Oppressed or Oppressor?

Last week along with this upcoming week, the focus of the class discussions are Paulo Freire’s novel Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Looking through critiques before reading the book I found a commonality among complaints that said that the book was inaccessible. This of course made me nervous. After reading the book, I found this to be true to some extent. It took re-reading several sections to obtain some understanding of Freire’s key points. However, I did find it quite interesting.

Paulo Freire believes individuals should form themselves rather than be formed by others. Though, he simultaneously recognizes that there are limiting situations that can hold individuals back. These situations block people because of an overall resistance coming from the oppressing classes. These oppressive classes want to protect their power. Freire discusses freedom from oppression as something that “is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for human completion” (47). Individuals are not meant to live in a naïve consciousness where they are aware of their oppression, yet do nothing about it. Rather, Freire strives for a method of learning where people think and reflect. One of the issues we face as a society is our tendency to simply reproduce or repeat information. We don’t internalize and truly learn it. I agree with this, but want to turn the attention to our education system. I find that, from personal experience, and witnessing the actions of others, much of our education simply requires us to memorize and relay the facts. Often, there is excessive lecturing. Even in today’s colleges, our own humanities program, and such, the class revolves around a lecture. One of the things I value and enjoy about the Honors program and typically UNCA more so than other schools is that there is analysis of the importance of what is taught. Connections need to be made to our present day lives. Many of the historical events that we have learned about have continue to affect our day to day lives.  A good teacher, in my opinion, is one who encourages you to truly learn material. However, this is not generally the case. Typically, as we have learned from other readings thus far this semester, standardized testing determines the course curriculum. Some teachers’ jobs depend on how well their students perform on these exams and consequently, they teach to the tests rather than allow creativity in the classroom. Personally, I agree with Freire that people need to reach a reflective state, including in the classroom learning.

Freire believes that the bank concept is pervasive in our education system and is an instrument of oppression. When he describes the “bank” he is likening students to containers. They are receptacles or empty bank accounts. The teacher is the one making deposits (of knowledge). Freire disagrees with this notion simply on principle that it is dehumanizing. I agree with this. Education, in a sense, is structured in a way that allows the persistence of oppressive attitudes and practices in society. We are taught to think in a black and white manner. Certain actions are right. Others are wrong. We are taught to adapt “better” to actual situations, rather than overcome them. To Freire, this would be a perfect example of the pervasiveness of a dominant / passive or oppressor / oppressed mindset. It has become a norm.

Freire believes learning occurs from the inside out. He presents the idea that there are two distinct moments of the new pedagogy. The first is when you become conscious of reality. This is simply when you realize that as the oppressed, your life is being determined by decisions of those higher up in the hierarchy (the oppressors). The second part of this is when the oppressed act on initiative to stand up against their oppression. Friere explains that a common problem is that people will recognize their oppression, but rather than fighting against it, they adapt to it. He makes the point that the oppressor “can only cease to be the oppressor by understanding that the oppressed are not just an abstract concept”. Freire seems to have a distinction between the oppressed and oppressors. He argues that these members of upper classes, also known as oppressors, strive to maintain the oppressive situation simply because it works to their advantage. I am not sure if I agree with this stance. I agree that the structure of society seems to push the oppressor / oppressed relationships. However, I feel like he sees the issue as one that is too black and white. The situation is more complicated than that. In hypothetical scenarios and some extreme cases I feel like there can be one person who is oppressed and another interacting with them that can be considered the oppressor. In reality, though, the issue can be more in the gray area. It is very easy to fall into a situation where you do “what’s right” because it feels right. In most cases, what’s “right” has been determined by those around you. Those people include your teachers, family, and friends. So, although I feel as though it can be difficult to say one is being oppressed or oppressing and that their actions are clearly right or wrong, I agree that mutual understanding is necessary. Friere introduces the concept of dialogicity. This is the essence of education as freedom in practice. As human beings, we become who we are through our words, actions, and furthermore, our reflection on these. The goal is to try to learn from another, and as the famous saying says “walk in their shoes”. Learning should not be mechanistic. Rather, people should integrate into the lives of others and try to understand their language, thought process, and actions. Freire’s dialogical theory includes collaboration, union, organization, and cultural synthesis. I agree with him that we need to overlook and unite to work past the framework for society. In today’s society people will work towards a particular cause, but then abandon those supporters later. We see this frequently in politics. Often, people simply will temporarily relate to others because it benefits them in their quest to seek their own goals and interests. I think it is interesting to look at society in this context and I further appreciate that Friere, just like other authors we’ve read (Nussbaum, Appiah, Tatum, etc…) has recommended meaningful conversation and truly stepping in another person’s shoes and uniting with them to make a change.

I didn’t get to go to I Have a Dream to volunteer this week; however, this week’s readings along with last weeks were enough to open my eyes even further to our dysfunctional educational structure and the oppressor / oppressed relationships it is creating and keeping in place. 

How do we escape racism?

Racism Defined (according to dictionary.reference.com)

1. A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race  is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. A policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

The United Nations Definition

The UN does not actually define racism. However, it does define "racial discrimination":

According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

This week I want to talk further about Beverly Tatum’s book Why Are All the Black Children Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?. My post last week was also about this book. However, I decided to stick with this book for this blog simply because I wanted to further delve into one of the discussion questions.

Above are definitions of racism and racial discrimination. Both of these definitions are familiar to me. They are definitions that I grew up with. Beverly Tatum defines racism as a system of advantage based on race. I had not thought about it this way before. She further explains that racism is not simply based on racial prejudice. Rather, it is an entire system that involves “cultural messages and institutional policies and practices as well as the beliefs and actions of individuals” (Tatum 7). Active racism, as defined by Tatum, is made up of intentional acts of racial discrimination. It tends to be very blatant. When a person engages in active racism he or she has identified with the idea of white supremacy and is moving with it. On the contrary, she says passive racism is less obvious. This type of behavior includes no explicit effort to be racist. However, these people engaging in such activity are not actively opposing racist behaviors.     I would first like to say I agree with her definitions of active and passive racism. However, when the question whether we agree with Tatum’s arguments concerning whether people of color can be racist I am very tempted to say no. I don’t agree with Tatum because I feel strongly that anyone can be racist. I think that the amount of melanin we have in our skin should not be the determining factor as to whether we are considered racist individuals or not. Tatum holds the belief that only whites can be racist. This is in part because of the way she defines racism as a system of advantage. I think you cannot limit racism to just that though. I admit that there is white privilege and agree with her point that we need to get over this sense of white guilt. Nonetheless, I think she over simplifies.

 If you were to ask me, though, before I read this book (or any of the other books I’d read for this class) if I was racist, I would have probably been offended and would have said “absolutely not”. However, after this reading my answer probably would not be accompanied with as much conviction. Tatum argues in her book that since I am white I am part of a dominant, more privileged group and consequently am a racist individual because I’m not actively working against the perpetuating racism. I understand what Tatum is trying to get across and agree on many levels. After reading this book, I realize that I haven’t paid attention to many of the advantages or opportunities I have been granted simply because of the fact that I am white. However, Tatum doesn’t address the issue of how to get past racism. She explains that fear is a limiting factor, but once we realize our own racial identity and understand it and have meaningful conversation we can then move on. Yet, she doesn’t then address her definition of racism. How do we get past this and work for a better tomorrow per say if the dominant group isn’t changing. I think that Tatum’s examples almost seem to portray the minorities as lesser to whites almost as though these minority groups limit themselves by comparing themselves to whites. I feel like diversity should be the goal and its through meaningful, productive conversation that we should be able to achieve this. There should be no dominant group that is compared to. I think a consciousness of the pervasive, internalized racism that is occurring will help us to overcome some of the racism and feeling of victimization of minority groups.

So, after reading Tatum’s arguments I can’t help but feel as though she does not exactly present a solution that addresses the underlying issue of white privilege. There should be no “norm” race. I agree that conversation is a key component to change. I know personally I will pay more attention to white advantage, but at the same time I can’t help but feel that racism pervades in other countries as well as our own and is not a situation where just whites being racist towards all others. Rather, I think it is something that can go both ways. It can’t be simplified down to a system that is difficult to change. Rather, it should be based on distinction, prejudice, and discriminatory actions or comments. I think Tatum’s definition points out some good points that we all need to recognize, but she needs to go further with it and develop a better method to inspire change. I also think that she can’t narrow the focus of the definition of racism to such an extent that discriminatory behaviors across numerous races are not considered racism because they are. Racism is something that we need to understand because it still exists and is a major issue today. 

Just a little clip about racial stereotypes.

Stereotypes exist and can influence our attitudes about racial identity. We need to achieve an understanding to move towards change.

Is racism still an issue?

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRIAco4Ja_n_WvC9plmXq7q8d0aAhEwxmCTCM9IcqpxaBSqFPikcg

Growing up, I admit, I did not think racism was still as much of an issue in today’s society as it is in reality. Often, up north where I went to school, the teachers framed the concept of racism as a thing of the past. It was typically just referred to as an issue between whites and blacks. So, while I was young, I never opened my eyes to truly see the many dimensions of racism. However, as I grew up, I began to understand the definition of racism and saw examples throughout society. So, while reading Beverly Daniel Tatum’s book, Why Do All The Black Kids Sit Together?, I appreciated the fact that she began the book by defining racism. She explained that it could not be defined simply through prejudice since prejudice is a preconceived judgment. Rather, racism is a system of advantages that involves beliefs and actions of individuals, as well as the structure of and institutions within our society. Racism is based on race and culture. Dr. Tatum said “In my view, reserving the term racist only for behaviors committed by whites in the context of a white-dominated society is a way of acknowledging the ever present power differential afforded whites by the culture and institutions that make up the system of advantage and continue to reinforce notions of white superiority.”

Dr. Tatum’s underlying premise of her book deals with the fact that many people hesitate when it comes to speaking to children about racism. This tends to be because of an underlying fear that they will create problems or even make “colorblind” children more conscious of these racial differences. From simply my personal experiences with our education system, I have found that none of my teachers until college truly addressed the issue. When I moved to North Carolina my eyes were opened to an even greater extent. I found that there is much more racism and at local events people’s unfiltered comments never cease to shock me. Where my family owns property now is in a rural part of North Carolina and here, because of a lack of education, I have found that too many people are racist. For instance, when we moved here we were even warned by neighbors not to go certain places because there were regular KKK meetings. However, I realize that this is not even the extent to which racism occurs. The KKK meetings are an easy example of racism to point out, but there is racism that occurs in the work place, and many other areas of society. The next thing Dr. Tatum discussed in this week’s reading was the concept of identity. Often when we think about identity we think of what sets us apart from others. She explains that dominant groups hold the power, yet they do not really understand the experience of those in the subordinate groups. On the other hand, the subordinate groups are very well informed about those in the dominant groups. The aspect that seems to be lacking in all of this is awareness. People feel guilty when they realize they are having a negative impact on the lives of others for the most part. So, when it comes to racism I think we can relate Appiah’s idea that conversation helps people recognize differences. It seems that what is lacking is an understanding of the experience. In an educational environment, starting as early as preschool, children begin to notice their differences. However, conversation among children and their elders, such as parents and teachers, will help create an understanding. Dr. Tatum explains that often adolescents of color are more likely to explore their racial identity. Regardless, though, all children explore their identity in many dimensions, including, but not limited to, politics, values, religious beliefs, educational plans, and even gender roles.

When Dr. Tatum presented the question in the book title “why do all the Black students sit together in the cafeteria? She explained that there are five stages to racial identity development. These were: pre-encounter, encounter, immersion/ emersion, internalization, and internalization-commitment. During these phases, people will experience numerous emotions ranging from anger to apathy. This entire concept was very easy for me to rationalize and understand. Basically, what I understood to be her point was that those students sat together to create an oppositional stance away from all that was “white”. When doing this, they are operating based on stereotypes. However, every individual does not go through all of these stages. As we all know, everyone is different and their coping skills differ as well.

Since I don’t have enough time to discuss the entire book, I am going to jump to the ending, which I really liked. Dr. Tatum seemed to give a prescription for people to give them a sense of what they can do to make a difference. She, like Appiah (in Cosmopolitanism), things meaningful, productive dialogue will be most helpful. Deep conversations will help to raise consciousness and hopefully will eventually lead to social change. People tend to be silent because they are afraid. They are afraid they are naïve or offensive. Racism can hold us back and prevent growth and development of society. It also can alienate us.

                I think this would have been helpful for me as a child. Eventually, I came to an understanding of what racism is and how prevalent it is even today. However, I look at the children at I Have a Dream and now especially after reading this book I can’t help but wonder about their understanding of racism and what they are taught both at home and at school. From what I have experienced, the children do not judge one another based on appearance or ethnicity. However, I do wonder what goes on within the classroom and simply outside of I Have a Dream in general. I hope that as I experience more during my weekly volunteering I will come to a better understanding. 

Is cosmopolitanism the answer?

                I have to admit that when I first started reading Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Anthony Appiah for this week I didn’t like it very much. I felt that many of his ideas were self-evident and I didn’t like the way in which he presented it. It did not seem like he was presenting a very novel concept. However, his examples grew to intrigue me, especially when he got on the topic of witchcraft. As the book progressed it grew on me, which I guess is good considering I am presenting on it this week. Appiah presents cosmopolitanism as “universality plus difference” because “this neglected and attractive tradition of thought deserves serious attention as a habitable middle ground between liberalism and relativism”. To Appiah, cosmopolitanism’s two main ideas are that 1) we have obligations to others that are bigger than just sharing citizenship, and 2) we should never take for granted the value of life and become informed of the practices and beliefs of others.  

                In The Examined Life film we watched earlier in the semester Appiah covers a lot of his same ideas as he does in the book. In his short, seven minute segment, he explained that humanity is faced with the challenge of how to learn to be responsible for other citizens in the world. We have obligations that stretch beyond our family and friends. Humans share a moral nature despite there being a conflict of values across cultures. However, we cannot be partial to the local group we associate ourselves with. Yet, simultaneously, we cannot abandon this tiny, local group. We simply need to be global citizens.

                In Appiah’s book he delves further into those issues. Early on, he points out that people are different and there is a lot to learn from our differences. To me, this seems like common sense because we should never expect people coming from numerous backgrounds in society across the world to converge on a single way of life. I find that in the context of my day to day life there are conflicts in beliefs and values, especially in the classroom setting at UNCA. One of the aspects of education at UNCA that I truly respect is the openness in the classroom and how many of the professors push for more of a conversation-based learning environment rather than simply lecture their students. As a student, it helps me to see how varied the value and belief systems of the students and professors are here at UNCA. The exercise where we discussed the purpose and meaning of life on the first day of class is a perfect example of this. It is these types of activities that open my eyes to new ways of thinking. This is part of the reason why I respected and appreciate Appiah’s point that the objective to seek meaningful dialogue about values between and among cultures to avoid sinking to a stance of cultural relativism. We need to realize that humanity will not agree on a set of universal values. According to Appiah, agreement is not the ultimate goal.

                One of the specific examples that stood out to me dealt with illness. Appiah explained that the Asante people seek to explain illness through their belief in witchcraft. Asante people rationalize this through the belief that there are people that dislike them. On the other hand, in Manhattan, people turn to science to explain their illness. They have a general conviction that their illness can be explained. So, the question is, do we have to choose between these interpretations? To this, Appiah says there is no simple answer. In a sense, I agree with him. However, personally, I tend to agree with the Manhattan mindset. That could be because of my upbringing and educational background with science.

                Appiah later discusses values relativism, which I found interesting. People split values from facts about the world. A common response to alien values is to dismiss these values as primitive and irrational. This stems from a lack of understanding. Disagreement about values comes from a failure to share a vocabulary of evaluation, giving the same vocabulary different interpretations, and giving the same values different weights. Regardless, our focus should not be to resolve this disagreement. Rather, we can and should live together without agreeing on what our universal values should be. Appiah uses the issue of abortion to further explain his point about disagreement over values. People with different perspectives on the issue tend to be in agreement about the sanctity of life, yet they disagree about things such as when a life begins and why life is precious.

                I would like to jump to a point farther along in the book, since I know I don’t have enough time to discuss the entire book, deals with cultural property. I agree with Appiah’s point that countries should not claim any works of historical significance belong to them because in a global culture, these works don’t belong to any single country or culture, but rather everyone. He raises the question, whose culture is it anyway? I found this interesting and had never thought of it this way before because in many of our humanities classes and classes in the past we have always associated these things with an area and I have always thought of these things as property of a particular culture or area. However, I realized that that does not have to be how it is.

                I am now going to switch the focus of my blog though because I want to discuss this week’s tutoring session at I Have a Dream. In previous weeks I have thoroughly enjoyed spending time with the children, but I have found that each time I’ve come to look forward to it more and more. I worked with four children this week and it was extremely rewarding. When I finished two of the children each came up and gave me hugs. However, my experience with one of the kids stuck with me because of their exceptional interest in learning. Working on their homework was enjoyable; however, it was reading with them that stood out. The child asked so many questions throughout the short seven pages we had to read. At the end, they insisted on continuing to read, but we had run out of time. I was asked numerous questions ranging from “Is that really how someone would respond in that situation?” to “Have you ever been there?” The experience really gave me some insight into how this child thought. This experience is truly a gift and eye opening. After this week’s reading I also am more interested in learning about the variation in beliefs and values that people have, including those of the children at I Have a Dream.