General responses to reading these texts together:
One thing I noticed in both texts we read this week is the emphasis on balancing theory and practice–something that’s really important to me as a learner. I can often grasp why a concept or value is important, but what I really need as a relatively new teacher is examples of how to implement these ideas. In “Teaching for Social Justice,” what are some specific examples of “offer[ing] students opportunities” to engage in activism in the classroom, for example? For this reason, this week’s reading was both validating and occasionally frustrating for me–precisely because these texts are both primarily made up of introductory material, they don’t include a lot of specific examples of what “mak[ing] a difference” looks like in practice (Johnson vii). But I'm sure this is something we will discuss in class, and in future class meetings!
Another connection is that both texts are grappling with how we acknowledge and work with the differences between our own experiences with privilege and oppression and those of our students, colleagues, and/or friends. "Teaching for Social Justice" discusses how white teachers in majority-POC schools are responsible for learning from their students and drawing on the expertise of families, colleagues, and community resources (xi). Meanwhile, Johnson acknowledges the awkwardness and difficulty of bringing discussions of privilege and oppression from theory down to practice with a friend and collaborator who is a Black woman: ”I felt how hard it was for me to talk about race and gender in that moment … how my whiteness and maleness are a source of privilege … that elevates me not above some abstract groups, but above her, my friend” (8). While I sometimes found myself irritated by Johnson's discussions of his own privilege (see below), I found the honesty of this moment really powerful.
"Teaching for Social Justice," from Rethinking Our Classrooms:
Argument: The editors of Rethinking Our Classrooms argue that classrooms can be “laboratories for a more just society” (x); even within the constraints of social and institutional factors beyond our control, the social justice classroom can be a place where teachers perform the “visionary” work of modeling and helping students imagine an alternative social reality, as well as the “practical” work of teaching students the skills they will need to bring that reality into effect in the larger world.
Thoughts / Talking Points:
- In addition to my thoughts above, I was interested in this discussion of academic rigor: “Critical teaching aims to inspire levels of academic performance far greater than those motivated or measured by grades and test scores. When children write for real audiences … “academics” starts to breathe … only by systematically reconstructing classroom life do we have any hope of cracking the cynicism that lies so close to the heart of massive school failure” (xi). Coming from a school where conversations about "rigor" have suddenly become really high-stakes even as the definition of "rigor" remains frustratingly vague, I wanted to unpack these ideas more. In general, I agree with these claims--I think work that is authentic and meaningful to students does indeed help them to develop more powerful critical thinking and communication skills, for example! But the tension between the resistance to measuring success by conventional metrics such as test scores and the claim that these methods actually will improve test scores is always tricky to resolve!
Excerpts from Johnson, Privilege, Power, and Difference:
Argument: Johnson argues that “we” as a society are in “trouble” due to structural inequality, but that recognizing and acknowledging that trouble will make it possible for us to effect change. (The problem isn’t individuals or the differences between us; the problem is structural!)
Thoughts / Talking Points:
- Reminding myself that Johnson's arguments are historically specific: As I read, I thought about how this book was published in 2001, and what has (and hasn't!) changed since then. For example, is the “biggest challenge we face” currently “understanding how to bring dominant groups into the conversation” (11)? And I hope that the claim that “our culture allows for only two genders” is no longer as accurate as it might have been (20).
- A specific example of a strategy that I think was probably necessary for the kind of book Johnson was writing in 2001, but that feels a little strange now, is Johnson's constant assertion of his own privilege: Johnson models the importance of acknowledging one’s personal standpoint throughout the assigned passages, reminding us often that he is a “white, male, heterosexual, middle-class professional” (Introduction, viii). As I read, I thought about how this acknowledgement is important, but also how it can be tiring to hear someone remind us so many times that they don’t experience marginalization in any way.
- In this context, Johnson's (valid) point that that people with privilege need to take responsibility for fixing things can take on a bit of a "white savior" vibe (on p. 10, he says that marginalized people “don’t have the power to change entrenched systems of privilege by themselves … the trouble we’re in can’t be solved unless people who are heterosexual or male or Anglo or white or economically comfortable feel obligated to make the problem of privilege their problem and to do something about it”).
- Similarly, his point that everyone is “in trouble” (10) and that white people are harmed by white privilege because of the guilt they feel (39) can feel false. (Are white people harmed by white privilege in the same way that men are harmed by patriarchy, in the example Johnson gives on p. 39 & p. 40?) My reaction to this language got me thinking about my own practice as a white teacher (see above!) and how acknowledging my privilege and difference is important but can run the risk of making students feel marginalized and disempowered.
