“Real World”

In class, we have discussed phrase working adults often say to younger students, “Once you enter the real world…” (see cartoon below). This phrase has made us ponder, are we as students not part of the “real world”? What is the “real world”? What skills are required in the “real world”? In my attempt to understand what the “real world” is, I remembered an idea we studied in Anthropology 101 which was “liminality”.Untitled Continue reading

Media Overlo(rds)ad…

“Discourses produce knowledge and knowledge is always a weapon of power” (Storey130).

I was quite impressed with the way Storey wrote on the relationship between discourse and power. Power, although not defined within Storey, was defined in Michel Foucault’s “The History of Sexuality”. Power is not defined in terms of traditional physical domination, it is a force, much like wind currents, that cannot be pinpointed at any exact location, it moves from all angles to any common point. It does, however, seek to control in a form of categorizing (Storey130). With that in mind, it was interesting looking at the syllogism Storey used to explain the discourse-power relationship. If one examines the thoughts of sexuality in Victorian England that takes on the form of letters, works, paintings, medical texts, etc. one can see the overall opinion, or knowledge of sexuality. It is with this opinion that power is exerted over sexuality in Victorian English society, for the categorization of any thoughts or actions that bear resemblance to sexuality are then grouped, and society has a way of exerting control over its own thoughts.

In the way of education, this comes to be a limiting factor in acquiring knowledge. Paul Freire in his work, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” would certainly agree, as, “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention” (Friere72). Categorizing no doubt would make it easier to teach subjects, as concepts with common topics will be grouped together such as the STEM programs (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). The challenge lies in that these categorizations are only through the discourse at any given time, therefore knowledge and opinion in society at large are responsible for the education structure at any given time. What does that mean? It means that our education is contingent with the public opinion, therefore, could it be said that it is media that controls what we read and understand, since public opinion is transferred using mediums such as newspaper, reporters, radio, and any other such modes of communication?

It means that our education is contingent with the public opinion, therefore, could it be said that it is media that controls what we read and understand, since public opinion is transferred using mediums such as newspaper, reporters, radio, and any other such modes of communication?

It means that our education is contingent with the public opinion, therefore, could it be said that it is media that controls what we read and understand, since public opinion is transferred using mediums such as newspaper, reporters, radio, and any other such modes of communication?

Curiosity and diversity

Upon watching a Ted Talk hosted by Ken Robinson, I was further convinced that the current form of education is broken and must be fixed. The current system implores the banking system, which Robinson would surely find ineffective. Robinson talks about the driving principals of human beings: diversity and curiosity.

When Robinson says diversity, he is referring to both humans and the education system. It is true that not all are alike, even within families. As a result, how can there only be one way of teaching? It is rare that the banking system fits perfectly for the learning style of a student, and even rarer that it works for all student. We must diversify the way that we teach students, as one method may be better for one student than the other. Continue reading

Thicker than Water

How much of our identity is actually related to our bloodline? For example, we always hear (or at least I do) “that part is just like your mother/father” from not only my family, but also relatives and acquaintances. Speaking from a biological standpoint, the answer can be varied; much of who we are is dependent on our genes, our so called “blood.” However, much of who we are is also dependent on the environment. Therefore, is it alright to identify someone by their family? And how much of what we decided is decided before we even recognize it?

Continue reading

Freire and Foucault on the Classroom Dynamic

In Discipline and Punish: The Birth of a Prison, Foucault analyzes the oppressive classroom dynamic that resembles that of a military infrastructure in which the authoritarian leaders “discipline” the young. This dynamic proposed in Foucault’s piece is similar to that of  Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed.  Continue reading

Knowledge as a Means of Manipulation and Oppression

During the Storey reading I was struck by the statement “discourses produce knowledge and knowledge is always a weapon of power” (7). I found this to be one of the most significant truths I have ever come across in philosophy.

As mentioned in Storey’s paper, with the example of the Victorians creating the concept of sexuality through discussion, the discourse that follows observation, studying, and experimentation of a certain subject allows for the generation of knowledge in that specific field. This then facilitates the creation of power, as a better understanding of something or a theory can be used to categorize and organize behavior, dividing it into “normal” and “abnormal.”

I had never really thought of knowledge as a weapon, but, when looking back at historical examples, it is seemingly a very relevant means by which to control people. Time and time again, history has proven that if you have knowledge, or appear to have knowledge, you have a better chance of manipulating and then taking command over people. We can see this with dictators, corrupt politicians, etcetera. Furthermore, people are naturally drawn to people who are or seem knowledgeable, because they want to be with those who seem to have the answers to unknowable and understandable questions, and are prone to adhering to societal norms generated through the public awareness of certain forms of knowledge for fear of appearing strange or “abnormal.”

Because the human mind is prone to categorization, people tend to divide the world into very black and white terms, deeming one thing as good and the opposite as bad. Through the process of the creation of knowledge through discourse, which is then followed by categorization and organization of behavior, the people who have a good understanding of the subject undergoing exploration hold power over others who lack that knowledge, and are able to decide, based off of their own personal opinion, what should be deemed right and wrong. Therefore, knowledge at the most basic of level can be turned into a weapon depending on the hands of the people it falls into, as it can be used to manipulate and control the innocent or naive.

When I read about the relationship between knowledge and power, it made me a bit nervous in terms of the negative effects it can have upon society, and how there is seemingly no way to combat it if it falls into the hands of or is developed by unscrupulous people. Do you think there is any way in which to prevent the obtainment of knowledge from being used to manipulate and oppress people?

Looking to the Future vs. End Goals

In John Dewey’s Experience and Education, he mainly discusses his ideas regarding progressive versus traditional education and how they both relate to experience. One section I found interesting was on page 76, and I thought it might be interesting to compare this example to standardized testing or AP classes.

Continue reading

Is Consciousness Real?

Consciousness is usually defined as the awareness of the self and the surrounding world. Traditionally, consciousness is theorized to be an immaterial entity, a production of the mind rather than the brain. Consequently, most people believe that there is no physiological mechanism for the production of consciousness; it is just present with every human being and is intertwined with his thoughts and feelings. Locke and Hegel both discuss consciousness in the readings we did for this class, and both philosophers do not think that the brain produces consciousness. Locke asserts that consciousness is necessary for the thought process but it is not itself produced by thought.

Continue reading

Flaws in Education

“Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.” (Freire, Pedagogy)

I am in complete agreement with this statement. In Pedagogy, Freire talks about the flaws in our system of education. He says that humans/students are “containers” and “receptacles” to be filled by the teacher. In other words, he is saying that we are just memorizing whatever the teacher is teaching us, and the better that teachers help us memorize certain material, the better the teacher is. Humans really develop intellectually if they are not just memorizing material, but actually experiencing and researching what the material really is and why it is important. This helps the student retain information and enables him/her to take full advantage of their cognitive ability. I cannot tell you how many times I have been taught something by a teacher and studied and been tested on certain material, and not even a month later, I couldn’t remember anything important about what I had learned. However, the things that I have done research and experiments on myself and then been taught about afterwards are the things that I remember even today. For example, I remember almost everything that I learned from a sheep brain experiment/analysis that I did in FOCUS in second grade. This was  because the teacher let us make our own observations about the brain and then clarified what we were thinking by giving us technical lingo instead of just telling us everything about the brain without giving us a chance to explore it.

Freire’s thoughts on how education/teaching should be presented to students can be compared to Rousseau’s thoughts that he expressed in Emile. He, too, believes that people should be taught through experience rather than just being told and forced to remember . Freire also reminds me of Dewey when he says that “the teacher talks about reality as if it were motionless, static, compartmentalized, and predictable.” Dewey says that in education, we should learn things that will be useful in the future, and that we should also incorporate past subject matter in these teachings. He also says that subject matter should relate to real world experiences, and that subject matter in general should be based on experience rather than theory.

It is really interesting to see how these philosophers all have the same kind of thinking towards education and how people should be taught. What do you guys think?

Freire on Freedom of Education

When Paulo Freire examines the prevailing education system of his time, he concludes that education is more along the lines of propaganda rather than learning. His paper compares education with how much freedom it gives the student, and he labels traditional education as the “banking” concept. The banking concept is sustained by depositing bits of information into a student’s brain without letting the student question how it works or why it is relevant. Freire argues that any intellectual freedom that academia can offer is crushed by banking education Continue reading