Joe Jackson (shoeless@jazztbone.com)
Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:09:57 -0500
Alan writes:
> Joe,
>
> I think you miss the essence of what Kathleen is saying when you say, "I
> meant 'we' in the absolutely inclusive sense." (Your original statement,
> which includes the reference to "we", was, "I don't really find
> that a guide
> such as science is necessary to tell us things like this that we
> can't help
> but already know.") On the one hand, I, too, have often defined psychology
> "as the science of discovering what we already know", so I have some
> sympathy with you on this point. Kathleen's point, as I took it, was that
> there is no "we" that can be consistently relied upon to "know" certain
> things.
I have trouble deriving your meaning. We are talking about a direct
democracy here. I can be "consistently relied upon" to know what I think,
student A can be "consistently relied upon" to know what she thinks, and
staff member C can be "consistently relied upon" to know what he thinks.
> We all come from, as a colleague of mine puts it, "different
> worlds". Our life experiences and the messages (both intended and
> unintended) that we get from a wide variety of sources cause each of us to
> create our reality in very different ways. As we often get treated
> differentially along some fairly predictable dimensions (race, gender,
> sexual orientation, etc.), the worlds for those who come from similar
> dimensions is often similar, and often wildly different from
> those who come
> from other "dimensions".
>
> Yours and my lives have been shaped in large part by our differential
> treatment as straight white guys. Kathleen's and her son's have
> been shaped
> in large part by their differential treatment as Hispanic/Indians. I read
> her post as both an affirmation of the democratic schooling model
> of freedom
> and an inquiry into what may be a blind spot for us. I would like
> to see us
> be curious about that potential blind spot and to be open to its
> exploration.
I still don't understand. That I might know what I think about something
without reading research about it doesn't mean that I'm not open to
potential cultural blind spots. What has led to this idea?
I think we're going off on a big-time tangent.
> Finally, my experience tells me that often, when women, gays/lesbians, and
> people of color hear we straight white guys saying "I meant 'we' in the
> absolutely inclusive sense", they often fear being melted down
> into the vast
> melting pot and thereby losing their historic and current worlds and
> identities. This was not the impact I heard you intending to have, but it
> may be the impact your statement had on some folks.
Like I said, I have no idea why anyone that knows we're talking about
Sudbury Model schools would think I meant that. I do not have the same
experiences of anyone else, they cannot have mine. My understanding of what
I think the school needs is formed solely by those experiences. Those
experiences include whatever cultural awarenesses I bring with me.
I really don't understand how my saying that people know usually know what
they think about things like overcrowding without reading scientific studies
can be translated into "Joe Jackson knows whether Fairhaven School is too
crowded or not", since the structure of the school (which, I remind
everyone, is what we're talking about) is based on a direct representation
of the various individual cultures of the staff and students, and I can't
possibly make decisions like that for the school (especially since I'm not a
SM member).
And whether or not "we in the inclusive sense" means what it says
("everyone") or not is a function of whether you assume the speaker is being
disingenuous or not, and maybe I'm naive to think that we would make some
sort of attempt to take folks at face value.
I'm wondering how the heck we got here...
> You went on to say, "'Awareness' is exclusive of 'science'." Could you
> elaborate? I don't have any idea what you actually meant by it and don't
> want to speculate.
"Awareness" is not the *property* of science. In other words, we can have
awareness of something without having obtained that awareness from science.
-Joe
>
> Happy holidays to all,
> ~Alan Klein
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > In a message dated 12/9/00 11:43:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > > shoeless@jazztbone.com writes:
> > >
> > > > I don't really find that a guide such as science is necessary
> > > to tell us
> > > > things like this that we can't help but already know...
> > >
> > > Joe,
> > >
> Kathleen responded:
> > > A nerve has been hit here, so bear with me. It's difficult to
> translate
> > > things from the heart. When I read the above statement, I
> > > interpret it as,
> > > "What we as white males assume you all should know."
> > > I'm not suggesting that Sudbury entertain the social sciences or
> > > any of the
> > > sciences. It's a good thing too, cause they aren't about to. The
> > > model being
> > > cognizant of it is another matter. That's what social
> sciences provide.
> > > Awareness.
> > >
> > > I've looked at so many Sudbury and alternative schools. As
> > > wonderful as
> > > many of them are, there has always been something missing to me.
> > > Not enough
> > > to keep me from grasping and loving the model. Just enough for
> > > me to wonder
> > > about. Not too long ago, I discovered that something. There are
> > > few, if any
> > > people like me there. I'm an Hispanic/Indian woman. 3% of us
> > > even make it
> > > out of graduate school (social statistics at work there.)
> > > This society is dominated by white male thinking. Nothing new
> > > there. I see
> > > the Sudbury model somewhat as an extension of that. Not all of
> > > us are white
> > > males, however. Social Sciences include, ethnicity, women's
> > > issues, history
> > > anthropology, alternative lifestyles. The list goes on. I
> > > address ethnicity
> > > and diversity here.
> > >
> > > My Hispanic/American Indian people have given much to the
> > > world, and if
> > > it weren't for the social sciences, we wouldn't even be
> > > mentioned. We still
> > > aren't in many arenas. I believe that Martin Luther King Jr.,
> > > Cesar Chavez,
> > > Wilma Mankiller and Cochise would wonder why Sudbury model
> > > schools aren't on
> > > the reservations or near the airports where the minorities live. I
> wonder
> > > that myself. I wonder how many of the staff members in Sud schools are
> > > minorities. How many students are minorities? The answer is few.
> > > Why? It's
> > > not because Sud schools don't welcome them or because they shut
> > > them out. Why
> > > then? I don't know the answer. But I do know that we come from a
> > > different
> > > place. We come from a different place way back. We just don't
> > > think like
> > > white males. No matter how much it's shoved down our throats. We
> > > think like
> > > "we" think. Yet, we must adapt to a white male environment.
> > > Women and gay
> > > people might be able to identify with this. I don't know.
> > > Not many people know of Cesar Chavez or Wilma Mankiller. I
> > > know of them
> > > because I'm from them. And Abe Lincons decendents think how they
> > > think. They
> > > and the others I've mentioned have given a great deal in the
> > > social arena.
> > > Martin and Cochise gave their lives and their land for it. What
> > > about that
> > > young man who was killed in Wyoming simply because he was gay?
> > > My brother
> > > was recently murdered because someone thought he was just some
> > > homless man of
> > > color :(. In fact, he was a social peacemaker.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm in the public school system. I won't give us much. But
> > > I will give
> > > us this: Most of the children I know, know of Cochise and Cesar
> > > Chavez. How
> > > many children in Fairhaven know who Abraham Lincon is? How many
> > > know who
> > > Wilma Mankiller or Cesar Chavez is? I'm not suggesting that
> > > these things be
> > > taught. Quite the contrary. What I am asking is this: Is there
> > > a place for
> > > minorities in a Sud school? I mean a real place? I know there
> > > are tokens of
> > > minorities in these schools. My son was one of them. He was
> raised in
> a
> > > rich Hispanic/Indian culture. He thinks like that, not like a white
> male
> > > (Even though his dad is Irish!) He struggled in the Sud system.
> > > He found it
> > > difficult to assimilate to the "white" way of doing things
> (He despised
> > > J..C.!) At the same time, he loved parts of it. He just didn't
> > > experience it
> > > like he was expected to. I doubt anyone was even aware of his
> > > difficulty for
> > > what it was. I saw it, but that's because we come from the same
> > > place. Many
> > > saw the outcome and gave only that creedence. It wasn't a spiteful
> thing.
> > > There was just little awereness. In not addressing cultural
> differences,
> > > they get ignored. Not everyone adapts to this environment in the
> > > same way.
> > > If that's not socially important to you Joe,it's not. That in
> > > essence is what
> > > we, as minorities must deal with. I'm sure you don't know what
> > > it's like to
> > > be called a "spic",tamohawk toter, a "nigger", "just a girl", or
> > > a "fag".
> > > I've been called a few of those. Believe me when I tell you, We
> > > come from a
> > > different place. Unfortunately or fortunately, you'll never know.
> > > But people
> > > of all colors being congnizant of it sure helps matters. I don't
> > > think that
> > > the model should be apprehensive in addressing it. I thank the social
> > > sciences for its' part in bringing it to the light at least.
> > > Please accept this as my perspective. It is sincerely not
> > > meant to be
> > > combative or confrontational.
> > > Viva Sudbury.
> > > Kathleen
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:10:38 EST