[Reference] Analouise Keating: Teaching Transformation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Teaching Transformation This page intentionally left blank Teaching Transformation Transcultural Classroom Dialogues By AnaLouise Keating TEACHING TRANSFORMATION © AnaLouise Keating, 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. First published in 2007 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN™ 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 and Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England RG21 6XS Companies and representatives throughout the world. PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN-13: 978–1–4039–7647–5 ISBN-10: 1–4039–7647–3 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Keating, AnaLouise Teaching transformation : transcultural classroom dialogues / by AnaLouise Keating. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1–4039–7647–3 (alk. paper) 1. Multicultural education. 2. Critical pedagogy. 3. Multiculturalism. I. Title. LC1099.K43 2007 370.1—dc22 2006052768 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India. First edition: June 2007 10987654321 Printed in the United States of America. for my teachers and students This page intentionally left blank CONTENTS Introduction Transformational Multiculturalism: Definitions, Alterations, Interventions 1 Chapter One “We are related to all that lives”: Creating “New” Stories for Social Change 22 Chapter Two Forging Commonalities: Relational Patterns of Reading and Teaching 41 Chapter Three Giving Voice to ‘Whiteness’? (De)Constructing ‘Race’ 56 Chapter Four Reading ‘Whiteness,’ Unreading ‘Race’ 81 Chapter Five Teaching the Other? 104 Conclusion May We Dream New Worlds into Being: Transforming Status-Quo Stories 122 Appendix 1 Dialogue: Some of My Presuppositions 125 Appendix 2 Listening with Raw Openness 127 Appendix 3 Two Creation Stories 129 Appendix 4 Epistemologies of ‘Whiteness’ 131 Appendix 5 Critics on Literary and Cultural Representations of ‘Whiteness’ 140 Appendix 6 Sample Syllabi 142 Notes 228 References 244 Acknowledgments 258 Index 260 This page intentionally left blank INTRODUCTION Transformational Multiculturalism: Definitions, Alterations, Interventions [W]e are in fact interdependent. As human beings, we have a sacred connection to one another, and this is why enforced separa- tions wreak havoc on our souls. There is great danger . in living lives of segregation. Racial segregation. Segregation in politics. Segregated frameworks. Segregated, compartmentalized selves. Our oppositional politic has been necessary, but it will never sustain us; while it may give us some temporary gains, . it can never ultimately feed that deep place within us: that space of the erotic, that space of the soul, that space of the Divine. M. Jacqui Alexander1 I begin Teaching Transformation with these words by Jacqui Alexander because they so closely reflect my motivation for writing this book. Like Alexander, I believe that we share a profound connection that ensures our interrelatedness. This deep-seated commonality, though too rarely acknowledged, offers potentially transformative alternatives to the oppo- sitional pedagogies and politics we generally employ. As Alexander notes, oppositional politics lead to “enforced separations,” segregations, and other forms of division that at best bring only partial relief. Based on binary (either/or) thinking and dualistic (“us” against “them”) models of identity, these oppositional movements inhibit social change by generating nonproductive conflict, suspicion, competition, and debate. For these reasons and others that I explain in the following pages, I adopt a connec- tionist approach and posit interconnectivity as a theoretical and pedagogical framework for social change. I borrow the term “connectionist” from 2 Teaching Transformation Gloria E. Anzaldúa and use it to describe a nonbinary, creative episte- mology. As Anzaldúa explains in “now let us shift . the path of conocimiento...inner work, public acts”: When perpetual conflict erodes a sense of connectedness and wholeness la nepantlera2 calls on the “connectionist” faculty to show the deep common ground and interwoven kinship among all things and people. This faculty, one of less-structured thoughts, less-rigid categorizations, and thinner boundaries, allows us to picture—via reverie, dreaming, and artistic creativity—similarities instead of solid divisions. (568) Connectionist thinking is visionary, relational, and holistic. When we view ourselves and each other from a connectionist perspective, we look beneath surface judgments, rigid labels, and other divisive ways of thinking; we seek commonalities and move toward collective healing. References to healing, “sacred connection,” “souls,” or other such topics might sound strange in an academic context such as this book. When we talk about spirits, transformation, interconnectedness, or the sacred, we risk accusations of essentialism, escapism, or other forms of apolitical, irrational, naive thinking that (perhaps) inadvertently rein- force the unjust status quo. As Alexander notes, despite recent scholar- ship linking spirituality with sociopolitical change,3 “there is a tacit understanding that no self-respecting postmodernist would want to align herself (at least in public) with a category such as the spiritual, which appears so fixed, so unchanging, so redolent of tradition” (Pedagogies 15). However, as I will demonstrate in the following chapters, holistic, spirit- inflected perspectives—when applied to racism, sexism, homophobia, and other contemporary issues—can chip away at and in other ways transform social injustice.4 four premises Building on this theoretical and pedagogical framework of interconnec- tivity, Teaching Transformation is based on four premises. Premise #1 Categories and labels, although sometimes necessary, can prevent us from recognizing our interconnectedness with others. Transformational Multiculturalism 3 Whether we identify as “of color” or “white,” as “female” or “male” or “trans,” as “lesbian” or “straight” or “bisexual” or “queer,” we have all been trained to evaluate ourselves and each other according to the existing labels. We have been indoctrinated into a dualistic worldview and an overreliance on empirical-rational thought, which creates a restrictive framework. This framework marks, divides, and segregates based on narrow, binary-oppositional models of difference. As Patricia Hill Collins explains, “In either/or dichotomous thinking, difference is defined in oppositional terms. One part is not simply different from its counterpart; it is inherently opposed to its ‘other.’ Whites and Blacks, males and females, thought and feeling, are not complementary counterparts— they are fundamentally different entities related only through their definitions as opposites” (Black Feminist Thought 70). This oppositional logic reduces our interactional possibilities to two mutually exclusive options: Either we are entirely the same or we are entirely different. In this dualistic either/or system, difference becomes rigid and divisive. When we view the world through this binary lens, we assume that the differences between ourselves and the various others we encounter are too different—too other, as it were—to have anything (of importance) in common. Where is the room for complexity, compromise, growth, and exchange? I am not suggesting that we should dismiss all identity categories and declare ourselves from this day forward “color-blind,” “gender-blind,” and so forth. Absolutely not. My point here is that educators, scholars, and others who are concerned with social justice need to become more aware of how these categories function to prevent us from recognizing our interrelatedness. As I will suggest in the following chapters, we need to think about and reflect on the identity categories we employ; we need to learn and teach their histories; we need to use the categories in new ways. Social identity categories are dangerous when we use them unthink- ingly, without self-reflection. When we automatically label people by color, gender, sexuality, religion, or any other politically charged char- acteristics, we naturalize the categories and assume a false homogeneity within each categorized group.5 We build walls and isolate ourselves from those whom we have labeled “different.” In such instances, the boundaries between various groups of people—and, by extension, the theoretical perspectives designed to represent them—become rigid, inflexible, and restrictive. These categories distort our perceptions, creating arbitrary divisions among us and an oppositional “us”-against-“them” mentality that prevents us from recognizing potential commonalities and working together for social change. 4 Teaching Transformation Identity categories based on inflexible labels establish and police boundaries—boundaries that shut us in with those we have deemed “like” “us” and boundaries that close us out from those whom we assume to be different. In this oppositional, difference-based framework, identities become ends in themselves rather than useful tools as we move toward larger goals such as transformation, liberation, and other