This started as what was going to be an email to a colleague. However, I’m thinking that posing this as a discussion maybe a more fruitful dialogic exercise.
My situation is as follows: I have a class of upstanding and exceedingly bright individuals. These students regularly point the way toward large-scale change but hesitate at taking the small step (humongous dive?) toward action. In any case, I recently used the song “Police State” by Dead Prez as the beginning of a writing assignment. It’s a song I’ve used in the past and one that kids generally enjoy (though hip-hop is not at all the apriori musical preference of my students). However, after the experiences and reflections of the lockdown, of critical analysis of the election, and after a lengthy review of Critical Race Theory, I think something snapped … in a good way. The kids are way engaged and on-board the Critical Theory train. They regularly use the word “proletariat” (as it’s mentioned in the song) to describe the conditions of the campus. Students discuss if racism or classism is the bigger issue at hand. A student is writing an essay talking about how Obama is going to be a part of “the problem”.
So on the one hand, I’m thrilled – the kids are vocalizing their concerns from a clear, “Critical” (with a big “C”) stance. They’re bringing up their own topics for our daily discussions. They looked at this video, for instance, and were able to empathize and critique the key arguments made. One student is providing the class with additional resources, such as this video he’s asked to screen tomorrow.
And so my query for you is about this: It may seem odd, but I’m worried that my kids are a little too critical. They are heading toward being too one-sided in the dogma they endorse.
I plan to rectify this; I have had some teaching peers preaching the concepts of critical pedagogy but not quite executing them. Instead, I see their students as mindlessly unengaged in their thinking due to the totalism these “progressive” teachers impose. So, that being said, I have specific ideas on how to balance the theoretical base of my students. However (and although I will likely only hear from one or two of you), I’d like to open this post up as a collaborative space for discourse. Do you see a need to fix this situation? How would you approach it? What’s your take on the process of critical discourse in your classroom?
(As for the picture – here are some anthropologists of the future – specifically the year 2158 – doing fieldwork and observations at the ancient site of Manual Arts High School circa 2008. Taking notes, these anthropologists were asked to stay as quiet and reserved as possible as the natives do not like being disturbed.)
two things come to mind…
skills being developed and structured activities that deal specifically with controversial issues…
i regards to skills. i don’t think that developing an opinion is much of a skill. everyone has them and our students will undoubtedly find theirs too. now articulating them in a specific and critical way, those our skills that unfortunately our society (due to culture and technology) may be lacking. so if you have specific skill oriented outcomes for such “critical” dialogue and exposure in the classroom, then it is worth it. keep in mind that these skills are academic. some educators teach students the skills of organizing and protesting, great skills to have in a democracy… yet questionable to be taught with direct instruction during class time.
structured activities that i am thinking of have to due with history content when students put capitalism o globalization on trial, along with other ideologies and characters in history. a kind of bridge to the concrete opinion and the abstract dogma. broad exposure to what subjective dogmas and social theories is the goal here. as anthropologists your students have to understand more than just systems of oppression and dominance, they have to be aware of the possibilities of anarchist arguments, spiritual new ageism, the myriad of things that make up the fabric of humanity.
if you are attempting to broaden their minds and develop academic skills, then what the problem is?
This I believe: the key is acknowledging multiple perspectives and identifying their historical source and development as well as their ultimate goal/purpose… helping students identify their values (perhaps even tastes) so they can in turn recognize how they internalize facts and controversies and even form opinions is part of the goal too… by attempting this, I believe helps them formulate their own argument (without someone spoon-feeding it) as well as defend it… this is not an easy trek… in fact, it might be until they are out of my class that the connections will be made or recognize… simply because it is a critical thinking skill… not one to be ignore or pretend we can’t teach… but one that takes time in both acquiring information, understanding it, analyzing, etc.
One thing to keep in mind, is the fact that many of your students come from a different country (somewhat different culture) and have been expose to that country’s political culture since childhood… the chaos of the system has been more vivid and pronounced in their experiences and perhaps even criticized more vocally and actively (with serious consequences exposed)… whatever the issues of their lives today in their neighborhoods… it is still a first world country therefore the chaos of the system differs greatly… and the models of how to respond to that are less visible…
I do believe students should be asks the Whys and Hows of everything even if it pains them…
One huge factor in this discussion is that high school students have a minimum sense of experience in which to reference many critical ideas. Not to say that they have had easy lives, or tough ones–what I mean is that time is needed to process the deeper, philosophical, “natural” progression of the learning curve. What many of us education types (me being one since 1992) often forget is that a teenage mindset and experience has only lived so much. Without time to nurture, cure, and allow for a personal ideology to form, many students only regurgitate what is told them. The only experience we can give youth is ideas to think about and ponder till experience shapes, edits, and formulates in their growth. “THINK about it” is huge, and for many all that can be processed till a later time. One cannot speed-up a seeds growth no matter how much water, sunlight or soil is provided.
An extremely tardy “hi” to earlier folks engaged in this dialogue…!
I have been really thinking about this on and off for the last month or so. My thoughts are still a mess, but let me humbly offer them as such: I’m really inclined to agree with “nemesis” and “glmeme” on a couple of points,namely,the possibilities of structured activities (esp. where they might argue a side they’re not instinctively down with); and the whole 1st paragraph of the latter and the importance of asking potentially painful “why”‘s and “how”‘s. Right on!
A few things struck me when I first read the post, and they’re still coming up now. First, I find it understandable that students are attracted to theories of racism and classism first, but even in terms of CRT there is a need to emphasize both the complexities of those theories and (my bigger hunch) the way they interweave with issues of sexism, heteronormativity, immigration status, language, etc. Dead Prez is a perfect example of critical discourse that resonates with truth on certain planes (race and class) and then hits rock bottom in terms of gender and sexuality.
I really really want to know at what point youth become “a little too critical”. Having never been accused of being “too complacent” but rather being rewarded if they were in our schooling system, it would seem like these thoughts signal more balance in the grand scheme of things. I’m not under any illusions that the situation is as romantic as I might make it sound. It gets really hard because the question comes up, too: at what point are they still really kids and at what point do they become young adults who are in a growth stage? My 4th graders last summer were constantly calling Bush a racist. So as much as I ascribe to the belief that communities are organic and will collectively figure out and do what they need to do, hence making it difficult to believe that any one person can “fix the situation”, I found myself having to push them on the “why” and “how” part and ultimately making the call for changing the terms of the conversation on my own.
Again, though, they were literally children, so with high school students how can we determine what is “too far”? To me it seems all a process of development of consciousness. We can’t try and teach them everything, and I don’t know that I necessarily know exactly what a balanced view is. I think a big part is that we share as much as we can from people we ourselves agree and disagree with, and do our best at sharing some context when it is needed (e.g. when critical consciousness leads to that humongous step towards action, making sure they understand what the possible consequences – both good and bad – of that action might be).
Thanks for reading my long, biased reply. A disclaimer: I feel blessed to have pursued Ethnic Studies as an undergrad and grad student, yet I was extremely angry and upset when I reflected on my own K-12 school experiences and what I was severely lacking in the classroom, even though I had graduated from a school with a ridiculously good (national) reputation. A gang of us all felt that way. I wish, problematic as it may have been, too, that I had gained the tools to be more critical at an earlier stage of my studies!!
(Thanks again.)