Blogs

After our viewing of Kai Davis' poem last week, and in light of a conversation I had had about it's possibility to offend people, I began thinking about powerful and eloquent uses of "vulgar" language and racial epithets throughout our pop cultural history.  As some of you may know, I have an overwhelming interest in pop culture and especially in rock history.  As such, Davis' poem caused me to think about other instances where poets or lyricists have used vulgar or offensive language and imagery to discuss their thoughts on their education and on their chances in life.  I initially planned to write a post about the uses of language in the classroom, but then I though about the uses of language as tool for expressing our frustrations with our class and education situations and prospects.  As part of this discussion, I am offering you three videos from youtube.

I want to do more commenting on other people's posts soon (I am reading them all!), but since we are figuring out paper topics this week I wanted to start thinking through ideas I want to focus on for that.

At the suggestion of Kaye, here are links to the songs I've used as titles for my previous blog entries. I'll be including a link to the corresponding song in each of my upcoming posts, which can be listened to separately or while you read.

9/3/2011 - "Down By The Water" -The Decemberists

9/11/2011 - "Bitch" -Meredith Brooks

9/17/2011 - "Cape Cod Girls" -New England Sea Chantey (composor unknown)

I think that a majority of people want to believe that education levels the playing field, but it does not. From my own experiences and what can be seen, money seems to level the playing field of education. Many students can have the opportunity to get an education, but the quality of the education depends on money. Lower class families do not always have the means to access private schools, charter school, etc. They may have access to advanced level classes, but do they compare to the advanced level classes at a private school a few blocks away? Usually in lower income areas, the schools do not have the funds to get new books or technology and rely on poor quality versions of Romeo and Juliet.

Upon reading the Margaret Price selection from her text Mad At School, I was struck by the necessity we exhibit for a sense of identity. An identity is something that we take on ourselves, something that we can choose to abort or adopt on our own free will. While I may be influenced by those I associate with in my community, no one forces me to identify as one particular thing; it is my own free will that allows me to do so.

I am intrigued by the motifs of identity written about in Margaret Price’s Mad At School introduction. Like Price, I may appear “healthy as a horse yet walk with a mind that whispers in many voices.” Can’t those “voices” be viewed as my many identities? Can I not obtain something unique from each of them, something intriguing with which another individual may identify? Morever, who is to say if I am mad or sane? After all, it does take one to know one.

As I read Margaret Price's Introduction to Mad at School: Rhetorics of Mental Disability and Academic Life.

With regards to the norm, Price writes that the disclosure of mental illness (as well as queerness) is "apparitional" and that it is only disclosed when the environment in which it is present allows it to disappear and appear. I think that this is a point of discussion because as we have sort of discussed in class, this 'norm' is something that is not particularly well-defined and changes depending on the individual. If we cannot define the 'norm', then can we really define the 'other' or the 'deviant' as a society as a whole? How can these deviations "appear"?

But, as with physical disabilities, it is difficult to push past the binary of the well/unwell paradigm in terms of mental illness. However, if the "deviations" are not fixed (and as Price has pointed out,  these so-called deviations can be anything from "coffee-guzzling, cigarette-puffing, vigorous human beings" to people who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses through the DSM) and neither is the "normal", then what is "ableism"? It is difficult to define this term if what its definition is based in is so rooted in other factors which themselves have no clear definition. 

It is my belief that education does not equalize our society. If anything, education is what divides out society. An education either affirms or changes your position in society. If it changes your position it can separate you from your home community, and affirming your position does not accomplish much. Education can only be truly equalizing if exactly everyone is presented with exactly the same education with varying educational environments that will allow each individual to achieve exactly the same level of knowledge. If this was the case, however, our society would be extremely limited. A diverse set of skills is unarguably vital to any community, and a truly equalizing education would hinder that greatly.

If the idea of an equalizing education is generalized from skill to class, this same issue still remains. Multiple individuals trained in different skills but all of the same class and access is still counterproductive. Class and educational experience are defining factors in everyone's perspectives and beliefs. Too similar experiences homoginize the view point of society and make the ideals of democracy pointless, and our leadership could easily come from one person. I'm pretty sure this prospect does not appeal to anybody here. Education is most definitely not what equals society nor can it be without consequences reminiscent of an unnerving totalitarian novel.

The poem/video we watched by Kai Davis brought up many good points on racial views. She spoke very negative of how school is structured and why its structured that way. Her views of how black people are viewed brought up history's view on blacks. What she said that struck me the most was "does having a 4.0 mean I'm 4 shades lighter?" People viewed her as "white" because of her grades. The way she worded it was the part that really got to me, how people sterotype others, or how people sterotype themselves. I mainly liked the poem because she didn't sensor anything she was saying and thats how things should be.

Being a student who is using education to climb out of the lower class, the idea of "leveling the playing field" is one that I think of often. I consider myself privileged in this respect: though my mother is disabled and has raised me on her own along with two other (foster) children, she has always emphasised the importance of educational motivation and has been willing to sacrifice to make this possible for us.

Not everyone is as fortunate. Many cannot even fathom the idea of becoming educated beyond high school: some must halt their educational careers even before high school graduation to care for their families, while others have become so disillusioned with or otherwise discouraged by the educational system that it seems as if it is not worth it. Of course, the public school system doesn't do much to help: as Shannon has stated, I have experience with people who have been "pushed through" public school despite performing poorly in class, putting them at a further disadvantage in standardised tests and increasing the possibility of dropping out of college.

The playing field in America is definitely not level, but I believe that education is not at fault.  Education is something everyone should acquire because it allows people to further themselves in life.  For instance, in Shorris' study where he gave lower class a basic education, it allowed them to continue on to college and hold their own.  However, even though many people are becoming education, those who "make it" or find the level where they can compete with others in life, have certain characteristics that allow them to reach this place, and its not their level of education.  It is money and connections.  Shorris' students, although they did not have money, found the connections through his program that allowed them to continue onto college and make a name for themselves.  Other students have money. The ability to pay for college automatically puts that person ahead of one who cannot afford an education. And even on a smaller scale with kids in the same school district, some parents may be able to afford to send them on community service trips or pay for music lessons.  The ability to pay for these things is basically the ability to buy yourself into college, because it is these things, the extra circulars, that make a difference in the college application. Basically, the playing field really can't be leveled when personal finances come into play.