Other People's Children
by Lisa Delpit
Delpit's Argument:
It seems that in Lisa Delpit's "Other People's Children", she argues that it is the responsibility of educators to teach students the codes and rules that will allow them to be successful within their encompassing culture of privilege. This doesn't mean that a students individual culture must be assimilated and lost, but rather they must learn how to put a mantle of codes on with the rest of their identity.
Passages of Interest:
Delpit seems to argue that both a student's personal side (culture, identity, etc) must be respected and nurtured, but within the confines and understandings of larger codes dictated by the prevailing culture of power. The below passage paints a stark picture of what mechanical education within respect for the students personal side can lead to:
1) "Dear Teacher:
I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw what no person should witness:
-Gas Chambers built by learned engineers.
-Children posioned by educated physicians.
-Infants killed by trained nurses.
-Women and children shot and burned by high school and college graduates.
So I am suspicious of education. My request is: Help your students become human. Your efforts must never produce learned monsters, skilled psychopaths, educated Eichmanns. Reading, writing and arithmetic are important only if the were to make our children more human"
I think this quote is amazing. We can't set a standard and force everyone through as a statisic. Sure the passage is shaped by the culture of power, but by handling those who move through it all the same we are going to break something.
Based off of our past assessment of Johnson, Delpit seems to echo the idea that people don't want to talk about their differences within a culture of power. Instead they are either silent, or beat around the bush and create further miscommunication. This is illustrated in the passage below:
2) "When deemphasizing power, there is a move toward indirect communication. Therefore, in the interview setting, those who sought to help, to express their egalitarianism with the East Indian applicant, became more and more indirect-and less and less helpful- in their questions and comments."
Another point that struck me from the readings, is the idea that it is so difficult for those within the culture of power to guide their culturally unique students through the codes needed to get by. It seems both Johnson and Delpit assert that the reason for this is that those within a culture of power are oblivious to the fact that they are measuring students against themselves, even when they mean well. This can be seen in the following passage in which black anthropologist John Galwey states that:
3) "-the biggest difference between black folks and white folks is that black folks know when they are lying to you."
1) "Dear Teacher:
I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw what no person should witness:
-Gas Chambers built by learned engineers.
-Children posioned by educated physicians.
-Infants killed by trained nurses.
-Women and children shot and burned by high school and college graduates.
So I am suspicious of education. My request is: Help your students become human. Your efforts must never produce learned monsters, skilled psychopaths, educated Eichmanns. Reading, writing and arithmetic are important only if the were to make our children more human"
I think this quote is amazing. We can't set a standard and force everyone through as a statisic. Sure the passage is shaped by the culture of power, but by handling those who move through it all the same we are going to break something.
Based off of our past assessment of Johnson, Delpit seems to echo the idea that people don't want to talk about their differences within a culture of power. Instead they are either silent, or beat around the bush and create further miscommunication. This is illustrated in the passage below:
2) "When deemphasizing power, there is a move toward indirect communication. Therefore, in the interview setting, those who sought to help, to express their egalitarianism with the East Indian applicant, became more and more indirect-and less and less helpful- in their questions and comments."
Another point that struck me from the readings, is the idea that it is so difficult for those within the culture of power to guide their culturally unique students through the codes needed to get by. It seems both Johnson and Delpit assert that the reason for this is that those within a culture of power are oblivious to the fact that they are measuring students against themselves, even when they mean well. This can be seen in the following passage in which black anthropologist John Galwey states that:
3) "-the biggest difference between black folks and white folks is that black folks know when they are lying to you."
Comments/Discussion:
It is only recently that I have begun to take life seriously. I lived at two ends of the specta. The lovable, but unachieving party animal and now the devote goal drive chemistry major. I have seen alot of positive results in the latter. For almost two years I have been working solely on the science side of my major. Strict self guidelines dictating my success. I began to believe that impossible expectations were the way to get both results in myself, and results in others. This was the philosophy I was going to bring to teaching.
Then certain things happened which made me question this. I started to slide into the mind that it was solely the student that was important, and as long as they turned out to be a good person, the material didn't matter.
Both times I was wrong. Or rather I guess both times I was right.
I know I have just started this course, but I really like what these readings are doing to me. One will knock my view to the extreme of impossible expectations, then another will slam it back down to the side of focussing solely on the student. Even if the texts are not so contrasting, I find it still makes my mind flip flop. This black and white may just be the way I think. For awhile I have known this and wanted to change it.
It seems that Delpit asserts that it is neither black nor white, but (corny) a marriage of both. I am begginning to think that a teacher needs to be almost undefinable, and adaptable. It makes me feel kind of silly with how much I am eating up this material, but that might just be the butterflies stirring from me peeking out from behind my own personal privilege blinders.
It is only recently that I have begun to take life seriously. I lived at two ends of the specta. The lovable, but unachieving party animal and now the devote goal drive chemistry major. I have seen alot of positive results in the latter. For almost two years I have been working solely on the science side of my major. Strict self guidelines dictating my success. I began to believe that impossible expectations were the way to get both results in myself, and results in others. This was the philosophy I was going to bring to teaching.
Then certain things happened which made me question this. I started to slide into the mind that it was solely the student that was important, and as long as they turned out to be a good person, the material didn't matter.
Both times I was wrong. Or rather I guess both times I was right.
I know I have just started this course, but I really like what these readings are doing to me. One will knock my view to the extreme of impossible expectations, then another will slam it back down to the side of focussing solely on the student. Even if the texts are not so contrasting, I find it still makes my mind flip flop. This black and white may just be the way I think. For awhile I have known this and wanted to change it.
It seems that Delpit asserts that it is neither black nor white, but (corny) a marriage of both. I am begginning to think that a teacher needs to be almost undefinable, and adaptable. It makes me feel kind of silly with how much I am eating up this material, but that might just be the butterflies stirring from me peeking out from behind my own personal privilege blinders.
0 comments:
Post a Comment