From Donnelly's book:
“Instead of accepting that what happens in education is inherently worthwhile or a natural part of things, the new sociology of education movement argues that what counts as education and how it is managed is a socio-cultural construct, that is, what counts as knowledge is subjective and relative to one’s culture and what those more powerful in society decide what should be taught” (2007, p. 16, footnote).
I can’t quite come at this statement, which is made to explain that education is in the hands of the Marxists. How on earth can what happens in education be a natural part of things when people decide what happens in education. People have varying points of view (case in point), so when something is chosen as a necessary part of knowledge to be taught, someone made a decision which runs counter to the decision someone else may have made. Thus, education as a socio-cultural construct is accurate. If Shakespeare is a natural part of things, then why might people from backgrounds other than Anglo-Celtic find it does not mean so much to them as other texts? I'm not having a go at Shakespeare, here, just making a point.
The very fact that Donnelly is even having this argument with everyone serves to prove a point he rejects.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hello again,
You say: "How on earth can what happens in education be a natural part of things when people decide what happens in education. People have varying points of view (case in point), so when something is chosen as a necessary part of knowledge to be taught, someone made a decision which runs counter to the decision someone else may have made. Thus, education as a socio-cultural construct is accurate." You are conflating two things, firstly, what counts as knowledge does not rely on each individual's perception; two plus two equals four, what goes up, generally comes down and the periodic table holds whatever culture you belong to. Secondly, yes, what counts as knowledge in the academy is often filtered by what those in control choose, but my argument is that the choice should be rational and transparent, not a matter of ideology.
Best wishes,
Kevin D
Hello Kevin, and thankyou for responding.
I understand that we have different ideas about what constitutes ‘knowledge’. I read your response as encapsulating the idea that ‘knowledge’ is about ‘correct’ facts and procedures. But schools are charged with more than the dissemination of facts and procedures, with the job of teaching values and attitudes very much expected (and even mandated). These are influenced by culture. And I don’t mean simply cultures other than the Anglo-Celtic Judeo-Christian: Australia is made up of many sub-cultures, of people who have vastly different life experiences, beliefs and understandings. It would simply be improper for the education system to ignore this, and expect all students to learn and adhere to those values and attitudes which were defined by a government, or a majority.
Apart from that, ‘knowledge’ is NOT all correct facts and procedures. For example, in science, if I were to teach about the stars and constellations, it would be remiss of me to leave out all the information about how different cultures make use of their understandings of the constellations. Pluto, up until recently, was called a ‘planet’ and has been for years. Now, we find that Pluto does not qualify as a planet! That decision was made by PEOPLE, and cannot be seen as an inherent ‘fact’. Imaginary numbers actually don’t exist, except for the fact that mathematicians needed a way of explaining things … Anyway, decision after decision has been made over the centuries as to what constitutes ‘fact’ and what constitutes ‘correct’, and I assume this will continue. Think about red wine, for example. Red wine provided health benefits, and then it didn’t, and now it does again! (Thank goodness for that.)
Your own field of expertise – English – is an area in which one actually cannot teach ‘correct’ facts and procedures. One might think that it’s all about ‘literacy’ comprising of grammar, text type, etc. However, when different people read books, or anything else for that matter, there will always be a variety of reactions based upon their previous experience. For example, Cloud Street by Tim Winton, is a book that is considered widely as being a wonderful piece of work. I have read it, and I enjoyed it immensely. My personal investment in this book and what it was telling me would be different from that experienced by someone else (even if they were ostensibly from the ‘same’ kind of background). To ask students to read and interpret this book as if it only has one meaning, as if it only has one audience, would be careless. My personal feelings about the literary techniques used within this book would differ from even my best friend. And I want them to, because we would not have a reason for even having a book club. A thirty-something year-old female would certainly have a different way of interacting with this book than an eighty year-old male. An Aboriginal female would certainly have a different way of interacting with this book than a non-Aboriginal female, etc. Hence, the emphasis upon reading as a critical exercise, where the reader’s own interaction with the words are the most important, and even considering the author’s intentions, is paramount. And I’m sure Tim Winton himself would agree. (By the way, we are taught not to start a sentence with ‘but’ or ‘and’, but I find this suitable to my style of writing, and so do many other authors … Remember Peter Carey’s True History of the Kelly Gang used lack of punctuation for literary effect.)
Facts and procedures have their place in education, and the people you attack do not say they do not. They say that one cannot reduce education to this.
I’m going to post this now, but will be back to respond to your second claim.
Dear Kevin,
I'm a bit disappointed about a lack of response to my first reply, but hoping you will respond one day.
Anyway, to the second point from your own comment...
"Secondly, yes, what counts as knowledge in the academy is often filtered by what those in control choose, but my argument is that the choice should be rational and transparent, not a matter of ideology."
My reaction to the first part of this is to ask: Well, why didn't you say that in the book? Why give readers the impression that only Marxists believe there is a dominant controlling force over what counts as knowledge?
My reaction to the second part of this is: How can choice about what counts as knowledge be free from ideology? No matter who is in control, ideology comes into the picture. For example, this is explicitly clear in the Liberal government's proposed and already mandated implementation of things like values education (values are ideologically free?), civics and citizenship education, Australian history, etc. Ideology has driven these 'reforms'.
Post a Comment