" of those in power....yet, I have also seen the power of student voice when they understand the realities of their situation and the control of those in power. My favorite quote from this article: "These youth organizing efforts exemplify many key aspects of the organizing model discussed here. The efforts were catalyzed by a group located outside the control of school officials. They involved extensive research to identify key problems and specific solutions. They built leadership through action, and used whatever (nonviolent) strategies were available for demonstrating collective power by targeting the self-interests of the opposition — in this case, bringing the media in on their side, collecting petition signatures, holding rallies, and more. Small wins led to larger campaigns, with each step increasing the number of people that the organization could mobilize. Engagement with power followed the motion of a pendulum, moving back and forth between confrontation and negotiation. As a result, the organization clearly became a recognized force in the community. Each step — win or lose — involved learning about how different aspects of the public world actually work (as opposed to how they are supposed to work)". This is what I hope for my students and what I try to embody as I work to make change! *Looking forward to a good discussion about this topic in class tonight!! On another note, I really enjoyed Ginger's post above....this is an area of education and the power struggles involved therein that I have no experience with so this post really helped me to look at the issue from a different perspective! Thanks for sharing Ginger!!! :)
I would love to circulate Schutz’s article around Virginia K-12 schools. If teachers, parents and students organized to fight the Board of Education on Virginia’s curriculum and assessments we could make significant changes to the SOL and SOL testing. A few representatives from the education associations speaking at public hearings from time to time are not enough. With one third of the schools in Virginia currently in school improvement, now would be a good time for the people in the trenches to come together as one voice. Teachers are not getting more incompetent and students are not getting dumber. The system as it currently exists is not working. Reading Schutz’s article made me want to read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Maybe those of us at the university level could lead the charge for change.
I feel like this piece is very applicable to everything we've talked about in class. I really appreciate his call for social change, and I also agree with his warning to be cautious as well.
People are hard-headed folks. Schutz argues that the middle class doesn't necessarily want to change because they don't see a need for it. This is partially true – if you've lived your entire life privileged (but also with the veil of ignorance that John Rawls argues), then why would you need to say anything different? In order to promote social change, you need to organize and teach people how and why things can and should be different. However, I agree that we need to be cautious. If people go off the deep end calling for drastic change, then I don't see that as much different from the religious zealots that make the news on occasion. Having conversations and meeting people in the middle is how change gets started. I talk about my grandmother who can be described as pretty country. While set in her ways, through conversations, I have noticed that she understands why people feel differently on certain issues. This isn't necessarily an easy feat to accomplish, but through patience, understanding and conversation can we make change. In the book that I read for this class, Everybody was kung-fu fighting, Prashad discussed the tensions between those of African dissent and those of Asian dissent. As with many things, I feel that his book explores a lack of understanding between the two groups that led to racism at a higher structural level.
Schutz examines schools as a microcosm for society. If this is a place where we have a potentially engaged audience, we need to a better job of engaging them. But first, we need to organize among ourselves, discuss what change needs to actually take place, and come up with an action plan. However, communication and compromise are essential. Without it, I don't see how we can get very far.
Like my classmates, the Schutz article reminded me of many situations where I’ve felt kind of like a reluctant ambassador from the middle class. Michael McGerr’s quote in the article, “democratic progressives ‘intended nothing less than to transform other Americans, to remake the nation’s feuding, polyglot population in their own middle-class image” is an echo of a concern I always feel when I’ve worked with ESL students. Whose ideal version of reality am I pushing when I teach students about civic duty or even about language conventions? Especially teaching poorer English language learners, while we built strong personal relationships, and I think there was a certain level of trust, they often looked at me like I was an alien. I really had no idea how the oppressive forces on them made it difficult for them to ask for the things I said they should expect at work or to interact with their kids’ school administrators to get help. I understood it in theory only and didn’t know how to impart agency to them. I think it’s important and good work to encourage open democratic discussions and to create safe spaces for those to happen, but when does it actually translate to action and when is it just talk? The article made want to read more Alinsky and to learn more about social organizing. If organizing principles were incorporated into more educational programs, I feel that schools would have to become more democratic and be a safe space for social change.
Reading the Schutz piece reminded me of a number of encounters that I have had with inmates in prisons and the city jail that just kind of fell outside of the bounds of what I was used to dealing with. I taught reading in the city jail this summer, and as each class ended, I felt like I learned something new about interacting with the inmate population. Sometimes it was just something about how to stand or behave in a particular space, sometimes it was just the tone of my voice, sometimes it was just paying attention to the atmosphere in the room because the energy was different. I think the biggest lesson I learned was that just because someone says something doesn't mean it is literally true. "True" in the corrections population is a very nebulous concept.
ReplyDeleteI think Schutz's article really provides a great framework for correctional education. I wish I could have read it before the first time I went into the jail classroom. I think that many people--especially people out of university/college settings--really come to corrections classes with the Dewey perspective. This shiny view of the world can't last long though, and Schutz puts it clearly:
"From the perspective of organizers, the idea that one could act in public in the
trusting, open manner that Dewey recommended is a dangerous fantasy. And it is a fantasy most often clung to by the relatively privileged, by those who have never really experienced the iron fist of power."
The next lesson that middle-class people who have never been incarcerated need to keep in mind if they're going to teach in the correctional classroom is this line between private and public, which Schutz gets to next. When I first started going into the jail and prisons, it was kind of common sense to me that I would not share a good deal of my "private" self. However, I have known some people who share their private selves fully; this is dangerous because the culture of the incarcerated is not to share, but to protect the private self.
"Most fundamentally, the public arena is no place for people to attempt to
(nonstrategically) reveal what organizers refer to as their ‘‘private’’ selves, to seek a unique identity with respect to a common effort. Partly, as I have noted, this is because any information that is revealed is likely to be used against one by others in that space who are not so na¨ıve. But a more important reason is that any group that seeks to operate effectively in this realm must act in solidarity. To generate collective power, the rich diversity of any group must be collapsed into a single voice. In other words, the public space of organizing is not the place for me to appear as myself; instead, it is a space where, to be effective, I must appear in roles and wear masks. This is, if you will, a pragmatic requirement."
I think incarcerated people would agree that this "mask" is necessary for survival in the prison or jail setting.
In short...Schutz's article has a lot of applications to correctional educators!
Of tangential relation to what I've written above, seeing Habermas and Arendt's work on public/private spheres cited in the Schultz piece and the Critical Theory encyclopedia entry make me wish that I had been able to follow the Habermas book when we read it for the critical reading group. I'm glad I kept my copy so that I can return to it someday.
G.
My reading of Schutz had me thinking about Teaching to Transgress by bell hooks (the book I have read for this class), and wondering how hooks would respond to Schutz’s article as a black, feminist intellectual who believes in the importance of truly democratic (or “liberatory” in her words) education. Like Schutz, I think hooks understands the lessons and realities of “the iron fist of power.” Unlike him however, she believes that providing “a democratic setting where everyone feels a responsibility to contribute is a central goal of transformative pedagogy” (p. 39, TtT). hooks states that it is only through the acknowledgement of and respect for differences of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and nationality that all voices can be both heard and respected. I think that hooks might argue that engaging students in truly “collaborative dialogues” (p. 509, Schutz) is, in fact, the first and very necessary step in public action. Doesn’t true transformation begin with understanding?
ReplyDeleteAaron Schutz is the bomb! Ok… sometimes I don’t feel like being scholarly and I just have to let the words flow. As I finished up my book review on Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinksy’s most noted work, I reflected on Alinsky’s continual references to pragmatism and wondered what he would have to say about Dewey and vice-versa. I actually looked up when each of them was born and died to consider whether the two could have ever crossed paths in Chicago. And then I turned to tonight’s reading… where Schutz considers using Alinsky as a starting point for how progressive educators might contribute more effectively to social justice! Talk about the Universe at work!
ReplyDeleteWhat Schutz writes about jives with my experience as a lobbyist and organizer. I saw too many instances of the “public realm rife with inequality and danger.” I frequently taught seminars to teachers on the difference between public and private relationships, coaching them on how to develop public relationships. It’s ironic that in an era of social media gone wild people believe they are more “public” when they are actually only revealing more of their private selves. The public self is one that holds people accountable, and seeks others’ respect, as opposed to their love and approval. I saw so many new teachers enter the workforce seeking their students, peers and administrators’ approval and love versus their respect.
As much as I love the ideas of the progressives, they do seem to operate in the “ideal” world, as opposed to the world as it is. (I think of my friend who attended a Montessori school until the 7th grade and then entered public school. She refused to send her own child to a Montessori school because of the culture shock she experienced when transferring to the public school in 8th grade). An Alinsky line I’m almost tiring of using because I spew it out so often is that we must learn to live in the world as it is as opposed to the world as it should be. I know we need a vision of the world as it should be, but if we don't accept the world as it is, we can’t begin to change it. I’m probably getting too tangential now, but I’ve been in too many meetings for too many years where people want to appeal to the moral sense of the oppressors to change… and frankly that baffles me. I don’t think they actually recognize that as their approach, but without power, that is essentially where you are left, appealing to your oppressors’ reason or their morals. If they were reasonable or moral they likely wouldn’t be creating the oppressive situation. They are operating from a place of power. I consider myself an optimistic realist and I stand behind Frederick Douglass’ quote: “Power concedes nothing without demand.”
I am especially drawn to Shutz's concept of the "civic" - this gray space that represents a middle ground on the continuum between public and private. As he notes, and I agree, there are no pure public and private spaces in the realm of organizing. As he also notes, the civic space is "where groups can
ReplyDeletecome to some level of agreement about public action and where they can learn some of the skills they need in order to play their more fully public roles".
I also agree with Shutz idea that schools are often places where students are not taught the actual power dynamics of the world around them, but rather are taught the "ideal". The question is how do we get to the "ideal" from within the power plays of the "reality"? The example he gives of the youth fighting for change through InnerCity Struggle was powerful! It reminds me of the students I work with and forced me to reflect on what I teach them about organizing for social change in their own communities. I admit that I am guilty of sometimes painting the "ideal" picture and guiding them to move forward by playing on the "morality" of those in power....yet, I have also seen the power of student voice when they understand the realities of their situation and the control of those in power. My favorite quote from this article: "These youth organizing efforts exemplify many key aspects of the organizing model discussed here. The efforts were catalyzed by a group located outside the control of school officials. They involved extensive research to identify key problems and specific solutions. They built leadership through action, and used whatever (nonviolent) strategies were available for demonstrating collective power by targeting the self-interests of the opposition — in this case, bringing the media in on their side, collecting petition signatures, holding rallies, and more. Small wins led to larger campaigns, with each step increasing the number of people that the organization could mobilize. Engagement with power followed the motion of a pendulum, moving back and forth between confrontation and negotiation. As a result, the organization clearly became a recognized force in the community. Each step — win or lose — involved learning about how different aspects of the public world actually work (as opposed to how they are supposed to work)". This is what I hope for my students and what I try to embody as I work to make change! *Looking forward to a good discussion about this topic in class tonight!!
On another note, I really enjoyed Ginger's post above....this is an area of education and the power struggles involved therein that I have no experience with so this post really helped me to look at the issue from a different perspective! Thanks for sharing Ginger!!! :)
I would love to circulate Schutz’s article around Virginia K-12 schools. If teachers, parents and students organized to fight the Board of Education on Virginia’s curriculum and assessments we could make significant changes to the SOL and SOL testing. A few representatives from the education associations speaking at public hearings from time to time are not enough. With one third of the schools in Virginia currently in school improvement, now would be a good time for the people in the trenches to come together as one voice. Teachers are not getting more incompetent and students are not getting dumber. The system as it currently exists is not working. Reading Schutz’s article made me want to read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Maybe those of us at the university level could lead the charge for change.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this piece is very applicable to everything we've talked about in class. I really appreciate his call for social change, and I also agree with his warning to be cautious as well.
ReplyDeletePeople are hard-headed folks. Schutz argues that the middle class doesn't necessarily want to change because they don't see a need for it. This is partially true – if you've lived your entire life privileged (but also with the veil of ignorance that John Rawls argues), then why would you need to say anything different? In order to promote social change, you need to organize and teach people how and why things can and should be different. However, I agree that we need to be cautious. If people go off the deep end calling for drastic change, then I don't see that as much different from the religious zealots that make the news on occasion. Having conversations and meeting people in the middle is how change gets started. I talk about my grandmother who can be described as pretty country. While set in her ways, through conversations, I have noticed that she understands why people feel differently on certain issues. This isn't necessarily an easy feat to accomplish, but through patience, understanding and conversation can we make change.
In the book that I read for this class, Everybody was kung-fu fighting, Prashad discussed the tensions between those of African dissent and those of Asian dissent. As with many things, I feel that his book explores a lack of understanding between the two groups that led to racism at a higher structural level.
Schutz examines schools as a microcosm for society. If this is a place where we have a potentially engaged audience, we need to a better job of engaging them. But first, we need to organize among ourselves, discuss what change needs to actually take place, and come up with an action plan. However, communication and compromise are essential. Without it, I don't see how we can get very far.
Like my classmates, the Schutz article reminded me of many situations where I’ve felt kind of like a reluctant ambassador from the middle class. Michael McGerr’s quote in the article, “democratic progressives ‘intended nothing less than to transform other Americans, to remake the nation’s feuding, polyglot population in their own middle-class image” is an echo of a concern I always feel when I’ve worked with ESL students. Whose ideal version of reality am I pushing when I teach students about civic duty or even about language conventions? Especially teaching poorer English language learners, while we built strong personal relationships, and I think there was a certain level of trust, they often looked at me like I was an alien. I really had no idea how the oppressive forces on them made it difficult for them to ask for the things I said they should expect at work or to interact with their kids’ school administrators to get help. I understood it in theory only and didn’t know how to impart agency to them.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s important and good work to encourage open democratic discussions and to create safe spaces for those to happen, but when does it actually translate to action and when is it just talk? The article made want to read more Alinsky and to learn more about social organizing. If organizing principles were incorporated into more educational programs, I feel that schools would have to become more democratic and be a safe space for social change.