Hi everyone,
Similarly to last
week, I chose to read the articles in a chronological order to see the
ideological evolution of Pinar, and I was wondering the order you read them and
your rationale behind it.
Do you see an
evolution in his writing, and if so, how?
In "Aspects
of Gender Analysis in Recent Feminist Psychological Thought and Their
Implications for Curriculum", Pinar refers to 3 theorists (Dinnerstein,
Chodorow and Rubin) to build his argument that "reorganization of gender
structure might lead to the reorganization of the social structure of
schools." (p. 125). By unpacking the concept of gender identity formation,
how it expresses itself and how it is related to sexism, the author seems to
actually start from a series of postulates, a process that reminds me of
Aristotelian logic, where he/they draw the postulate based on the conclusion
and context they already have (does this make sense here?). What is the link
between mother and daughter experiences and disciplines focused on experience
such as "literature, the arts and elementary education" (p. 124)? Are
"hard sciences" (and I apologize for the poor word choice) not based
on experience as well since they are based on empirical methods?
Is this theory not
too deterministic, even though it questions the socio-cultural product of gender?
I am thinking about non-traditional situations (for lack of a better word): How
do Pinar and the 3 theorists he builds his argument on envision the effects of
single parents, homoparentality, or of children raised in orphanages on sexual
and gender identity? Is the power structure within the family more
"deterministic" than that of the rest of society and therefore of
schools?
Pinar's main
argument that we need to reconceptualize curriculum and the social structure of
schools via the reorganization of gender structures is powerful. From this
article, how do you think he envisions the enactment of curriculum
change?
The article is from 1980, and might be slightly outdated. Are we
not seeing policies of gender reconceptualization in schools - such as the
debate over bathrooms - without a change in the social structure of the
classroom? In France, a current debate (there was a demonstration about it last
week) focuses on theories of gender, and a large part of conservatives is
currently fighting for conservation of the binary concept of gender, and
criticizing schools for critiquing this binary view, leading to a very
uncomfortable situation for teachers who are not themselves educated about
gender. Any thoughts?
I will post about the other two articles tomorrow and wish you a lovely evening!
Hi Emma, I also read the articles chronologically, hoping to read Pinar's mind well in the way.
ReplyDeleteFor your first question, I was also hard to agree with Pinar for his argument about the "connections" between mother-daughter relations and the choice of literature, the arts, and elementary education. I'm not sure whether I grabbed the meaning here clearly, but, to my understanding, he seems to mean that the "continuity" (p.124) between mother and daughter works differently than the one in the mother-son relation.
We saw that the two relations are different, the first one (mother-daughter) keeps the relative continual relation as they are the same sexed beings, but son learned that he is not, earlier than daughters. Thus, Pinar pointed out that, by citing Chodorow, the "continuity" and "intersubjective experience (between mother and daughter)" permit the daughter focuses more on experience-based subjects. I still have questions here...this is because as a mother focused more on experience? Or, as a girl projects herself through her mother? I also don't see how/why the authors ended up having that argument based on, and by using the term "experience" here.
On the other hand, as the "continuity" has been cut at the very early age, a son "defends himself with "cognitive" control" (p. 124). The authors argued that this cognitive controlling may cause males interested in science. So, for me the two key terms counter-parting are "experience" (girls) vs. "cognition" (boys). To me, it is plausible, but to be honest, it is not that easy to agree (as my major is language and education to illustrate an exceptional case lol)... or maybe I don't fully interpret the point here. However, overall, it is a big takeaway for me to learn this mind-blowing argument. What do you think about my interpretation of the terms "experience" vs. "cognition" and the behind facts of the continuity?
PS.
Just a quick personal experience to share. Now I am sitting in a Starbucks coffee, and a homosexual looking parent comes in with her baby, the baby seems a girl to me, but her mom said, "I don't know her gender yet, when she grows up then I can know. We'll see." What a coincidence as I read this article. Gender is socially constructed, thus, I support the mom's idea. However, I can feel that other people seeing the mom with a different nuance of seeing. This would be my bias as well. Any thoughts? :)
Hey guys! Sorry for the delay in responding. This week has been quite trying at work and home- I'm beginning to wonder if it'll ever end.
DeleteAnyways, after reading this weeks readings I was SO thankful that I wasn't assigned to Pinar! I have just as many questions as you do John, so I am not sure that I am going to be of much help as I don't feel like anything was made clear for me through the readings. :(
I have reread p.124 about 7 pages and I don't think that the argument is nearly as complex as we are making it out to seem. I truly think that what the authors are getting at is that boys brains are wired differently and therefor they are drawn to and find success in the sciences.
Is that too simplistic?
Hi Mackinley, I think you well put it to that "simple" summary. :) However, I remember that Pinar's overarching framework was psychoanalysis, as Freud did, thus "brains" and "wired" would not be the word choices I would agree here. Plus, Pinar's point was that the "structural" psychological influence, based on the fact of who nurtures, has made that biased-gender distinction. "Situated" gender concept building might be my mere word choice to support our discussion. What do you think? :)
DeleteYou second question is more punchy. Yes, what about an orphan or a single-parented child? For these cases, the authors' argument may be vulnerable. However, I see their point in this way. As Bernstein and Dewey illustrates the impact/power of school for people's mindset (from the teacher, admins, and others), once an orphan or single-parented child goes in to a school where the other people are from the most cases (with two parents, went through the oedipal experience, and other psychological processes accordingly), which will impact their thinking about this biased-gender concepts. I don't want to see this with a numbered viewpoint, but the cases we are mentioning here are "exceptional" thus, the massive and long-history based society/schools (with two parents) may act to infuse the biased-genderness to the exceptional cases. Pinar mentioned this type of exapndingness of this biased-gender concepts across the disciplines by saying "for instance, the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, a distinction basic to intellectual life in the West can be associated wi the basic character of the woman and the man..." (p. 124). So, I think the huge social structure still may influence the organs or single-parented children. That's probably why Pinar argued that social revolution without the gender revolution is insufficient. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI would tend to agree with you regarding the influence of the macrostructure on gender identity, but I am curious about how Pinar would talk about the other examples I mentioned. Single parenting is not rare, and in some areas, it even is the majority of cases.
DeleteTo go back to your first response, I see your point regarding "experience" and "cognition", and the term "experience" here seems to have a different meaning from what we usually attach to it: "empiricism". I hope the discussion will help us on Thursday since I still have a hard time following the argument of how the relationship between mother and children define their academic interests... A point that I found particularly interesting was how Pinar introduced the origin of epistemological standpoints based on these relationships: "It begins to become clear that epistemology may have its origins in gender. It may be that the present dominance of the sciences in the academy is another, albeit symbolic, form of misoginy." (p. 124). I don't know where Pinar gets this idea from. If he used data to support his argument, would it be the result of misoginy and his "cognitive" mind and perhaps go against the whole point of his article? At the same time, I have encountered many people, whatever their gender and sex, who claim to be objectivists, constructivists or constructionists, and I did not notice a particular tendency in one or the other category, but this might perhaps be the result of my internalized misoginy: wanting to support this with numbers when I actually claim to see the world through social constructions digested through my individual experiences. [With all the readings in the past few weeks, I cannot remember who phrased this in a way that I was never really able to verbalize, this mix between contructionism and constructivism (Dewey? Macedo? Apple? if you remember, please let me know).]
Hi Emma, I agree with you, the relationship between mother-child relations and the child's academic interest sounds like a big leap to me as well. I saw that Pinar toned down his argument by adding "may" in his lines. Thus, I see that he carefully addressed this idea, however, as you mentioned I would like to see any data to support his argument. Nonetheless, the fact that this is a published, refereed journal article, has made me drink its kool-aid. But, let's keep thinking about it.
ReplyDeleteFor the single-parent case, I am also curious about how Pinar would respond to it. Would the macro-social-structure, as we discussed, play there? Hmm, this discussion led me to this thought. That is, even in a single-parenting stimulation, we want to consider that the mother or father could be already influenced by the biased-gender concepts (from their childhood). Thus, regardless of whether the parenting is done by a couple or a single parent, this type of biased gender concept may exist in any family unless critical education/discussion is taking place. This is just another thought attached to it, so I could be wrong. What do you think? Am I too much drinking Pinar's kool-aid?
For your last comment, I think Dewey implies that notion a lot.
This is an interesting argument. A movement in France is raging against same-sex couples raising children, because they believe it might affect gender identity and sexual identity, but again, they do not have any data to support their argument either. Just fear.
DeleteOh, I didn't know that. Hmm, this discussion reminds me of an article that I read for the Understanding different cultures class, which was about same-sex parents better parenting than the hetero-parents parenting. As we learned that the gender is socially-constructed (biased), we want to see the same-sex couples in more objective ways. Any thoughts?
Deletehttps://thinkprogress.org/major-new-study-finds-kids-raised-by-same-sex-couples-are-healthier-and-happier-9cb8fc434c71#.etdupgkg1
Thanks for sharing this!
DeleteYou're welcome! :)
DeleteIn "Dreamt into Existence by Others:" Curriculum Theory and School Reform (1991), one particular argument caught my attention. Pinar says "Theory must create spaces apart from the pressurized sphere of practical activity" (p. 241), and later (same page) "We theorists must continue to create separate rooms of our own in which we try to see past the corporate model, to not-necessarily economic forms of human organization, intelligence, and experience." I understand the idea of being removed from practice and therefore pressure perceived as negative, such as corporate pressures. However, does Pinar imply that theorists can have a systemic understanding of situations by staying away from sometimes polarized situations? Does he imply that theorists creating this space are still very knowledgeable of the actual situation, but simply decenter themselves and create a space virgin of pressure? Is this actually feasible? Does this mean a certain neutrality? I am afraid I might have completely understood this argument, since my understanding of social reconstructionists revolves around the idea that neutrality is inexistent and a political act in favor of the status quo, and often, ongoing oppression (cf Schiro, Apple...). Am I clear here? Any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Emma, I really like your point. And, I agree with you, Pinar seems to imply that theorists should be apart from the "practical activity (in terms of the economic context)". Pinar pointed out that economical (social) atmosphere has influenced a lot on school curriculum as the assembly-line model for example. It took me some time to grab his word choices and the meanings; the "practical activity" here does not mean practices in schools, rather the economic practices outside the school (assembly-line or corporate trends). Thus, he seems that teachers, scholars, and theorists should not be swung by the outside forces, because one probable tragedy is that many schools have followed the "assembly-line" model. In this sense, I think that Pinar argued that we should "continue to create "separate" rooms" (p. 241) for caring the more complex natures of curriculum, such as the "issues of identity, politics, and experience" (p. 241).
DeleteAnd, I agree with you that he seems to argue that we should be "neutral" from the external waves, and the neutralness is not really existed under SR ideology. But, I think Pinar still has a point there, theorists and teachers should be aware of the implicit impact from the society and economy, so Pinar seems to wake us up from that interference. "Neutral" should be ideal, but "unbiased" (from the economy) would be an alternate word choice. What do you think?
PS. To me, his argument was compelling, especially for his approach that takes a look at curriculum with the economy-based viewpoint. For example, it was an interesting and compelling argument that he pointed out that the reason for pushing students to raise test-scores is based on economic influence. So, I see SR aspects in his ideas. And his assertion about that schools follow the economic trend, not at the same speed (rather a little behind), was interesting as well. Now corporate model is out there in economy, but many schools still have the assembly line type of schooling. With that in mind, his ideal model, a complexity-respected school, would be achieved or influenced by the social economic context as well. As we know that school is also an organic part of this whole community of the society. My question here is that so we should "wait" or "observe" economy's changes towards the complexity-based society to feasibly make the ideal schools? I mean really "ideal." My logic here has big loops here and there, but from his writing, I feel this way. What do you think?
To go back to my previous comment, Pinar says, however, that theorists are not necessarily removed from reality: "Being a theorist, after all, does not mean being dissociated or inefficient. Being a theorist does not mean being a celibate in terms of everyday practice."(p. 248) Theory should be liked to practice, but be developed away from the reality of schools to be free from the constraints imposed by this reality. Through this freedom only can theorists develop theories in line with their ideological ideals. Does that make sense?
DeleteOne note: I particularly liked how he conceptualizes the change in society and schools, from factory to corporate models. I constantly struggle with my students regarding this. Most of them verbalize the necessity of having skills to fit in the corporate world, and I see myself advertize such skills through leadership opportunities on campus, or even when I talk about volunteering on/off campus. I have caught myself telling them to volunteer to mention it on their CVs, to show off, which goes against the principle -in my opinion- of volunteering. I think I would not have thought this way if I had not spent so much time in the US where I feel a lot of leadership/volunteer experiences are calculated for future use. Is this something you have experienced as well?
Hi Emma. I feel like it makes more sense if you back up a bit more and read from the beginning of the section on p.239 and on, but particularly from the top of p.240 where he discusses the value of having a theorist work with classroom teachers (who may very well resent them being there). He says "As much as we feel pulled to help our school colleagues, true help may involve more than the provision of practical answers to everyday problems." Then he says "If theory does not exist to provide practical solutions to everyday problems, why does it exist?"
DeleteThis is where I think the answer to your question is!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Emma, I think that Pinar's point was to wake us up to realize the surrounding influences from the economy in our school, which is implicit and subtle but powerful. Thus, he seems to argued that theorists should get out of the box as much as we can, by deconstructing the economy-based practices and norms, to reform. I see your point though. Some words in his assertion, such as practices and reality, may have made us confused. Would my interpretation appropriate here? We may want to remember that Pinar emphasized that, when making curriculum, we should deal with the aspects that cannot see and measure such as identity, humanity, and meaningful experiences, which Pinar said is not things that can be dealt with by both factory- and corporate- models of school. Complexity-based school is needed for this reason according to him.
DeleteYour example is great Emma. Yes, I see that kind of corporate-based phenomena a lot around my communities as well, such as this catchy phrase, "you may put this volunteering on your CV." The CV and Resume concepts are corporate-based indeed, as is promoting (advertising) one self. We use this phrase often as well, "sell yourself." Wow, we are influenced by the corporate, economy sphere unconsciously. Some people might say, "what's wrong with it? We learn to be more productive and systematic from the corporate ideas, what's wrong?" I see that we can learn from this type of corporate-based thinking as it is much more progressive than the factory-based one. However, I remember that Pinar warned us about the hidden problem of following the economy's fundamental goal in education, the "maximization of profit." This should not be our goal for curriculum making, but in reality, we might find ourselves doing this, as we are soaked in the economy-based thinkings in many ways. So, although we got promoted from the assembly-line supervisor position to a corporate manager, at this time, we may need to apart from our economy worldview, and as a teacher, we should stand still and be determined about supporting the true curriculum that can deal with the intangible/immeasurable things such as identity and others. What do you think?
Hi John, I completely agree with you and liked this point in Pinar as it echoes a lot what I've been reading for Macedo as well. Semiotics for the corporate model is still better than the factory model, but definitely not a goal set by social reconstructionists.
DeleteI am curious about how the two agree/disagree, especially regarding the place of theory, when I see how Macedo insists on anchoring his ideas in political examples (see the big lies) and therefore his theory. I guess we can talk about this later (next week).
Hi Emma, exactly! I have that insight as well; even within the same ideology (SR), theorists' focus, approach, or topic would be different. Here the word "bifurcation" may set its position better I think. Pinar's branch seems based on the gender issue, and the Macedo's rooted on the language and race related injustice; however at the deep level they seem to share the same ideology and vision of SR. I also want to see how Pinar and Macedo view the key components of our course discussion (knowledge, learning, teaching, and etc). Personally it was very interesting to see Pinar's approach from the Oedipal complex, which broadens my horizons. And Maceo is punch indeed. Yes, let's talk more. :)
DeleteI just ran across this article on a biosensor tool to MEASURE student ENGAGEMENT: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-education-gates-idUSBRE85C17Z20120613
ReplyDeleteI know this is not directly related to this week's readings, but I think it participates in the questions we have been asking ourselves this semester.
Interesting article and device indeed. This was written in 2012, so, are there any schools using this sensory device measuring students' engagement? Mackinley?
ReplyDeleteOne of the messages in the article caught my eyes, which says that in the future teachers might be evaluated by the data collected through this device for how well they can engage students in their teaching. Although I like technology, this concept is a bit hard to agree with. What do you think?
John I don't know of any device that does this now, but many evaluation tools rely heavily on student engagement to determine the level of teacher performance. For example, in the Marzano TLE model, in order for a teacher to score "Superior" on any given component, they must have 100% of the students engaged in the learning as a result of that component; a score of "Highly Effective" is based on 85-99% of the students being engaged because of that component.
DeleteDoes that make sense?
Thanks Mackinley, for sharing the good example. :)
DeleteSo, I have looked up the model, and OK government took the model in 2011 to evaluate teachers' performance. I briefly looked at the four constructs of the model, and I like the fact that the model includes some affective (intangible) aspects for evaluation, such as "promoting a positive environment." However, the line written under the goal of this model, "student achievement" was making my eyebrows going down, that line is, "nonnegotiable goal for instruction."
I think that this model is interesting, how is the reputation of it or feedback to it from the teachers in the classrooms? This model might be off topic of this week's discussion, but, it will be meaningful to see this model with Pinar's idea. How would Pinar see this model? We may talk a little bit more about this model in our class tomorrow. :)
http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/evaluation/four_domains/