Overview paper

Well, I finally finished my overview paper. It took me way too long to write. Even though I learned a lot about myself as a writer and a lot about the content, I will never finish my Fielding work if I continue at this rate! I can anticipate that writing will come easier with experience and I will get better at it, though.

I am proud of this accomplishment. Overall, my greatest learnings have been about myself as a writer and inequality itself. I have actually come to enjoy writing and find it easier than I thought. I would often sit down to work on my paper only to look up 5 hours later to notice the time (Okay, once I did that after 5 hours). Typically, I spent 2-4 hours a sitting and sometimes did several sittings a day. In the end, writing is just work. Sometimes hard work and sometimes it feels like sculpting.

I also learned about inequality itself. I really started to see the interconnected way that it shapes our reality. It is a context of our society. Not THE context but one dimesion of the whole of life.

I have tried to connect the important ideas that came from the reading I did. I don't think I did this with any great success. I feel that the paper is still fairly disconnected. I will keep working on coherence in future writing. Thanks to Yolanda and June for their patience. Now on to my indepth and application.



I need to revise my contract to include changes to my in-depth and application. After doing the overview, I have decided that I would like to do my in-depth on border pedagogy. I think this has meaningful application in my work and is a great fit to my work in cultural competency. I would like to create a creative powerpoint and perhaps some kind of graphic representation that can be used in working with educators. For my application, I would like to use this presentation coupled with interaction to inform a team of educators I am currently working with. This team is charged with the strategic plan of the district in transforming teaching and learning.



Below is my overview paper!











Structural Inequality and Diversity
Overview
Assessor: Yolanda Gayol



In The Condition of Education 2007, the U.S. Department of Education documented the achievement gap trend between White and Black students and White and Hispanic students from 1992-2005. This study was based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores for fourth and eighth graders in reading and mathematics. Between the years of 1992 and 2005 the gap in reading scores between White and Black and White and Hispanic fourth graders fluctuated lightly. In 2005, the gap was not measurably different from the gap in scores of 1992. Eighth grade reading scores between Whites and Blacks showed no change in 2005 as compared to 1992 and eighth grade reading scores between Whites and Hispanics showed little change between 1992 and 2005. This consistent gap in performance between white students and students of color exemplifies the inequality that exists in our education system and is a long standing issue despite the efforts of passionate educators of good will and intelligence.

It is important for educators and people interested in the advancement of society to understand the nature of inequality. In this way we can change it. We can understand how it works and in what ways we are complicit in the systems and structures that support it. We can make purposeful decisions about how we want to address it.

Inequality is the disparity between individuals or groups of people based on classifications such as income, class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, and access to technology. Within each classification there is a privileged group and a group of lesser status and power. The wealthy have privilege over the poor, whites over people of color, male over female, heterosexuals over homosexuals and those with access to technology over those without. This dynamic of inequality is often described as an unfortunate reality perpetuated by someone else, some other condition or brought about by the inadequacies of the individual in the unfortunate circumstance.

This paper seeks to describe a contrary perspective. Rather than circumstantial and idiosyncratic, inequality is systematically embedded throughout society in ways that ensure its longevity. The purpose of this paper is to describe some of the ways that inequality is created and perpetuated and discuss what implications this has for teaching and learning in American schools. I will describe the role that ideology plays, analyze some theoretical foundations of inequality, and describe some pedagogies that address it. Throughout this paper I will explore how inequality transverses many parts of society, but pay particular attention to how it is situated in American K-12 public schools.

This paper describes inequality by connecting ideas across twelve books that present unique perspectives on the issue of inequality. Though each author contributes unique ideas, together they present compelling themes that can inform people in the work of transforming society.

Ideology and Inequality

What is the relationship between ideology and inequality?

Karl Marx described inequality in terms of domination of a capitalist ruling class over underclasses (serfs, servants and proletariat). In fact, he described all history as the struggle of these classes. He believed that ideology played a critical role in domination and that the ruling classes used ideology along with property ownership to perpetuate the status quo and, hence, inequality. Previous to Marx, inequality was thought of as circumstantial and idiosyncratic. His work has led to an understanding of the systematic way that it is perpetuated.

One way that the ruling class perpetuates inequality is through a theory he called, reproduction of the state. Reproduction of the state is the process of perpetuating the status quo through state political, economic and social systems (e.g. institutions, policies and practices). Schools are an example of one such system. State adopted texts, managed curriculum and teachers who are relegated to the role of mere mediator of the state’s curriculum are mechanisms that support state ideology.

Through reproduction of the state, the ruling class ideology becomes a normative system of thought that supports the interests of the few and establishes expectations for the many. According to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank only 7-8% of the American heads of households are entrepreneurs. They hold 1/3 of all the wealth in the US (De Nardi, 2007). Additionally, only 8% of Americans working in the private sector has access to stock options. Of this 8% average, higher paid workers have greater access than do lower paid workers (US Department of Labor, 2004). Despite the small number of the population that is directly effected by fluctuations in the market, business news and stock exchange reporting are regular segments on most TV news programs. Additionally, the overwhelming number of commercials, roughly one-third of TV programming, demonstrates the domination of corporate interests and ideology.

Many Americans take on the interests of large corporations as their own. During Christmas shopping reporting it is positive when sales are reported up. The normative system of thought tells us that this demonstrates a strong economy and that a strong economy will serve our own particular interests, whether we are invested in corporate America or not. Additionally, the term “consumer confidence” is used widely to describe how much money people are spending. Whether people have disposable income or not, American society encourages spending. In these situations, the interests and ideology of the state are internalized by non-dominant groups.

What is ideology?

Ideology is the conceptual schema that individuals use to make sense of and act on the world (Watt, 1994). Conceptual schemas are like mental frameworks that are shaped by an individual’s social context and interaction with the world. They are not true or false, rather, they are relative. Conceptual schemas are incommensurable; that is, they are not translatable from one to the other. In other words, there is no objective or universal template for conceptual schemas. They have different virtual shapes that do not superimpose on each other.

Conceptual schemas have vocabularies. These vocabularies exemplify the incommensurable nature of differing conceptual schemas. To illustrate this, think of the differing conceptual schemas of a butcher and an environmentalist. Each has vocabulary that describes their schema based on their unique social context. For example, a butcher uses a particular vocabulary to describe the parts of the animal used for meat (i.e. loin, rump, rib) and the relationship he has with cattle and the marketplace. This conceptual schema is different from that of an environmentalist who may not have as extensive a vocabulary for parts of cattle as does the butcher. Additionally, an environmentalist may not have a word to represent the part of the animal that a butcher calls the “loin.” Different conceptual schemas have different vocabularies and relationships.

An individual’s social context and interaction on the world shapes conceptual schemas. A butcher develops his understanding of cattle by being a butcher and acting on the world as a buyer and seller of cattle. Likewise, values also shape conceptual schemas. Values are the way we rate something on a scale of desirability, either consciously or subconsciously. Desirability can also be expressed as moral judgments. Values create an overarching orientation to the world in what Watt calls a “global evaluative orientation.” Different cultures have different global evaluative orientations. For example, many indigenous cultures have an orientation to land that is different than a European orientation. For the aborigines in Australia, indeed in many indigenous cultures, land is common and sacred. Land is not owned by people and is a source of spirituality. Alternatively, European cultures value land as property, something to possess.

These differing global evaluative orientations influence the creation of unique collective conceptual schemas. For example, the Europeans have devised a system of measuring and counting that serves the purpose of monitoring possessions, including land. We have extensive vocabularies and numeracy that support this part of our schema. The aborigines, on the other hand, have number words for one through five and the word “many.” They have no need for an extensive number vocabulary as a result of their schema (Watt, 1994).

How does ideology influence inequality at a global level?

Ideology drives the latest phase in economic growth, globalization, which has contributed greatly to increasing inequality around the world (Petras 2001). Petras and Veltmeyer argue that globalization is, in fact, the new manifestation of imperialism driven by ideology and supported by policy and practice. Whereas globalists, those who advocate for globalism, believe that globalization is a novel and inevitable phase of economic growth, these authors believe it is the latest phase of a repetitious and continuous capitalist growth cycle.

The capitalist growth cycle ebbs and flows with a nation’s internal development and external expansion. The internal development period is characterized as nationalism and involves the building of industries, infrastructures and capital. External expansion involves a nation’s economic, political and cultural export. In its most extreme form, expansion is imperialism. This cycle can be seen in the economic histories of European nations. The conquest of the 15th-18th centuries represents expansion which is followed by an internal development period in the mid 18th-19th centuries. The nationalist efforts during the Industrial Revolution built needed infrastructures for the continuous growth of many nations. The late 19th century expansion was interrupted to deal with social opposition and national protection interests of the 1960s and 1970s. Today’s expansion, globalization, is different from other expansion periods only in volume and speed (Petras, 2001).

Globalization has led to a new global phenomenon in which inequality is divided along class lines instead of nationalities. The world is becoming increasingly shaped by an international power elite whose membership crosses political borders. Unlike the past, membership of this power elite is not saved for those of powerful nations solely; it includes those in underdeveloped nations as well. Some of the richest men in the world come from less developed countries. Carlos Slim Helú, the third richest person in the world, comes from Mexico.

This new international power elite has close ties to politicians both at home and abroad and enjoys political support. Reciprocally, the international power elite bring resources for projects through multinational corporations and financial institutions. These projects include economic opportunities for local elites and politicians. Local elites and politicians facilitate the planning and operation of these projects. Non-governmental agencies also support projects often by buffering labor conflicts (Petras, 2001). Many advocates of globalization include elite classes of developing countries, technocrats, academics on the international circuit, financiers, and exporters and importers of developed countries.

Much of the inequities created by globalization are the result of privatization and the impact it has on labor. Foreign investment in underdeveloped countries includes capital and management. Local politicians and the wealthy elite benefit from the investment, however, in both developed and underdeveloped countries, labor suffers. A worsening of labor conditions in developed countries is exemplified by a decrease in pensions, vacations and medical coverage. In underdeveloped countries, worsening conditions are characterized by a surplus of labor, cheap wages and resistance, often in the form of peasant movements. Small business owners, workers and public employees are adversaries to globalization.

Currently, the US is the most globally influential nation. The US holds the most influence in the IMF and World Bank, institutions that fund international projects with the caveat that certain political and economic structures are in place. Both of the dominant political parties in the US, Republican and Democrat, support the ideological project of globalization. Although the rhetoric of both parties claims to support the building of democractic nations, both US military and intelligence has been instrumental in the overthrowing of democratically elected governments when capitalist interests have been threatened. Some countries that have been overthrown with US intervention are Finland, Guyana, Chile, Guatemala, Iran, Haiti, Nicaragua, Germany, Italy and Spain. (Petras, 2001). Additionally, the American right wing has been connected to oligarchies, landowners and military dictatorships throughout the history of US-Latin American relationships.

Although the US enjoys singular global wealth and power, its economic inequality is equal to that of some developing countries. ­­­­­­­­The US has the lowest corporate tax system of all industrialized countries and the greatest number of workers without health insurance of all industrialized and semi-industrialized nations. (Petras, 2001)

How does ideology influence inequality in education?

Globalization provides a context to examine inequality in schools. Marx theorizes that the state reproduces itself through policy and practice and in various institutions including schools. Though Marx was talking about 19th century Europe, the same dynamic exists today. An example of this is the way curriculum is managed and used today. The curriculum content is highly influenced by political interests and the interests of large corporations. For example, textbooks which are published by a few large publishers must be adopted by the state before they can be sold to schools. Schools, in turn, purchase new texts continuously. Teachers are held accountable for teaching state adopted content standards and the punitive measures of the No Child Left Behind Act exert increasing pressure to perform to standards.

The role of the teacher in this case is to mediate the interests of the state and pass along the curriculum to students. The teacher, through the process of instruction, ensures that the students receive the state approved content. Instruction is also becoming increasingly more managed through what is often called prescriptive teaching. In prescriptive teaching, teachers read from scripted text in the teacher’s manuals which accompany textbook programs. The most prescriptive programs have been glibly called “teacher proof” materials. In this system of managed curriculum, both teacher and student are relatively passive recipients of content and process that is determined by the state and large publishing companies.

The condition of schools is also an example of the relationship between power and knowledge. Foucault describes power as that which suppresses (Foucault, 1972). One way that power does this is through laws and regimes created by the sovereign or state. In other words, the state supports its ideology and assures its longevity through the laws it creates. The No Child Left Behind Act is one such law that assures the delivery of state sanctioned knowledge.

Power also suppresses through the transfer of knowledge (Foucault, 1972). Knowledge of powerful individuals or groups is transferred and thus perpetuated. Knowledge of the non-powerful, other, is subjugated. In this relationship, subjugated knowledge is disqualified as inferior and ignored. This dynamic is played out in text books. In textbooks, the history told is the history of the dominant class. In American textbooks, the Anglo experience is favored over the experience of the Native Americans or minority groups. Most young students can tell the story of the first Thanksgiving in detail including the lesson of friendship, gratefulness and sharing it sends. The numerous stories of violence against Native Americans, however, are less known.

In Orientalism, Edward Said documents the extensive way that power shaped knowledge about Orientals. Beginning in 1312 when the Church Council of Vienne established departments of Arabic, Greek, Hebrew and Syriac at major European universities, Orientalists have created a litany of knowledge about Orientals. Between 1800 and 1950, Orientalists, Europeans who study the Near East, Islam and Arabs, wrote over 60,000 books about the Orient. In contrast, there is no comparable number of books written in the East about the West. Orientalism began with the study of ancient Eastern languages through the discipline of philology. The list of philologists that Said names is long and includes, Renan, Vico, Herder, Wolf, Montesquieu, von Humboldt, Bopp and Burnouf. Orientalism also includes academic disciplines such as anthropology, archeology, sociology, economics, history, literature and cultural studies of ancient and modern Oriental societies.

As well as the breadth of Orientalism, Said analyzes the depth to which Orientalism shapes knowledge. Said identifies four dogmas that live on today. First, the East and West are absolutely and systematically different. The West is superior and the East is inferior. Second, Classical Orientalism is preferred to modern Eastern cultures. That is, ancient Oriental cultures are valued over modern Oriental societies. Third, the Orient is unchanging, uniform and incapable of defining itself. This simplistic and fixed identity of Orientals can be seen throughout time with Orientals being portrayed in art, media and politics as threatening, exotic, and childlike. Fourth, the Orient is to be feared and controlled. Evidence of this can be found in the current American rhetoric of terrorism in the East.

All four of these dogmas perpetuate a fundamentally dualistic perspective-us and them. Orientals are “others” and are marginalized. To Said, Orientalism is the body of knowledge that fundamentally divides East and West.

Critical Theory/Theoretical Analysis

What are some of the theories and philosophies that help us understand structural inequality? How does critical theory address issues of inequality?

Understanding the philosophical foundations upon which much of our structures and practices are built will help us understand inequality at a deeper level and help us to see the systematic nature of it. Eurocentric notions of modernism and colonialism are two philosophies that influence thinking today.

Modernism, which came out of the late 19th century, is characterized by rationalism, reductionism and a value of progress. Rationalism is the idea that the mind, capable of rational thought, is superior to creativity, intuition and feelings. Descartes’ was a heavy influence on modernism, especially his notion that man is a rational being. Modernist thinkers believe that there is a causal relationship between reason, action and success. That is, if you act based on reason you will experience success. This notion contributes to misunderstanding of others. Others are seen as inferior when their behaviors are not congruent with that which is considered rational by Western standards.

Reductionism describes an attachment to analytical thought that became pervasive in modernism. Reductionism concerns itself with breaking down a whole to its infinitesimal parts. Descartes described how all things could be reduced to its smallest parts and believed that the whole is equal to the sum of the parts. By knowing the parts, one knows the whole. Reductionism ignores the holistic connectedness of life and the idea that the whole is reflected in the parts as the current thinking in non-linear mathematics and living systems suggests.

Another characteristic of modernism is the value of progress held by modernists. Progress is characterized by the expansion of technology and science. Globalists exemplify this modernist notion by claiming that globalization is good simply because it is an expansion of technology. Freedom is also a value of modernists. Globalists also exemplify this notion by claiming that people are free to pursue capitalist interests.

Examples of the modernist period in schools today can be seen in the standardization of curriculum, hierarchy of personnel and control of bodies. Under modernist thinking, the purpose of schooling is to acquire a standardized set of skills such as those that are useful for factory workers. Standardized curriculum and instruction continues this legacy. Tracking systems that prepare students for either vocational or academic futures also treat students as if they were factory workers on an assembly line. A more generative system would flexibly adapt courses to student needs. Highly bureaucratic institutions exemplify the hierarchy in the system and the ubiquitous school bell is reminiscent of the factory horn that measured time and controlled people during the work day. Controlling of bodies is also seen in the inordinate amount of time that teachers spend on teaching students to line up quietly, sit quietly and pay attention passively (Kozol, ___). Additionally, most schools continue to follow a traditional calendar with long summer vacations that are reminders of the time when children needed to be home to harvest crops

Post-modernism, a reaction to modernism, introduced the notion of subjective experience. Rather than a fixed objective reality, postmodernists believe that reality is subjective and different for each individual. “Perception is reality” is a common phrase that exemplifies postmodern thought. Recognizing subjective experience has given rise to a variety of epistemologies. Even though a true postmodernist would contend that each individual has unique subjective experiences, there are enough commonalities to articulate epistemologies in feminism, classism, racism, and minority disciplines such as Chicano studies, African-American studies and Asian –American studies. Post-modernism supports the revealing of previously subjugated knowledge by recognizing that other realities exist. Subjectivity contributes significantly to understanding the complexity of experience.

Colonialism is another era and philosophical foundation that has created inequality. Colonialism is responsible for the conquering of many of the world’s countries and societies. Colonizing countries have exported their government structures, academic institutions, language, and rule of law to the colonized world. The colonized are seen as childlike and their cultures are devalued. One of the most predominant themes in colonial thought is the division of humanity between us and them. This duality becomes so severe that dehumanizing others is used to commit acts of violence.

Postcolonial theory, as described by Leela Gandhi, concerns itself with the healing of colonization. It empowers the silent “subaltern” voices of the colonized. Building on Freire and Said, Gandhi supports the psychological healing of colonized people. “Re-membering,” is a therapeutic process by which the colonized individual mentally recreates, sometimes painful memories, to understand the system of colonization. It also reveals the phenomena of the internalized colonizer. In this phenomenon, the colonized individual internalizes characteristics of the colonizer and can behave as if he were a colonizer. Freire describes the revealing of this phenomenon as an essential phase of personal transformation.

Gandhi highlights the complex identities of the colonized. In particular, she describes colonized women are as doubly colonized, that is, by race and gender. In addition, the feminist movement didn’t help colonized women much. The feminist movement of the 1920s was based on western values. These values did not represent the interests of colonized women. Thus, many colonized women not support the feminist movement. Additionally, colonized women can be marginalized uniquely as exotic others. The exotic attraction to women of color has not led to a full appreciation of them as multi-dimensional human beings.

Gandhi believes that postcolonial theory should not be another minority study like African-American or Chicano studies. On the contrary, post colonialist theory should be a part of all academic disciplines. It should not be allocated to the margins of academic disciplines but should inform the way that students discuss where knowledge comes from and who benefits from the unchallenged acceptance of such knowledge. Students should be given the space to engage with the canonical knowledge of their discipline using their own experience as references. In this way, postcolonial theory supports the rethinking of the relationship between power and knowledge.

Like postmodernism and post colonialism, critical theory addresses notions of modernism and colonialism and attempts to change it. Critical theory concerns itself with developing multiple perspectives as opposed to a single master narrative. The term master narrative stems from the idea that history is told from the lens of Eurocentric thought and Western experience. For example, American history textbooks are heavily biased in favor of the Anglo experience (e.g. the pioneer, frontiersmen and founding pilgrims and fathers). Stories of the Native American experience during the building of a nation are severely reduced or absent. It is the practice of critical theory to question knowledge, where it comes from and who benefits from accepting unchallenged knowledge.

Impact of Inequality

Traditional schooling has priveledged certain groups and marginalized others. Evidence of this is found in the consistent failure to educate students of non-dominant status as documented by the achievement gap. Students who do not succeed in school are relegated to poor paying jobs. Additionally, the impact of inequality affects the lives of students psychologically and physically.

Psychologically, a student from a non-dominant class or culture may be stigmatized.
Stigmatization is the discrepancy between virtual and actual social identity (Goffman, 1963). Virtual identity is derived from social norms and expectations. In a context of the master narrative, the social norm is to behave according to a Eurocentric ideology. Actual identity embodies the attributes that a person possesses. A person’s actual identity is derived from life history and visual marks. Actual identity also has multiple dimensions. No person has a single identity. A person can be woman, mother, teacher, artist, wife and gardener.

There are three types of stigmas, character, tribal (i.e. race, religion, etc.), and physical deformities. Everyone at one time or another is stigmatized and the role of an individual (stigmatized or normal) changes depending on the context. When a person is visibly stigmatized, they are discredited (Goffman, 1963). This leads to a state of shame and anxiety and the discredited person concerns herself with tension management in encounters with “normal” people. The discredited may exhibit hostile bravado or shrink to invisibility during encounters. When the person has an undetectable stigma, he is discreditable and concerns himself with information control. Passing as normal involves a complex set of behaviors and is accompanied with a state of high anxiety due to the potential of exposure. People who are stigmatized spend a great deal of energy in managing tension or controlling personal information. For students, this high level of anxiety and energy spent on managing social relations distracts them from learning.

Besides psychological stress, inequality contributes to an increase in violence, social corrosion and a decrease in health. Many studies document that violence is caused by shame and feeling disrespected, not a lack of self-esteem as is commonly believed. Additionally, over 40 studies have shown that homicide is higher in communities with high degrees of inequality. Inequality is the number one environmental factor that contributes to homicide. The U.S. has the highest income discrepancy than any other developed market economy nation and it has the highest homicide rate of these countries as well (Wilkinson, 2005).

Social corrosion is connected to societies of great income discrepancy. Social corrosion is characterized by dominance and distrust. High income discrepancy rates accompany a perceived division between “us” and “them.” This increase in division also leads to an increase in dominance. Dominance is characterized by feelings of superiority in terms of race, sex and nationality. People who scored high on a Social Dominance Scale were more likely to hold hierarchical positions such as prison guard. Dominance also leads to an increase in status competition and seeing others as rivals (Wilkinson, 2005).

Inequality also contributes to a stress induced health issues. The psychosocial stress caused by inequality leads to a vulnerability to disease, depression and alcoholism. Obesity, which was once the disease of the rich, is now a disease of the poor. In the most unequal areas of the US, the difference in life expectancy between rich white and poor black people is 16 years. This is equivalent to the life expectancy of people in rural Bangladesh, one of the poorest nations in the world (Wilkinson, 2005). Inequality affects students’ quality of learning, life and, in some cases, sheer survival.


Critical Pedagogy

What are the pedagogies that support inequality? What are pedagogies that support the transformation of schooling?


Critical theory critical pedagogy critical consciousness

One of the foundational thinkers in critical and transformational pedagogies was Paolo Freire. His book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, has transformed the lives of many colonized people. It has sold over 750,000 copies, been translated into many languages and edited thirty times. In his work, Freire identified a culture of silence among the colonized poor caused by domination. He taught them to read, write and think critically about their realities. He introduced the idea that pedagogy is not neutral, it can either be used to uphold the status quo or teach student to think critically about the realities around them and open themselves up to the possibility to change.

Freire’s critical pedagogy embodies a philosophical orientation that puts critical theory into practice. He believed that the transformative power of pedagogy lies in praxis (interaction with the world) that is based on reflection and ownership of one’s own learning. Critical pedagogy is a way to move from critical theory to the critical consciousness of society.

Freire believed that pedagogy of the oppressed is mutually transformative. He stressed that both oppressor and oppressed must engage in learning together. Through open dialogue and critical thinking, both come out transformed. Learning is a communal process, one in which each leaves transformed because of the experience.

Two phases characterize this transformation. First, Freire observed that the oppressed goes through a phase of “internalized oppressor” in which he thinks and behaves as if he were the oppressor. Sometimes, the oppressed is a much more brutal oppressor than the oppressor of his own personal experience. In this phase, a student studies the dynamics of oppression and can notice how this is played out in his daily life. In the second phase, the student must make a commitment to transform and take ownership of his own learning. Assuming responsibility is essential to transformation.

Freire described traditional pedagogy as banking education. In banking education, teachers make “deposits” of information that are considered to be objectively true into the brains of their students. This requires a passive learner. The student is rewarded for docile behavior and the ability to reproduce unchanged knowledge that the teacher “deposited.” Students are “blank slates” for teachers to write on. The role of the teacher in banking education is to dole out content, usually in some predetermined order. We continue this pattern today. We teach addition, subtraction, multiplication and division in an order that ignores the relationship between these operations.

Freire introduced the idea of participatory, problem-solving education. He organizes study around generative themes by posing problems to which both teacher and student respond. Generative themes lie inside epochs. An epoch is a conceptual framework that is made up of opposing themes. For example, an epoch could be domination and liberation theories together. A generative theme within this epoch could be colonization or decolonization. Both teachers and students explore these themes together as learners.

Freire identified two instructional stages. The first stage is investigation. It involves investigators from outside of the learning community. These investigators collect data about the community using the help of volunteers from the community itself. The second stage is decoding. In decoding, investigators reflect back how they perceived life in the community. Community members react and a dialogue ensues. The purpose here is to reveal contradictions and identify themes to be used as units of study.

Units of study are organized into a sequence and multi-didactic materials are prepared so that teachers integrate literacy instruction with the development of a critical consciousness. Didactic materials vary depending on the literacy needs of students. They can include picture, sound and word cards. Texts are also used to teach reading and critical literacy skills. Students develop critical literacy skills and rethink the power/knowledge relationship when they examine the author. Overall, pedagogy of the oppressed moves pedagogy from anti-dialogical to dialogical, from cultural invasion to cultural synthesis, from silence to empowerment, from banking education to problem-posing education, from a denial that oppression exists to the recognition of the oppressor within, from ignorance to critical consciousness, and from domination to freedom.

Many educators have built upon Freire’s work. Ira Shor, for example, describes empowering education as a critical pedagogy that empowers students to question school and society. Empowering education values the transformation of self and society and contributes to a multicultural democracy. It connects personal growth to pubic life and places great value student activism based on a student’s growing critical consciousness. Skill development and increasing academic knowledge are embedded in a context of critical curiosity, inquiry and dialogue. An essential goal of empowering education is to expand a student’s knowledge beyond her own experience.

Like Freire, empowering education is participatory, problem-posing and based on mutual inquiry. It honors students’ colloquial language and experiences while introducing critical thought and academic language. Both teacher and student are learners and the teacher’s role is to artfully introduce his knowledge while still honoring what students know. Shor uses Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) for teaching. ZPD is the zone of learning wherein an individual can accomplish more in partnership with an expert other than she can on her own. Shor talks about flooding this zone with content and process.

Shor works on the premise that students are knowledgeable and a teacher’s role is to merge his own knowledge with the student. In his instruction, Shor engages students’ knowledge and curiosity first through dialogue and academic assignments. At strategic points over the course of study, he introduces his knowledge in short lectures that are embedded in dialogue. According to Shor, both teachers and students come to the learning process with strengths and weaknesses and are partners who learn from and with each other.

Henry Giroux also builds on Freire’s model by introducing border pedagogy. Border pedagogy honors the cultural identity of its students and is postcolonial in nature. Like pedagogy of the oppressed and empowering education, it attempts to shift education from a traditional industrial model to one that empowers students to think and act critically. It encourages students to question institutions and the assumptions upon which they are built. It assumes a need for a new language of critique and possibilities.

Border pedagogy addresses the power/knowledge relationship by generating a non-dominant body of knowledge. It does this through deconstruction and remapping. Teachers and students together deconstruct old ways of being by critically examining social practices, knowledge and texts. They examine the master narrative and fixed identities portrayed in texts. Teachers and students remap and shape new realities by connecting the master narrative to the experience and complex identities of others.

Remapping occurs in what Giroux calls borderlands. Borderlands are areas of cultural difference. They are places where students and teachers can recognize the complexity of narratives and identities and safely engage in critical thought. One way that teachers and students do this is by examining everyday experiences of marginality. Examining mundane and routine experiences helps make the tacit visible and exposes deeply rooted systems of domination.

Border pedagogy includes critical literacy. Students read within, outside and against boundaries. Students read both dominant and non-dominant texts and explore the text within the principles that created them. They read texts that both affirm and question their own realities and explore their reactions to them. Students discuss how different audiences might respond to different texts and, more significantly, create their own texts. Student created texts value each student’s unique experience while building academic skills. Giroux reminds us that reading for pleasure is critical because it brings students outside of rationality and explores the possibilities inherent in affective and creative thought.

Border pedagogy empowers students to analyze their own condition, understand colonized others, and act on the world from a collective strength they have built with fellow students. Like Freirie and Shor, Giroux stresses the need for students to act on the world and develop a public life.

Giroux believes that teachers must become transformative intellectuals. Beyond mere mediators of the state, they become change agents. He poses two critical questions for educators to explore. They are:

What is the purpose of education? and

What are the necessary conditions to educate teachers to be intellectuals, so they can engage critically the relationship between culture and learning and change the conditions under which they work?

These two fundamental questions ground teachers as cultural workers who shape the landscape of learning for their students.

Thinkers such as Said, Gandhi, Freire, Shor and Giroux have contributed uniquely to a growing paradigm shift from the maintenance of a single master narrative to the nurturing of a multi-dimensional critical consciousness. Critical pedagogy is one way to achieve this. Educators and intellectuals must redesign their role from that of mediators of the state to transformative agents of change. They must rethink the power/knowledge relationship and create borderlands where people explore cultural differences. To aid us in this endeavor, Said and Giroux have proposed some questions that can be used in dialogue with diverse groups for the purpose of exploring possibilities in a new paradigm (see table below).


Type of Question
Said
Giroux
Role of intellectual
What is the role of the intellectual?

Is he there to validate the culture and state of which he is a part?

What importance must he give to an independent critical consciousness? An oppositional critical consciousness?

Culture
What is another culture?

How does one represent other cultures?

Is the notion of a distinct culture (race, religion, civilization, etc) a useful one or does it always get involved either in self-congratulation (when one discusses one’s one) or hostility and aggression (when one discusses the other)?

Do cultural, religious and racial differences matter more than socio-economic categories or politico-historical ones?
How do racism, sexism, classism work?

How do we approach questions of social relations?
Power/Knowledge relationship
How do ideas acquire authority, “normalty,” and even the status of “natural” truth?
What forms of knowledge count?

How do we begin to deconstruct textbooks to identify ways of life and stories they tell?



Conclusion

The past thirteen pages have highlighted the ideas of numerous authors on the topic of inequality. Each of these authors brings his or her own unique context into their ideas, their ideology. Despite their uniqueness, however, they tell a story of inequality that has some commonalities. This story demonstrates that inequality is deeply embedded in our social systems and individual psyche. We are often complicit in this system whether we are conscious of it or not. Our complicity silences ourselves and others.

This story is a call to awakening. It compels us to learn more, to understand our unique story and our connection to others. It is also a call to action. Awareness of the power/knowledge relationship compels us to change it. We want our stories told and so must create spaces where bodies of knowledge that embrace diversity, paradox and ambiguity can thrive.

Students must insist on borderlands in learning environments. Students must take ownership of their learning and insist that places of learning provide spaces where voices can be heard. Students must listen carefully to each other and exercise tolerance for differences and ambiguity.

Teachers must provide borderlands for their students. Engaging as learners themselves, teachers must create spaces of mutual inquiry, artfully introducing their own knowledge at appropriate times. They must seek to embellish their students’ knowledge, not simply deposit alien content into their students’ minds.

Educators and cultural workers as a whole must courageously question established practice and forge new ways of knowing. Listening and storytelling must become part of a new way of sharing knowledge. We all must be pioneers in uncharted borderlands.




References:
Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. (1991). Postmodern Education: Politics, Culture, and Social Criticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B.McV., Goldberger, N. R., Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books Inc.

De Nardi M.C., Doctor, P., Krane, S. (2007). Evidence on Entrepeneurs in the United States: Data from 1989-2004: Survey of Consumer Finances. Economic Perspectives, Fourth Quarter 2007. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

Foucault, M. (1972). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books

Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. (1970). New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.

Gandhi, L. (1998). Postcolonial Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.

Giroux, H. (1992). Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. New York: Routledge.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Kozol, J.(2005). The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. New York: Crown Publishers.

Petras, J., Veltmeyer, H. (2001). Globalization Unmasked. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Random House Inc.

US Department of Labor. (n.d.). Stock Options: National Compensation Survey Update. Retrieved January 18, 2008, from http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/old/cm20040628yb01p1.asp

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2007). The Condition of Education 2007 (NCES 2007-064). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office

Watt, J. (1994). Ideology, Objectivity, and Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wilkinson, R. (2005). The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier. New York: The New York Press.