One idea that is particularly interesting is that of “coloniality of knowledge,” which is defined as “a process of translating and rewriting other cultures, other knowledges, other ways of being, presuming commensurability through Western rationality,” through which certain information is deemed universal (Hoagland, 2010, p. 95). This notion – assuming that you take it as valid – has profound implications for how one can approach the processes and localities of education. In this form of education the teacher is seen as more knowledgeable than others even when it comes to understanding the others’ lived experiences and expertise. Breaking from this rooted notion of education, teachers must be open to the possibility of being uncomfortable, challenged, and multi-faceted in their position. Furthermore they must negotiate their position in relation to the knowledge of others – understanding the fact that they may know an equal or lesser amount about certain things. As stated by Hoagland on the capability of teachers (specifically academics) to do this (2010): “The competency I am concerned with involves a responsibility not as obligation to respond but as our ability to respond…it involves our ability to be open to hearing things unfamiliar, things that will challenge normalcy, even our place in its reproduction” (p. 96).
While I value and agree with Hoagland in regards to recognizing our ability to transgress normative forms of education, I also see our ability as often being stifled by the academies wherein we research and work. Take for instance my colleague’s participation in an event that had to be located off of campus due to the political ideals behind the event, or the fact that many historically ‘liberal’ Universities remained ‘apolitical’ by removing protestors during the recent OCCUPY movement. I find this attempt at being ‘apolitical’ very political in the sense that these universities are not supporting conversations about these issues due to their controversial content, but are instead yielding to larger social ideologies. I guess these occurrences further support the necessity of public pedagogy in the sense that our ability must often exist outside of the walls and institutions of universities. Academics must make the public sphere their locality.
Furthering the consideration of knowledge production within the public sphere, I find an interesting connection between Hoagland’s ideas and the “coloniality of knowledge” that exists in American mainstream media – which I might argue perpetuates the ‘universality’ of information more so than a university. Or maybe it just speaks to a wider audience. If we look at the prominence of figures such as Rush Limbaugh, who is not trained in education but is a key figure in disseminating certain information the idea of public pedagogue becomes more complex and in my opinion more disturbing. It also brings up the responsibility of the public in, not just knowledge production, but knowledge analysis and critique. It also raises questions as to how we foster this premise of breaking universalized ideologies within the main stream media when there seems little room for negotiation within those corporate structures. What is our role – as ‘academics’ in asking the greater public to re-consider these ideas? What if the general public has no interest in doing so…based on Hoagland’s ideas would we not consider this an important issue to address?
No comments:
Post a Comment