Download The Cultural Politics of Education:How Traditionalism is Impacting

1
aliaThe Cultural Politics of Education: How Traditionalism is Impacting Our Schools
by
Frank Joell Macchi
Introduction
Jane Roland Martin sees education as a flawed institution that is marginalized by gender
roles, biases and the breakdown of the traditional home. Women, Schools, and Cultural Wealth
calls for a reconceptualization of education that will encompass the mind, body and spirit of both
sexes. This new approach will accomplish these goals in a way that “honors both the productive
and reproductive processes in society” (p.149). Her school vision is a process rooted in the
relationship between the home and school, a relationship which Martin views as a fractured.
Part 1: Bringing Women into Educational Thought
Martin first looks at the role of women in educational thought and finds that they “have
no place at all” (p.150). There are female philosophers and even male theorists who have
discussed the role of women in education, but those texts have been buried. Their contributions
to the educational field have been disregarded. Plato and Rousseau, however, have written some
of the most influential and lasting works on women and education. Martin expounds on their
work as she searches for the result of women being “brought into” the educational discussion
after centuries of being suppressed in it (p.151).
Recovering Rousseau’s Fundamental Insight
The most profound result of Martin’s analysis of Rousseau is that female education has
the power to reconceptualize the entire educational world. The power, Martin asserts, lies in
what she calls women’s “baggage” (p.151). “Baggage” has a negative connotation in today’s
vernacular, so I found it curious that she chose to use the word. Nevertheless, Martin explains
that this baggage is deep knowledge and skills of tasks, duties and cultures associated with home
and family. Baggage turns out to be what she later will refer to as “cultural wealth” (p.152).
2
Women, then, are the curators of our culture. According to Woolf, “the world of the private
home” is where culture is transmitted (p.152).
This is the beginning of society’s attempt or as Martin would claim the achievement of
pushing women out of the educational forefront. Rousseau first dignifies home life, claiming that
it is “a good son, the good husband and the good father who make the good citizen” (p.152). But
in Book V of Emil, he assigns two very different educational tasks and functions to the two
genders. Emil is ensconced in public and labor activities, while Sophie is left to muddle in
domestic undertakings. To Rousseau, these conflicting environments require contrasting types of
education. This is not surprising considering Martin’s assessment that Rousseau divided
everything by sex. He even maintained that private marriage, home and family are essential to an
ideal state and that those responsibilities belong to women (p.153).
Toward a Gender-Sensitive Philosophy of Education
Despite the vital role women play in the success of society, it is still at a reduced worth
when compared to the contributions of men. If men and women work together to form a
“complete moral person”, how can their roles be so different and predetermined (p.154)? Martin
contends that Rousseau has taken the responsibility of reproduction away from men and forced it
on women. This is similar to how Plato removed that same responsibility from the guardians of
the state (p.154). Plato acknowledged “the difference of sex without making us prisoners of
gender” (p.155), while Rousseau abided by strict gender roles.
I find Martin’s use of “prisoners” compelling. She insinuates that our bodies are prisons
and that we are held captive by nature. To Martin, gender is inescapable. Women are caged and
men hold the key. Only a paradigm shift in the way society regards gender will set them free.
The Education-Gender System
3
Martin identifies the educational landscape as a “sphere of men’s preserve” where the
ideological commitments were implemented “stealthily” (p.155). Rodriquez’s teachers taught in
a curriculum that aimed “exclusively at preparing him for membership in the public world,
thereby encouraging him to turn his back on the private home and family dynamic” (p. 156). In
an effort to combat this attack on home life, Pestalozzi argues that homes have a curriculum with
aims and objectives just like schools. The dominant conception of schooling is the preparation
for membership in the public world of work, politics and the professions. Our culture assumes
home’s educational contributions and takes those lessons for granted. This is while denying the
home’s status as a place of learning. In fact, “this narrow view of school only makes sense in
relation to the corresponding assumption that home has a domestic curriculum that equips
children for life in the world of the private home” (p. 157). This is a gross contradiction that
devalues the home while demanding it contribute to the learning process.
Education is disguised as gender-neutral while adamant in the goal of preparing students
for public life. If school is to prepare students for public life while asserting that women are the
domestic stewards, then our education system in inherently flawed. The veil has been lifted to
reveal a school system designed for males.
This obviously stifles the education of women, minimizing them to some sort of 1950’s
television character where the home is the center of the universe. It also represses the
development of males. Men who are being prepared for life are being denied the development of
what Martin calls the 3Cs. Care, concern and connection are seen as“obstacles to the
achievement of the objective of preparing children for life in the public world” (p. 158). The
injustice is that students are trained for public life but are still required to function in the private
one. Students of both genders are then ill prepared to handle the emotional requirements of
4
home. These are similar but still drastically different emotional states one must master. Martin
believes that this flaw has led to a breakdown of the family institution. This breakdown has
rendered the traditional school dogma obsolete. There is now a need for schools to supplement
the responsibility of “transmitting the domestic portion of our culture” (p. 159). This is an
opportunity to truly restructure the sexist and gender-based educational system.
Part II: Bringing Domesticity into School and World
Parents are the first teachers. From them, we learn etiquette, how to manage emotions
and other fundamentals. Martin claims that the “critical factor [in education] now is the removal
of parents from the household,” which in turn is leading to a breakdown in domestic education
(p.159). This “great domestic vacuum in the lives of children” is having a detrimental impact on
them which will undoubtedly translate to underdeveloped adults (p.159). Out of this negative,
Martin sees an opportunity to reform the current educational system. To achieve this overhaul,
she proposes the schoolhome.
A Moral Equivalent of Home: The Schoolhome
Raising children and preparing them for life is the responsibility of both sexes (p. 160).
While she tasks both sexes with raising children, Martin also blames both genders for “causing
the vacuum” that is depriving students an education in the 3Cs (p.160).
Equating students to pieces in an assembly line, Martin identifies students as being nonhuman. To her, they are sterile, unemotional robots being raised in a system that “ignores the
needs and conditions of children, their parents, and the nation itself” (p. 161). The schoolhome
would shatter the current system and institute one where children feel loved, safe and experience
affection. Traditionally, theses emotional aspects of human development are addressed by the
home. Martin asserts that the breakdown of society and the family unit is leaving a void that
5
school must account for. The sake of our collective future relies on this assumption of
responsibility.
The schoolhome would create a place where educators “turn action into educational
practice” (p. 161). The 3Rs and the 3Cs will both be taught and respected. What changes is the
spirit of how they are instructed. They will be instilled through “family-like affection” (p. 162).
The environment will be student driven and it will belong to them. The schoolhome will become
a place all stakeholders will take pride in.
A New Curricular Paradigm
One of the major factors one must consider as an education professional is the issue of
diversity. We must be respectful and welcoming to all those we serve. Martin warns us, however,
that an inclusive curriculum is not always a better one (p. 162). Quantity over quality often yields
poor results. Nevertheless, it is a start. Like most things in education, it starts with curriculum.
Martin calls for a transformation of the curriculum. She is adamant that we must not yield
to the “Restorationists” who harken back to the outdated programs that ignore diversity and shun
emotion. Martin’s vision of new curricular paradigm begins with Dewey’s call to “educate the
whole child” (p. 163). She builds on this belief and infuses the requirement of teaching “all our
children in our whole heritage so that they will learn to live in the world together” (p. 163). This
new paradigm embraces knowledge but reveals its proper place in the lives of students. It
integrates thought, reason, action and emotion. It is also important to stress that this new model
does not divorce students from their social context. Rather, it embraces individuality.
Martin insists that the current school structure teaches about being active in society but
not how to be active in society. School’s current role is to “turn out observers of it, not
participants in it” (p. 163). If curriculum is designed to observe and apply, then the result will be
unthinking doers. In the same vein, one cannot expect kids to effectively function and flourish in
6
the home or the world if they have not been taught how to do so. Martin implies that
socialization must be taught. Therefore, the new curriculum paradigm in the model of the
schoolhome will nurture students to form greater bonds with each other. They will be able to live
and work together in a way that is productive and beneficial to the public and domestic sectors.
The schoolhome will be a moral equivalent of a good home where kids will develop into
constructive and contributing members of culture and society. The schoolhome is a way to bring
the whole world together (p.165).
The Domestic Tranquility Clause Writ Large
This is the section where we begin to see the urgency Jane Roland Martin feels for the
implementation of the schoolhome. She deduces that “long as the logical geography of education
remains the same, the schoolhome’s efforts to remember domesticity will be perceived as
dysfunctional” (p.165). Therefore, if education’s attitude of the schoolhome will not change,
society must alter its values to coincide with the schoolhome if there is to be any real progress in
the matter.
While I respect her urgency and feel her passion, this call to action comes off as almost
militant. That is not a slight to her or a detriment to her piece, but it is an obvious change in her
tone that is inconsistent with the rest of Women, Schools, and Cultural Wealth. She is zealous
throughout the text; it is just that this portion stands out in it. This speaks to the fervor and
conviction she has in the schoolhome system.
Referring back to the curriculum, Martin comments on the civics, or as I interpreted it,
the politics of education. She again claims that the current educational structure solely prepares
students for membership in the “public sphere” (p.166). For civility to reign, you need safety,
security, peace and love. The schoolhome is the ideal setting to instill these qualities. There do
7
not have to be formal classes as long these ideals are rolled into the curriculum. The objectives
here are the central aims for a moral life and domestic tranquility (p.166).
To ensure domestic tranquility in the home and public, we must teach the importance and
value of domesticity. It is everyone’s responsibility to exhibit domesticity in schools, then the
nation, then the world. Education will then focus on maintaining this cooperation (p.167).
Part III: Bringing a Cultural Wealth Perspective into Education
Cooperation is a major theme in Women, Schools, and Cultural Wealth. Once again,
Martin identifies the need for a joint relationship between schools and homes to pass down
cultural wealth. She is concerned, though, that like so many other responsibilities, this too is
levied solely on the home.
Defining Wealth
An individual obviously can contribute a great deal to our collective cultural wealth. In
Democracy and Education, Dewey supports this claim, writing about the development of the
individual and the important contributions one can make to the culture (p.168). Before we go
further, though, let us look at Martin’s definition of culture. To her, culture includes “institutions
and practices, rites and rituals, beliefs and skills, attitudes and values, world views and localized
modes of thinking and acting of all members of society of the whole range of contexts”. While I
agree with this assessment, I offer another characteristic- action.
In 2003, I graduated with a Bachelors of Arts degree in anthropology from the University
of Connecticut. As a student and doer of culture, I have learned that while we as a collective
society define our own culture, culture has a way of defining us. Martin claims that a culture’s
wealth is only that portion of cultural stock that is deemed valuable. I could not disagree with
this statement more. In my opinion, cultural wealth is all the best things about us, minus the
8
worst. The remainder is who we are. I equate Martin’s interpretation as a report card with three
As and two Fs. If you take away the failing grades, it appears that the student is superior. Culture
looks at the whole, not just the best. Again, culture is the culmination of all of us and who we
are, even the worst of what we have to offer.
Martin values “all learned behavior” or differently put, “the whole range of human
activities which are learned and not instinctive.” I contest the exclusion of instinct in her
definition. From my experience, instinct makes substantial contributions to the development of
our culture. Instinct can be developed and is often a result of interaction. In a sense, instinct can
be learned behavior. If one is going to define one’s culture by what is valuable as Martin asserts
we should, we are in essence leaving out aspects that may be making the other parts so great. In
my view, culture and cultural wealth are defined by everything.
Multiple Educational Agency
During the 1800’s, when the institution of the public school was being constructed, it was
viewed as a minor part of an overall education. I contend that it was also a small part of many
lives. Learning was everywhere, not just in schools. Martin would agree with my hypothesis, as
evident by the championing of the merits the home can offer throughout her piece.
Back in the day when schools were a small part of many people’s lives, one can assume
the impact on society would be negligible. This, as Martin stresses, is false. In her view, the
school curriculum is the man’s curriculum. Specifically, it is the white, protestant and middle
class man’s curriculum (p.173). Preparing all students for their world is counterproductive. The
curriculum is inherently biased, as it puts a select few at an advantage while thwarting the
progress of the majority. When applied to public life, labor is not cross-gendered; therefore
education divided by gender makes no sense. To encompass all learners on all levels and in all
disciplines, the home needs to become an equal contributor. School should be one of many
9
educational environments a student can learn in. To accomplish this, Martin counts on the
collaboration and cooperation of genuine partners in the educational process (p. 174).
Conclusion
Jane Roland Martin’s assessment of gender, school and culture paints a grim picture of
what our current society looks like, though she does see several opportunities to make society a
more culturally and emotionally sensitive place. In order to accomplish this, she calls for the
“cooperation across the entire range of society’s educational agents” (p.175). The leaders in this
initiative are women, for they are traditionally the keepers of our educational and cultural
heritage (p.175). Martin does not see this role changing. What will change is the amount of credit
and respect women receive for their labors.
10
Bibliography
Martin, J. R. (1999). Women, Schools, and Cultural Wealth. In Titone, Connie and Maloney,
Karen E. (Eds.), Women's Philosophy of Education: Thinking Through our Mothers. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill, 149-177.