Ideology and Pedagogy

This week’s readings focus on critical and cultural studies in pedagogy. I will begin in order and start with Freire’s article focuses on the adult literacy process as means for freedom. In the first half of the article, Freire makes an analogy of the illiterate being that of a person who cannot function “normally” in society. Typically, those that are not “normal” often are classified as marginal. However, Freire stresses that the illiterate are not necessarily marginal because they still belong to something. He argues that if we were to accept the notion of an illiterate man as being a person who exists just outside of society, we must naturally accept the idea of this illiterate man as being a “sick” person who would need literacy as “medicine” to cure him which would in turn, allow him to return to where he came from, now a functioning (normal) member of society. The analogy given here reminds me of the same concepts and principles behind mental institutions. If you are not normal, you need to be fixed in order to return back to society in a functioning manner. Anything that needs to rely on “medicine” particularly that of the literacy type, would essential need to continue to receive it in some manner in order to function.; however, this would be a decision that a person would need to make. Freire argues that rather than teaching adults a process that is mechanical, we should make it available for people to “achieve critical consciousness so that they can teach themselves to read and write.” (p. 627) Essentially, this allows them the freedom of choice, the freedom to decide how they will be a member of society.

Berlin’s article on rhetoric and ideology emphasizes a point that, I think, is fair to say is true. Berlin argues that teaching is “never innocent.” He goes on to stress how pedagogy overlaps with ideology. These two cannot be separated. The point I walk away with here is that whatever agenda that the instructor holds, will no doubt affect their pedagogical practices in one way or another. This reminds me of a discussion we had in another class about incorporating social justice in the curriculum. Although some argue this can happen without bias, I am a firm believer, as Berlin, that there is always some form of ideology present. I can’t help think that all through graduate school we are taught all about theories and theoretical frameworks and eventually are instructed to subscribe to one come dissertation time. How can we not have an ideology when we teach? Berlin argues that if we do not recognize the coexistence of the two, we are essentially irresponsible in our practice. The point, know an ideology exist within pedagogy and understand how it shapes who we are and how we teach. Not always a negative thing, just more responsible. I believe knowing this as an instructor and expressing it to students begins the wonderful journey of critical thinking.

Shor’s article or study was a rather interesting read. Shor uses the work of Freire to ground the decisions for the pedagogical practices used in his classroom. He uses the theme of “work” for the various types of writing they conducted. Shor established a classroom that focuses on the student and their voices. I particularly enjoyed the first day activity…I think I may use that one myself. He uses many of the processes found in the typical writing process, but by the means in which he goes about it makes it unique. Of course because I am the grammar teacher, I was instantly attracted to the way he handled the grammar “situation.” I thought this made an excellent point about how grammar is not necessarily ignored but can be taught through alternative methods, i.e. reading papers orally etc.

Hairston’s article stresses the point that ideology should not be involved in rhetoric or the composition classroom. She asserts that students are not necessarily prepared to handle the magnitude that is involved with ideology. Ideally, students should be learning solely how to write and not necessarily focusing on “loaded” issues. To a certain degree I can see that point, especially from my own experiences teaching freshman composition. It seems that there is an epidemic of students not being able to have the capabilities to critically think let alone handle certain ideologies. However, I think there are ways in which we can incorporate, and probably already do, methods similar to that. Students can start with issues that concern them (of course with proper guidance). It is difficult to say, however. Sometimes I tend to just like the idea of keeping it simple and teaching them how to write. Its all very frustrating :)

Smith’s article on gatekeeping brought me back to our discussions in class about the issue. Smith essentially addresses the notion that we should not really be looking at gatekeeping with a negative connotation, but again being responsible with the power that we possess as college instructors. Students go to college to gain access and we are the means to their goals. Thus, we as instructors need to make conscious decisions about what we teach, how we teach it, and overall how it will affect students in the long run. Grant it, as Smith points out, they will not rely solely on our composition course, but we do play a minor role. Nevertheless, this minor role just might be the one thing they take with them into the future.