I have to start off by airing out some dirty laundry, some beef, if you will, with the past few articles we have read. Both Pirie and Goebel have approached classrooms as dichotomous—“all white” or “all of color” (Goebel 22). How in the world are we supposed to be “multicultural” teachers if we keep positioning people as one OR the other. What about individuals who identify as bi-racial or multi-racial? (I don’t know if people actually do this, but it seems quite plausible given the large amount of individuals who identify with more than two races or ethnicities). I think that this discourse positions people as opposites of one another in the same way that the pesky M or F checkbox does on various forms and documents. Although I did have this initial reaction, I did find the Goebel piece to be helpful—he addressed some issues we have yet to discuss in our class. One of the most important issues he brought up, in my opinion, was the issue of class. We cannot have these conversations about race and culture (and gender) without talking about class. Class is absolutely HUGE in this discussion. Class determines discourse about education, culture and experience. Class also determines access points. In my experience I have noticed that it is more likely for students of different races to have more in common if they are of the same socioeconomic status than those of the same race who are not of the same class. As much as I hate to say it, money is a big deal. How we are raised, what are values are, what we aspire to do as adults is all determined by the way we have been positioned in society based on class. Goebel gives a great example when he talks about the ways middle-class students are more prepared for schooling in the way it is currently structured than working class children: “middle-class children and adolescents have grown up in families who value the ability to floor-hold in conversation and construct monologues unsupported by listener response…working class children may not only appear less competent to their teachers, they may also experience school as a place where oral language skills, as they understand them, are not valued” (Goebel and Hemphill 24). One specific example I can think of (this does not refer to class necessarily, but differences in communication across cultures) is film viewing in the classroom. In my experience, when you are viewing a film in class you should be silent, listening and taking in what the film has to offer. However, this is by no means a value that spans across cultures. Many of my students get very involved in what they are watching and talk to the characters in the movie/film or make predictions vocally. At first I felt that this was rude, but then I realized that this was how they were interacting with the text that I had presented to them. They were not trying to be disruptive or rude, they were trying to learn from the film and to engage with it. This was an excellent learning experience for me.
Goebel also mentions that “two studies suggest that women and working class students might immediately benefit from a shift from individualistic, teacher-centered instruction to cooperative student-centered instruction” (24). I think that ALL students would benefit—and DO benefit—from this style of instruction. This suggestion among many oth
ers that have been seen as ideal for “multicultural education” are really just good teaching.
Glazier and Seo do an excellent job of transitioning from the theoretical into the practical smoothly and they offer some great suggestions. One of the points they made that resonated particularly strongly with me was their mention of White students saying, “I’m not anything” (687) or “I don’t have a story” (686). This is so very true. Many of the students (and other teachers I know!) believe that their Whiteness is the absence of culture rather than a culture within itself. This is why everyone should read Learning to be White by Thandeka (shameless plug). This text explores the development of Whiteness and how it came to be a revered “culture.” Although I have only read bits and pieces, it really helped me to see the ways in which the privileging of Whiteness came to be. I would highly recommend it!
First, you should read all of Thandeka if you have not--and then read it again--I have been thinking about this text since he first day of class and was considering mentioning it to the class. I'm sorry but I am about to go off on a tangent about this--
ReplyDeleteWhite people have a difficult time discussing their whiteness and often times do not even refer to themselves as having a race and this is interesting to me because our current class is very white and I wonder how much this plays a part in the lack of direct discussion about race and other cultures. It seems to be talked around and about and this had caused me to think of
Thandeka on many occasions.
Okay, back to your post--I appreciate that you brought up class--too often the conversation becomes stuck on race and people forget what a huge impact class has on students in the classroom--hopefully this will be discussed in our current class. This is not only an issue in the city school but it is also an issue in the suburbs, where it is not directly addressed, or at least not in my experience thus far.