Oppression in Education

While reading these two student-written works I really appreciated their use of primary documents and was really impressed by their focused analysis of these specific texts to understand the larger cultural attitudes that influenced the people involved. Strand et al. demonstrate, using Foucault, that the classroom was the microcosm of the larger cultural colonization while Kawai et al. based on the progressive Indian Reorganization Act and the Meriam report, search for evidence of a shift from a singular to a plural appraisal of culture only to discover that it did not actually materialize into the cultural attitudes of the occupiers.

In Before and After, Ms. Stock outlines the purpose of educating Apache children: “to develop and invigorate the child’s possession of desirable habits, insights attitudes and knowledge and to modify, as far as possible, all undesirable traits and powers.” The children do not know this. Through the project of assisting an imaginary “needy” Apache family, the children are learning reading, writing, and mathematics, sure, but there is a “hidden curriculum” in play where Ms. Stock is using a familiar cultural context to construct a new cultural identity for the children she is teaching. The “new Apache” is born out of cultural oppression and colonization of the mind as Foucault’s theory suggested.

What I found striking was Ms. Stocks convincing benevolence in her work. She seemed to truly believe that she was doing a service to these children and her writing reflects a sense of achievement and satisfaction in helping to “better” these children. This in turn, sheds valuable light on the cultural mindset of Ms. Stock and the others who she identifies as “we.” There is an unquestioned assumption that because the Apache are different, they are inferior and need to be “civilized” to display “desirable characteristics.” The children learn that their culture is “needy,” lacking in appropriate value and customs (according to the measure created by the colonialist’s culture) and learn to remedy the ills identified. Even though Ms. Stock personally felt that she was doing the “right” thing in helping her students achieve “useful, healthy, and happy lives,” how did she not see that these ideals were completely empty. What is “good,” “natural,” “useful,” and “healthy” even mean? The only basis these words have is that they are a positive indicator of what the user deems desirable or comfortable to herself, while the opposites “bad,” “unnatural,” “useless,” and “unhealthy” are undesirable and uncomfortable for her. they are simply devoid of any real inherent meaning. And here comes Foucault on the creation of discourse where these words become saturated and manipulate relations of power. The teacher has become an ingenious vehicle within the machinery of cultural colonization.

Kawai and friends also lend evidence to the depth of ingrained attitude. Culture is not a seen on a plural axis, but rather on a singular vertical hierarchy of acceptable and good at the top and the opposite at the bottom. The value of the person, his dignity, and his opportunities within the dominant society rests upon his ability scale up to the top of this structure. At the bottom of the image that Kawai refers to is the white observer, who is watching the evolution of the Navajo from his original culture into the new American culture. There is only one standard and that is the white American culture. By the very nature of their being indian, no matter how “American” they become, they will always be followed by the haunting stigma of being Indian within a culture and people that have continue to associate their origins as less than the standard imposed on them. They will always be second-class members of that society.

Policies such as these are not confined to history, they continue around the world. China, for example, has created a underclass of the Tibetan and Uyghur people in their own land. The destruction of cultural practices and identity begins in the classroom where “the key to civilizing is schooling.” In China’s case, these people would be “liberated” by the socialist state (it is implied that such a state has no capitalist characteristics and thus, no colonial/imperial intentions). Autonomy would be granted to these nationalities, but once they realized the superiority of Chinese Socialist culture, they would, by their own volition assimilate into it and autonomy.

The question of power, of inferiority and superiority, and a fixed “us” versus “them” is a constant through-out these readings and what interests me is the question: how do we begin to deconstruct these ideas so to eliminate oppression? And I cant seek an answer without using one of these empty words: how do we create the “right” education system? And I can’t help feeling that my search for the “right” or “best” education is potentially just as biased as Ms. Stocks.