Every individual has his or her unique style of learning and, in turn, has an idea of what it means to be taught. What then, is the issue with education? I will argue that when one understands the distinction between learning and regurgitation of information, the problem with education as we know it will become clear. There is a hidden curriculum in schools that encourages oppression of students through normalizing power, discursive power, and disciplinary power.
Normalizing power is defined as a “force in society that compares, differentiates, creates a hierarchy, homogenizes, and excludes,” (Brock et al: 364); by this definition, we see all of these components clearly demonstrated by the teacher-student relationship. In his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire outlines the oppressive relationship by articulating the teacher as a narrator (dominant), and the student as a patient, listening object (submissive). The narrator/listener, dominant/submissive relationship denotes a comparison between teacher and student which, therefore, creates a hierarchy. When we see teachers as the narrators, there is an evident hierarchy between teacher and student, which clearly puts the teacher on top.
A discourse is a “system of knowledge that uses elements of our shared cultural knowledge to produce a particular version of reality,” (Brock et al: 352). When we examine discursive power we see that in Western culture it is expected that the dominant/submissive relationship between student and teacher should exist. Teachers have maintained this level of oppression through common verbal cues and gestures that perpetuate the dominant/submissive relationship. The most evident verbal cue is attaching a title to your teacher’s surname, as in Mr. Richard or Ms. Verri, or at the university level Dr. or Professor are common titles used to indicate a level of education that is far superior to that of the students. But what’s more, not only must students address their teachers with such titles, they must also never refer to their teachers by their first name. The use of titles and the compulsive use of last names indicates the dominant nature of the teacher. When we examine how students are referred to, we see that he or she is only referred to by a first name. For the student, there is no titled to indicate years of education that denote knowledge, no surname used to relay a level of authority or respect. The student is constantly reminded that he or she is below the teacher every time one or the other is addressed in speaking.
Michel Foucault’s concept of disciplinary power describes the “force that operates among people at the most micro levels of interaction, as people watch, assess, evaluate, and categorize, and are at the same time watched, assessed, evaluated, and categorized, creating a reproducing certain beliefs or knowledges about them,” (Brock et al: 352). This level of power is much less visible than the other power relations already described, and therefore is much more difficult to identify. In the most literal sense, teachers watch students, assess and evaluate tasks assigned to them, and categorize them as “good students” or “bad students”. On a more subconscious level, students also act as monitors for all of these components among themselves.
Another aspect of Foucault’s concept is the idea of surveillance and correction of individuals. Teachers perpetuate the power relation in the most primal of ways: they deliver correction to students. The earlier students are taught to accept correction or avoid it by bending to the desires of the faculty, the easier their school years will be. This is a lifelong lesson that is the root of the hidden curriculum, the idea that one must succumb to the power of an authority. It is taught by our parents early in life and it is strictly enforced at the grade-school level. Teachers control everything from when you are permitted to speak to when you may use the restroom. If you do not follow their rules, than they will punish you by means of detention or a call to one’s parents. This act of withholding rights and punishing disobedience is preparatory for when the children enter the workforce where it will be their boss’s job to survey and discipline.
What all of this boils down to is that through this method of education (described by Freire as the “banking method”) students will never become critical consumers of knowledge and therefore will never change the accepted oppression that exists now in our society. The creative power that resides in us all becomes dormant under the surveillance of those who swallow the idea of a teach-student relationship. Freire explains that in order to rid ourselves of the oppressive chains of education as we know it is to liberate education. He stated that “liberation is a praxis: the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it,” (Freire: 79). For change to occur we need to recognize men and women as conscious beings, not vessels that need to be filled. We need to engage in acts of cognition, thinking, not simply the transferal of information.
Every individual has his or her unique style of learning, but the problem is they are all being taught the same way. Students must challenge the banking method of education in order to rid themselves of the shackles of oppressive discourse. Students must challenge the normalizing, discursive, and disciplinary power of the dominant, narrating teachers, and seize their education.
Sources
Brock, D., Raby, R., Thomas, M. P. (2012) Power and Everyday Practices.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy
of the Oppressed.
Useful Links
The Banking Method of Education http://www.trentu.ca/academic/nativestudies/courses/nast305/banking.htm
Paulo Freire and Critical Pedagogy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFOhVdQt27c
"The Banking Concept of Education" - Paulo Freire, "hits the nail on the head" https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/voke-philofeducation/2011/10/10/the-banking-concept-of-education-paulo-freire-hits-the-nail-on-the-head/
No comments:
Post a Comment