This week’s readings were interesting to me both from an academic perspective and a personal interest that stems from my experiences with cultural diversity from back home. Through my readings, I tried relating the narrative with stories from my past and it was interesting to see the similarities and the differences between them. The story of Miguel and his perception of science and of scientists being ‘special or something’ (Barton&Yang, p.872) is very familiar to most Indians who belong to the economic middle and upper classes as being a regular phrase used by the marginalized. The marginalization back home stems from both casteist discrimination (supposedly non-existent now but we all know that’s not true) and a subsequent economic stratification. This stratification also leads to a form of ghettoization and there is a marked difference in the way science is approached in schools in economically downtrodden areas and the more affluent neighborhoods, often no more than half a mile away. The ‘culture of power’ manifests itself through the availability of facilities at these schools, the material resources the students have access to and the narrative of science presented to the students. The emphasis to ‘prepare for the job force’ (p.879) is perhaps a universally pandered statement in Indian education irrespective of where you live, but the jobs that you prepare for vary according to the community you belong to. Engineering and medicine is typically viewed as an upper-caste discipline. The government introduced reservations for the traditionally downtrodden castes but that has lead to a incredible amount of ignorant debate from everyone – something I don’t want to go into here but is something I’d like to address in class if we have time for it. It does nuance the perception of identity even more.
It is interesting that the presentation of science as a monolithic fact-machine and scientist as ‘self-assured, technologically powerful manipulator and controller’ (p.875) leads to minority communities, as result of marginilisation, viewing science and scientists as a white male enterprise in the article. The exact same process and the same arguments can be made about ‘upper-caste’ communities in India – in fact, even the traditional attire worn by the groups historically reflect this. Athough most have made the switch to a more western attire of shirts and pants now, the quality of clothing available and the colours that people wear are used as identifiers of power in science and schools – the affluent pick out quality material from premium clothing brands and the downtrodden dress in polyester shirts and pants with leather sandals, an ensemble that costs less that 15$ at best. Scientists are portrayed in the former. All of these subtle representations of science and scientists play a huge role in who is afforded the ability to do science and who isn’t.
In schools were there is diversity of students from different economic backgrounds in the same setting, the situation reduces to that of William and Aaliyah (Carlone et al, 2014). The definition of being good in these schools is ‘aligning oneself with celebrated subject positions’ (p.847). School performance, once assessments become important, is all about assumption and development of identities. Those who come from marginalized communities often have to ‘claim voice’ in much the same way that Aaliyah does. The ‘authoritative paternalism’ (p.851) leads to a figured world of hegemonic masculinity in India as well, especially taking into consideration the repression and aversion of any kind of dialogue about sex and gender that leads to far more segregation of activities into gendered roles and norms. Much of what I have said comes from the dominant narrative in urban, metropolitan cities of many millions of people. Smaller towns and villages are far more entrenched in traditional, outdated values and I dare say the situation is far worse there.
The article by Bang and Marin (2015) brings up questions that are similar to issues JD and I had discussed in another class: How exactly do you bring the marginalized into the manifold? Certainly, the separation of nature and culture is visible throughout western thought, being used by almost all of Western Europe to subjugate three-fourths of the world in the past, and more recently in Marxist thinking and the dichotomization of nature and human labor and the domination of one over the other. Marginalised communities do have differences in their ontological, epistemological and axiological commitments. I appreciate the authors’ effort in trying to reorient ‘silenced memory traces’ with ‘expansive forms of nature-culture relations’ (p.533). However, there are two chief concerns that I have, one from the perspective of the marginalized and from the perspective of research.
Firstly, for the benefit of the marginalized community, I understand the importance of preserving traditional IWOK, as a means of identifying silenced memory traces. However, in light of the realization that the people who live in these indigenous communities have, in general, poorer standards of living, and that they have struggled with integration into the mainstream which affords them better standards of living, is there a further problem of marginalization by reorienting their schools along the lines of IWOK? Surely, if schooling systems in these communities are aligned with IWOK, then these students would find the transition to the ways of knowing outside the community that much harder. I do not suggest that students not be taught IWOK but it must be remembered that members of indigenous communities, need to be part of bigger communities as well. So how do we ensure that indigenous communities aren’t marginalized as a result of their identity? That brings me on to the second concern I have: The directionality of this intervention. Members of indigenous communities don’t need to be reminded that ‘sikaakwa’ is how Chicago got it’s name, white people do. As someone who lived in a land where traces of British imperialism are still extremely visible, the problem is not that we don’t acknowledge the appropriation of our wealth and culture, the problem is that British education still glorifies Churchill as a hero and makes no mention of reparations that most economists argue Britain rightfully owes to it’s colonies. The appropriation of lands was because of the lack of acknowledgement on the part of the dominant culture of alternate ways of knowing. IWOK needs to be emphasized in mainstream schools in metropolitan Chicago with white students. The preservation of IWOK has to come from the culture that was responsible for it’s deterioration in the first place to ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself and that the dominant culture becomes respectful of minority communities. I’m not entirely sure how this restructuring of education would happen and if it’s feasible but I’d love to engage on this in class.
References:
Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2015). Nature-culture constructs in science learning: Human/non-human agency and intentionality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21204
Barton, A. C., & Yang, K. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 871–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<871::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-9
Carlone, H. B., Scott, C. M., & Lowder, C. (2014). Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students’ identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 836–869. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21150
Ashwin – Your comparison between the US and India is a really powerful frame to look at these articles through. A lot of what you point at deals with power structures. What I found most interesting is viewing science and education through a capitalist lens. I am wondering where else you saw ideals of a neoliberal agenda shining through these articles? Do you think the authors are working against or for these ideals?
Ashwin, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your response this week and I think you raised some key issues in regards to the readings. Additionally, I think that your experiences within Indian culture will strengthen our class discussion, particularly around the role of science education within schools, and how the practice of learning science is career oriented, but selectively for only a few.
I am interested in your statement: “The preservation of IWOK has to come from the culture that was responsible for it’s deterioration in the first place to ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself and that the dominant culture becomes respectful of minority communities.” I wonder what this would look like, should it be the responsibility of the “white” majority? In placing responsibility with the perpetrators of social injustice, is this not another form of suppression by somewhat retelling the history of another community through a white colonial lens, even if with good intentions? The trap here is that teaching IWOK is not only about the learning the practices or ‘traditions’ of a different community, just as important is the study of why these knowledge forms have been typically excluded. Teaching into the risks within science is complex and seeks to unravel the power that allows western science to dominate within society. This presents a difficult self critique so to speak, will be interested to hear others opinions on this in class.