What About Me? the Intersection Of

Home , Judd Nelson, The Breakfast Club

WHAT ABOUT ME?

THE INTERSECTION OF TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING AND SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

LAURA MCALISTER

Integrated Studies Project

submitted to Dr. Patricia Hughes‐Fuller

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

November, 2011

Table of Contents Abstract...... 3

Introduction ...... 4

Transformative Learning – An Overview ...... 6

Transformative learning and the purpose of education...... 7

Critical Reflection...... 8

How learners are viewed...... 9

Critical Pedagogy…………………………………………………………………………………………..11

Social Stratification and Social Class……………………………………………………………..12

Capitalism……………………………………………………………………………………………………..16

Social Class – Ignored on Purpose…………………………………………………………………17

Transformative learning and redefining social class…………………………………….19

Transformative Learning and Popular Culture……………………………………………..20

The Breakfast Club – a film for understanding transformative learning and social stratification ………………………………………………………………………………………22

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………….28

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………….30

Abstract: This paper provides a critical discussion on the intersection of transformative learning and social stratification. The discussion includes a presentation of transformative learning as a process, including the importance of critical reflection and critical pedagogy. The connection to the purpose of education is also considered. Social stratification and social class are examined, and it is argued that social class has largely been ignored in the classroom. In addition it is argued that uneven power relations related to social class are reproduced. The intersection of transformative learning and social stratification is emphasized through examining the John Hughes film, The Breakfast Club. A discussion on popular culture and its contribution to education is also presented.

Introduction

The education process provides a multitude of purposes and reflection opportunities for students, teachers and even institutions. Adult education is considered a social process; the elements involved in this social process are multifaceted. They are comprised of expected components such as the curriculum, the textbooks, and the course syllabus, but there are larger, overarching factors that infiltrate these seemingly benign elements. These factors influence what is contained in the curriculum, textbooks and syllabus, and (interestingly) what it does not contain. These factors are complex. They are comprised of a seemingly endless set of possibilities ranging from the attitudes and values of the students to the culture and values of the surrounding society. All of these factors point to the purpose of education. An understanding of the purpose of education begins with the idea that the classroom is not neutral and the process of education is not value free. The purpose(s) of adult education is of great interest to educators and students alike and reinforces the larger societal value that demands a thorough understanding what we are doing in the classroom and why.

As such, students do not arrive in the classroom as empty vessels – they are already shaped by their own worldview that in turn is influenced by the community and broader society around them. It is argued that one of the desired purposes of education is transformation (Spencer, 2006). In this paper I will critically investigate transformative learning and explore, in depth, the transformative learning process. In addition, I will present a critical discussion on social 5 stratification and social class within education, and in particular how transformative learning and social stratification intersect. I will also explore the power relations underpinning this learning process and the relationship to social stratification.

Finally, because popular culture can reflect and influence the sociological imagination (Brym, Lie, & Rytina, 2010) I will examine the John Hughes film, The

Breakfast Club to concretize and explicate the intersection of transformative learning and social stratification.

Transformative Learning – An overview

Nohl (2009) suggests that education is more than “learning facts, acquiring skills and becoming socialized in roles” (pp. 287). Education should challenge and call into question our assumptions, ideals and worldview. These assumptions, ideals, and worldview make up with Nohl (2009) refers to as our ‘meaning perspectives.’ A change in meaning perspectives is fundamental to transformative learning. Transformative learning as a concept is best articulated by Mezirow

(1978) who stated that transformative learning is about “how we learn to negotiate and act on our own purposes, values, feelings, and meanings rather than those we have uncritically assimilated from others – to gain greater control over our lives as socially responsible, clear thinking decision makers” (Mezirow, 2000, pp. 8 as cited in Nohl (2009).

There are several dimensions to examine here when understanding transformative learning as a concept. First, transformative learning is clearly a learner‐centered concept; it is more about the individual experience rather than an acquisition of an external skill, concept or procedure. Transformative learning does not view learners (and ultimately learning) as empty vessels that get filled up with

“knowledge” and then learning has taken place. Transformative learning suggests something more – something ultimately more associated with emancipation that speaks to the individualism of transformative learning as a concept. Second, there is the element of critically assessing ideas through the process of education (and being educated) that leads to an individual eventually being able to better understand, 7 assess and critically examine their own worldview i.e. there is an element of civic responsibility to transformative learning. Mezirow (2000) suggests that transformative learning allows individuals to make better decisions as citizens.

Transformative learning and the purpose of education

Transformative learning as a concept has ties with the purpose of education and also seems to contain some assumptions about the process as well. As discussed above, Mezirow states that transformative learning seeks to move beyond meaning we have “uncritically assimilated from others” (ibid) which suggests that individuals have passively obtained “knowledge” or “information” that has simply comprised a worldview but does not call that worldview into question. It seems then, that learning that is not transformative is merely learning that reinforces and confirms existing ideals. The process of transformative learning is such that the learner must actively engage in the process of learning and go about the often difficult task of calling into question the assumptions and underpinnings of a person’s own worldview. This process is key to transformative learning. Of course, this raises an implicit assumption ‐ transformative learning seems to suggest that a person’s worldview is in need of transformation and that an individual who is not transformed is somehow lacking or is not whole. Mezirow uses Habermas’

‘cognitive‐rational’ approach to transformative learning which posits the learner as an ‘autonomous’ thinker (Nohl, 2008). This approach has been criticized, as it does not factor in elements such as emotions and creativity that can also contribute to transformative learning (Nohl, 2008). 8

In addition to including such elements as emotions and creativity, Nohl

(2008) offers the ‘life story’ as a way to accomplish transformative learning.

Coupled with the life story is spontaneous action (Nohl, 2008). Through this spontaneous action and recounting of the life story the learner experiences a

“sudden beginning of something completely new in their life story” (Nohl, 2008). It seems here that transformative learning hinges on the learner making sense of and searching for new meanings within their own worldview. (This concept is reflected in the characters in the film, The Breakfast Club, to be discussed later.)

The nature of spontaneous action is such that, as a process, it extends beyond the walls of the classroom. This limits the ‘planable’ nature of education (and curriculum) while at the same time suggesting that transformative learning is something more, something beyond the nature of planned objectives and predictable outcomes of learning activities.

Critical Reflection

Transformative learning points to something deeper than the uncomplicated acquisition of new information. Walters (2008) suggests turning to Kierkegaard and other humanist thinkers and posits that “transformative learning serves as a vehicle to ‘being’…the change and transformation of ‘self’ and ‘being’ are accompaniments of deep, relational learning” (pp. 111). Again, this speaks to the depth of transformative learning by showing that in order for learning to be transformative there must be a change in self. This ‘deep’ learning relies heavily on critical reflection (Walters, 2008). Learning must occur through critical reflection 9 which includes “examining the underlying beliefs and assumptions that affect how we make sense of the experience” (Walters, 2008, pp. 113).

Through critical reflection, transformative learning strives to move learners beyond simply learning to acquire facts or new skills (Brock, 2010). Transformative learning seems to have its sights set on more lofty goals. The critical reflection piece as part of transformative learning is fundamental in the transformative learning process. Mezirow centred his theory around critical reflection and admitted that the term might have benefited from being named perspective reflection or reframing as the intent of critical reflection is to use all dimensions of knowing including emotional, spiritual, and context rather than only cognitive functions as the term (critical reflection) implies (Brock, 2010). Regardless of name, critical reflection is imperative in the transformative learning process.

How learners are viewed

When examining transformative learning, how the learners themselves are viewed seems to be of importance. As discussed, transformative learning is learner centred and relies heavily on the learner to engage in critical reflection. Since this is a process that takes the focus away from simply acquiring skills or knowledge to be reproduced as evidence that learning has occurred, the shift away from this also marks a shift in how educators view learners. If educators are inviting learners to engage in critical reflection with the goal being transformative learning, educators must then view learning as a transformative process rather than reproducing existing knowledge. Education that is transformative invites learners to call into 10 question their existing worldview and accepts that learners will be able to do this for themselves rather than being handed knowledge from the teacher. This marks a shift in the role of the educator as well. The teacher becomes more of a facilitator whose role is to guide learners through the process as the learners create it for themselves rather than the view of ‘teacher as expert’ and learner as novice who must consume knowledge in order to obtain it. This shift results in altering the power relations underpinning the teacher‐ learner relationship. The emphasis is on teacher and learner collaboration rather than a top down relationship positioning teacher as expert and learner as apprentice.

Using the teacher as expert relationship, the resulting unequal power relations can be seen as a reproduction of the workplace where instead of viewing the teacher as expert, a manager or supervisor is seen as expert. Reproducing these unequal power relations in the classroom can be said to prepare students for the workplace. The emphasis here is clearly on reproduction rather than transformation. Transformative learning can be very emancipatory and can threaten to underscore the power relations that make up both the classroom and the workplace. This emancipation threatens to unhinge the existing uneven power relations between teacher as expert in the classroom and manager as expert in the workplace. Education that is not transformative merely reproduces and preserves these unequal power relations.

Critical Pedagogy

To avoid reproducing the inequalities present in society, Bathmaker & Avis

(2005) posit an acknowledgment of the social relations and positioning in which teachers and learners find themselves. Further, instead of positioning the ‘teacher as expert’ role as discussed above, teachers and learners must participate in a discourse regarding their positioning in these social relations. Through this discourse, “teachers and learners draw upon the resources at their disposal – personal knowledge, skills and lived experience – to make sense of these relations”

(Bathmaker & Avis, 2005, pp. 8). Most importantly, however, is that these practices do not crop up solely from the teacher – they are untangled and examined while acknowledging inequalities and there is “the need for the recognition of patterns of social antagonism and power” (Bathmaker & Avis, 2005, pp. 8). It is through this discourse that the complexities of social relations and inequalities are acknowledged and examined and learners are invited to participate in the

‘messiness’ that often accompanies confronting power relations. The repositioning of the teacher shifts the focus away from the task oriented, monitoring and administering nature of classrooms and demands that learners “collectively develop skills and understandings that facilitate engagement with the political, social and economic contexts in which they are placed” (Bathmaker & Avis, 2005, pp. 7). The teacher, then, serves as facilitator or mentor providing students with the opportunity to re‐think their place beyond the classroom and fosters an environment for challenging their commonly held assumptions. In this manner, teachers are not providing simple solutions to complex problems and this shift away 12 from traditional pedagogies seeks to cultivate a landscape for transformation. As such, a critical pedagogy emphasizes an importance on understanding power relations in society. Critical pedagogy provides a conduit to transformative learning, as the goal is to “enable people to interrogate lived experience, and also to find ways to transform the conditions in which they live” (Bathmaker & Avis, 2005, pp. 6).

Transformative learning extends beyond transforming the students as individuals and strives to transform where they live as well. Critical pedagogy in education demonstrates a commitment to understanding the broader context and understanding power relations to encourage transformative learning. Also, critical pedagogy aimed at transformative learning takes context into account and reflects an awareness that contradictions within the broader society have implications for what goes on in the classroom.

Social Stratification and Social Class

As a starting point for the discussion on social stratification, let us first consider the research that suggests that there is a shift away from using class as a theoretical framework (Pearce, Down, and Moore, 2008). Pearce et al. (2008) suggest the reason for this is that other kinds of cultural difference such as gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality have replaced class as a point for analysis. This practice of moving away from class has seemed to further marginalize and divide people in such a way that matters of class are “sanitized and its powerful effects on the life chances of working‐class students is denuded or made invisible (Pearce,

Down, and Moore, 2008, pp. 257). This suggests that class is still extremely relevant 13 and that omitting it from the theoretical framework further alienates and marginalizes those affected by class and the resulting social stratification. Pearce et. al. (2008) suggest that class has become an almost invisible part of our cultural and political unconsciousness, yet it remains a very powerful component to understanding how students are advantaged or disadvantaged in education.

Education, being a social process, operates and is shaped by cultural, economic and political influences (Nesbit, 2006). It is through education that we come to understand the structure of society and the underlying power relations within it. To complicate this, Nesbit (2006) posits that it is through education that

“we learn the strategies and approaches that help us either accommodate or resist power relations in our personal and public lives” (pp. 172). If we unpack this, there can be a connection here to social class. The underlying assumption here is that there is an expectation that certain groups will accommodate while other groups will resist.

Nesbit (2008) points out that educational systems are an important vehicle for hegemony – that is the process that society uses to create and maintain dominant ideas by rendering them as natural. This suggests that ideas counter to the dominant or mainstream are considered ‘other’ and as a result rendered exotic.

Education, particularly through transformative learning, can oppose this by “helping people understand how they might resist and challenge oppressive social structures and behaviours” (Nesbit, 2008, pp. 173). Paradoxically, within the problem lies the solution – education (re)produces mainstream ideals which can have marginalizing effects, yet it is through education that this marginalization can be addressed 14

Although class is considered somewhat ‘taboo’ when examining access to and experience within education, social class remains “the elephant in the room that shapes the entire education system, creating vast inequalities of opportunity between the haves and have‐nots” (Sacks, 2009, pp. 76). Rather than class, the focus is on diversity. Diversity has “left intact the very mechanisms that higher education has systematically employed to exclude people by class…” (Sacks, 2009, pp. 76). In

Canada, multiculturalism is the vehicle for attending to issues of diversity and difference. Multiculturalism focuses on inclusion and acknowledgment of all peoples, yet policies associated with multiculturalism have not addressed the underlying issues of power and the complex nature of difference (Johnston, 2006).

Multiculturalism in the classroom has become a way of managing difference and a method to contain it. Class, a vital ingredient that often gets blended in with multiculturalism, even when presented within the classroom is done in such a way that packages it to remove it from lived experience (Johnston, 2006). Presenting class in this benign way accomplishes acknowledging class but in more of a superficial way. Class is understood then as an issue that is occurring “out there” but students are detached from the direct implications of it, and presenting it this way minimizes their experiences with class as a real phenomenon.

The discussion of class is an uncomfortable one and class analysis of institutions is often dismissed as “dogmatic, ideological or deluded” (Pearce, Down, and Moore, 2008, pp. 257). In doing so, it side steps class and avoids any uncomfortable discussions or acknowledgment of it inside the classroom and 15 society. Class can be considered an uncomfortable topic and a discussion of such involves confronting class inequalities prevalent in society and also within the classroom and school context. Often, teachers are not willing or are reluctant to enter into such discussions; this reluctance is rooted in the “fear that classrooms will be uncontrollable, that emotions and passions will not be contained…there is the possibility of confrontation, forceful expression of ideas, or even conflict”

(Johnston, 2006, pp. 117).

An acknowledgement of social class and the resulting uneven power relations requires an acceptance of issues that are prickly for teachers and students alike. Again we return to the ‘messiness’ associated with a discussion on social class and also, more importantly, this reluctance to call into question the inequalities associated with social class ignores an opportunity for transformative learning.

This “bird’s eye view” of social class (and the lumping together under an umbrella of multiculturalism) removes the learner from the understanding of class, and at the same time, alienates the learner from understanding the important concept of difference. This cultivates the landscape in the classroom that sees attempts to “discipline” difference rather than be transformed by it (Johnston, 2006, pp. 119). This detached way of viewing class does not lead to transformative learning, and if class is viewed through the lens of multiculturalism this promotes an

‘othering’ of difference and further promotes the mainstream as the ideal.

Difference, then, is situated as exotic and learners leave with their view of class intact. But learning cannot be transformative without addressing class head on. 16

Capitalism

For most teachers and learners today the ‘mainstream ideals’ referred to above reflect the values of capitalism. Nesbit (2008) states, “Capitalist societies commodify human activity by subjecting all aspects of peoples’ lives and social relations to market requirements. These relations are then normalized and made to seem natural” (pp. 173). This continues with the idea of hegemony discussed above and suggests that capitalism is almost invisible in terms of its acceptance into society and that our status within society (how much we are valued in society) is based on how much we earn (Nesbit, 2008). Capitalist societies are stratified into classes and systems of “structured inequality continue because society portrays them as normal or inevitable: the system encourages its victims to regard themselves as responsible for their failure to be successful” (Nesbit, 2008, pp. 173).

By doing so, the interests of the dominant groups are maintained and these dominant ideals (and groups) face less resistance.

In addition, the hierarchal structure of both the workplace and educational institutions can contribute to perpetuation of (class) stratification and reinforces the resulting uneven power relations. A hierarchal structure lends itself to a perpetuation of stratification because educational institutions reproduce the hierarchy to ensure a compatibility with the workplace. We see schools turning out many workers and fewer managers. Within the workplace we see the hierarchy repeated. In this way, we can see how education can have the tendency to reward a privileged minority. 17

Social Class Ignored on purpose

In sum, there has been an ongoing failure to recognize social stratification in the discourse of education. Reay (2006) argues that historically inequalities arising from social class have not been effectively addressed either. Reay (2006) demands a return to analyzing class and social stratification not ignoring it. Instead of addressing class, Reay (2006) posits the focus shifts towards school processes and teacher education and that until social class is addressed “as a central issue within education then social class will remain troublesome…a potential monster that grows in proportion to its neglect” (pp. 289).

It seems that within education there is an attempt to ignore class, and yet there are numerous problems within education that seem to be easily acknowledged in the popular discourse. Problems arising within education such as lack of resources in poor schools, achievement gaps between students and concerns about dropout rates etc. seem to be more comfortable topics of concern. These concerns are acknowledged, yet they are rarely confronted as class issues. Reay

(2006) states, “Class is seen as everywhere and nowhere, denied yet continually enacted…” (pp. 290). There seems to be a dance around social class and there is a familiar comfort around discussing the common and traditional problems within education. These traditional problems are easier to accept using this framework.

This is portrayed as ‘problems for all’ when really it is more like ‘problem for those within a specific class.’ 18

It is difficult to accept class as the reason for problems within education.

Doing so requires addressing the broader inequalities and uneven power relations within the classroom and society at large. A dissonance arises here. Given the policies on diversity and multiculturalism prevalent in schools (as discussed above) class is conveniently left out as a culprit. Perhaps class is ignored intentionally and easily explained away by simple economics – there are limits to the resources people can dedicate to schooling. But, according to Reay (2006) “there is an issue of representation and othering that both feeds into and is fed by social and economic inequalities, and it is here that cultural analyses are needed to complement and augment traditional economic understandings” (pp. 295). We can see here that there is a perpetuation of inequality and that revealing inequalities as class based would threaten the interests of those who are benefiting from this system. We see the benefits falling to the middle class here and it is the working class that suffers as a result.

Economic conditions are just one component of the complexity of class, and it is important not to relegate class as simply defined by economics conditions derived through a person’s occupation. Hollingworth & Williams (2009) assert that economics is just one aspect and offer that social class is “grounded within and produced through people’s identities and cultural practices” (pp. 468). This suggests that social class is not simply defined by economic factors but cultural ones as well. There is a social construction involved with social class that forms attitudes, values as well. Within this social construction we see the process of othering particularly between the middle class and the working class. Hollingworth and 19

Williams (2009) turn to Skeggs (2005) and Lawler (1999) to further the understanding of othering and social class construction and posit that middle classes often assign negative moral characteristics to the working class in an attempt to make “working class subjectivities pathological, so that class relations are not just economic relations but also relations of superiority/inferiority, normality/abnormality, judgement/shame” (Lawler, 1999, pp. 4, cited in

Hollingworth & Williams, 2009, pp. 469). With these binaries we see the process of othering where the middle class asserts itself as ‘right’ and ‘just’ and relegates the working class as other. Like the process of othering, binaries are marginalizing by nature and seek to increase the power of the middle class. Subjugating the working class as other in this way is marginalizing and also seeks to further promote the legitimacy of the middle class as mainstream.

Transformative learning and redefining social class

Social stratification/social class intersects with transformative learning and interferes with opportunities for transformative learning to occur. Education must also consider capitalism and “resist all attempts to confine adult education to the production and maintenance of human capital” (Nesbit, 2006, pp. 185).

Consideration of this takes the focus away from education that simply reproduces a supply of workers and emphasizes the importance of not only learning but also learning that is transformative. We see how class differences “play out in power relations” (Nesbit, 2006, pp. 183) and redefining class to include more than economic factors is needed. Taking up class as “a possession rather than a dynamic 20 as a relationship between different people and groups divided along axes of power and privilege” (Nesbit, 2006, pp. 183) complicates class and positions it as a fluid concept that invites learners to question and grapple with their place within educational institutions and society. (Re)inviting class to be considered in education fosters a landscape for transformative learning that moves beyond reproducing and perpetuating existing inequalities.

Transformative Learning and Popular Culture

To begin with, let us briefly examine the practice of studying popular culture for the purposes of adult education and pedagogy. Wright & Sandlin (2009) assert that “whether intentional or not, adults learn from the practice of cultural consumption in their everyday lives” (pp. 119). This seems to suggest that popular culture permeates the lives of people outside the classroom and offers that it is difficult and even undesirable to shut culture out from the classroom. However, adult education has resisted the notion of using popular culture as a source of meaning for learning (Wright & Sandlin, 2009). The importance of experience is well founded in adult education, yet popular culture remains on the fringe as a contributing factor to learners’ experience. Perhaps understanding how popular culture is taken up theoretically will provide insight into this resistance. Wright and

Sandlin (2009) cite Storey (2006) who points out that, for some, popular culture “is commercial culture produced for mass consumption…and consumed by passive,

‘brain‐numbed’ and ideologically manipulated consumers” (pp. 120). This comes out of earlier ideas that culture is divided between “high culture” and “working‐class 21 culture” with popular culture belonging more to working class culture i.e. the lesser culture (Wright and Sandlin, 2009). This distinction is significant given our earlier discussion of social class.

Instead of a perspective that views pop culture as a vehicle for simply reproducing ideology, Storey (2006) as cited in Wright & Sandlin (2009) offers a view of popular culture that is “not imposed from above, but which, instead, originates with the people” (pp. 120). This suggests that popular culture is produced rather than consumed (ibid). This perspective argues that experiences are what produce culture rather than the other way around. Lastly, Wright &

Sandlin (2009) offer a postmodern perspective of culture that does not separate

‘high’ and ‘low’ culture. The focus here is on the daily interactions, the meanings, and the pleasures associated with both the consumption and production of popular culture.

Wright & Sandlin (2009) cite Guy, 2004 et al who argues, “popular culture has powerful effects on people’s worldviews” (pp. 119). Using popular culture as a tool for understanding and addressing learners’ worldviews we can set the stage for critical reflection as discussed above and begin the process of transformative learning. Wright & Sandlin (2009) cite Miller (1999) who posits that media helps people understand their own experiences and suggests the need for “interrogating our reactions to popular culture products to understand our own personal experiences, and to investigate our own subjectivities and identities” (pp. 124).

Furthermore, adult educators need to accept and explore popular culture and how it is tethered to their craft of teaching. We see elements of critical reflection and 22 transformative learning floating out of this and popular culture can be used to help understand “the ways in which media images and constructions pervade all our lives” (Wright & Sandlin, 2009, pp. 123). This suggests that popular culture is a rich source for understanding, reflecting, and learning for students and teachers alike.

Ideology is present within popular culture and whether implicit or explicit, this ideology is a source for learning and an ideal foundation for practicing critical reflection (Wright & Sandlin, 2009). “As adult educators make sense of ideologies…they will be better able to convey the reality of those ideologies in the classroom” (Wright & Sandlin, 2009, pp. 124). When learners dissect popular culture and reveal the underpinnings of ideology this lends itself nicely to critical reflection and transformation. This re‐orients the classroom to a focus on learners’ lived experience and provides fluidity between education and popular culture.

The Breakfast Club – a film for understanding transformative learning and social stratification

Critical reflection as part of transformative learning is depicted well in the film The Breakfast Club. As part of their Saturday detention, students are required to write an essay on who they think they are. Given this context, the assignment was not meant to be transformative but rather punitive (in addition to having the students serve their detention at school on a Saturday). Interestingly, the students engaged in critical reflection and begin to show some signs of transformative learning. This is discussed in more detail below. Surprisingly, even the ‘punitive’ effects of the exercise contributed to the students’ transformation. This seems to 23 suggest that only the ‘fact acquiring’ type of learning is desired and the transformative learning that occurred in the library during detention is almost deviant in its nature.

As discussed earlier, part of the trouble with engaging in an open discussion of social class is the ‘messiness’ and the fear of the confrontation that could erupt in the classroom. A very provocative scene shows exactly what this eruption would look like. Judd Nelson’s character simultaneously pokes fun at and accuses Anthony

Michael Hall’s character of having an idyllic family life. What is really occurring here is that Anthony Michael Hall’s character is mainstream middle class and Judd

Nelson’s character is not, and he going to illuminate the difference for us. Judd

Nelson portrays middle class values through making weekend plans. He makes fun of Anthony Michael Hall’s character by pretending to be his Dad inviting him to go fishing for the weekend. Judd Nelson then re‐enacts what his home life is like and impersonates his own father who yells, is abusive to his mother and to himself, and the scene ends with Nelson making a punching gesture to indicate that his dad hits him. The other characters are visibly shaken and are upset by the image he creates.

Social class is not openly named or explicitly discussed but the connotations of it are everywhere in the film. This scene disturbs the audience but it is through this very negotiation of social class that we are accepting of it.

Bleach (2010) argues that The Breakfast Club is “exceptional” in its treatment of social class and the characters in the film “struggle within or against he class constraints erected within their narratives” (pp. 25). In the opening scene, the manner in which the characters are dropped off for Saturday detention at the high 24 school gives us the evidence we need to determine the social class of each of the characters. For example, Molly Ringwald’s character (Claire) is dropped off by her father in his BMW. She complains that he can’t get her excused from it and we sense that she feels as if this detention is beneath her. Anthony Michael Hall’s character

(Brian) is dropped off in the family station wagon with his mother urging him to study to make use of his time and his little sister in the car teasing him and impatient to get on with the rest of what we assume is their typical Saturday. Emilio

Estevez’s character arrives in the pick up truck driven by his Dad, and he is lectured on the consequences detention can have on his success as a high school athlete. The cars and the depiction of the family dynamic within suggest qualities typical of particular social classes but also do not hide the stratification implicit within them.

By contrast, Judd Nelson’s character (Bender) arrives not in a car, not with his family, but walking alone to the school. This shows where his character is coming from and without even hearing any dialogue; we know the role Bender is to play.

Here we are introduced to social stratification and the organization of the characters according to class.

What makes the Breakfast Club provocative is the students themselves begin to engage in a discourse of class and social stratification. Of course, they are not openly using this language in their dialogue, but when they begin to interact with each other the resulting discourse is both confrontational and transforming. Taylor

(2007) asserts that peer‐learning partnerships are important for transformative learning and the dialogue that occurs between peers is crucial for transformative learning. Transformative learning is heightened when the interaction is “highly 25 personal and self disclosing” (Taylor, 2007, pp. 180). The characters begin to interact with each other in this highly personal and self‐disclosing way, and as such we understand (and accept) this discourse to be unusual.

We fully see that the principal and the school itself are not opening up (or encouraging) this discussion on social class, yet the attempt to punish the students

(detention) is the forum for students in which the students engage in class analysis.

While doing so, the characters acknowledge and even accept their position within the stratification ladder. The transformation is achieved when they realize that these lines are more fluid than they originally thought and especially in the ending with Molly Ringwald’s character and Judd Nelson’s character (these 2 characters represent the largest gap on the social stratification ladder) end up in a romantic relationship together. Bleach (2010) asserts that these “romance narratives show teenagers from different classes superseding class differences in order to join together” (pp. 26). Of course, this has also been criticized as the film, “can’t seem to think outside of these class differences and none overly advocates a leveling of them” (Bleach, 2010, pp. 26). However, the film does “express a desire for such leveling of class differences, although on a personal/emotional level rather than on a structural/rational one” (ibid). This suggests that perhaps while the characters seem to break through the constraints of their respective classes, the class system itself is still expected to remain intact.

This is evidenced in the question central to the film’s narrative ‐ ‘What happens on Monday?’ After several scenes where the group bonds and we see the unlikely friendships and romances forming, Anthony Michael Hall’s character asks if 26 they will all be friends on Monday when school resumes. Molly Ringwald’s character replies that “nothing will change” meaning they will all return to their respective places within the social ladder. Even though “the barriers are broken down, even the characters are aware that their worlds won’t change in a day”

(Brammer, 2009). What is really unfolding here are the quiet constraints of social class and the uncertainties that are part of social stratification; these doubts threaten the transformation(s) that have occurred within the characters.

Grounded in our discussion of social class are the concepts of ‘other’ and the process of ‘othering.’ This is echoed in Molly Ringwald’s character when she refers to social landscape at the school and the experience of school being different for her and Emilio Estevez’s character (portrayed to be of similar social standing at school).

She is alluding to the fact that they are popular (her social position within the high school hierarchy) but this also mirrors the underlying message about what she thinks about her place in society. This is inherent in her statement to the other characters, “it’s different for us” what she is really referring to is that it is different for ‘them’ b/c they are of a different, and more powerful class. Using language such as ‘us’ and ‘them’ is evidence of the process of othering. Also, what she means by different here is important. When difference is used in this context, Claire does not mean different in the ‘marginalized – other’ sense; she is referring to being different from ‘them’ and the otherness is solely contained in the other characters (and their class). What she means is that they are ‘other’ in relation to her. The other characters’ acceptance of this is equivocal; they know she is right, based on their lived experience, yet they are not fully accepting of it either. 27

Aside from the interpersonal transformations that bubble up in the group, there is another significant transformation that takes place in the film. This is a physical transformation when Molly Ringwald’s character “makes over” Ally

Sheedy’s character. As a result of the make over (new hairstyle, new clothes, and make up) we see a romance pairing between Ally Sheedy and Emilio Estevez’s character. What plays out in this transformation, however, is perhaps the most significant not only in the film, but also in our discussion of the intersection of transformative learning and social stratification. The overt transformation of Ally

Sheedy’s character is significant because the transformation occurs at the hands of

Molly Ringwald’s character.

Abruptly, Ally Sheedy’s character (Allison) and Molly Ringwald’s character

(Claire) become friends despite their earlier arguments. This friendship doesn’t quite make sense (Bleach, 2010) and we can see that “Claire is invested in leaving class positions intact at the same time that she struggles within their constraints; after all, as a member of the upper class, she can only stand to benefit from remaining in power” (Bleach, 2010, pp. 38). Allison’s makeover represents Claire’s approach and treatment of difference and we see in Allison how “her differences are erased (and conveniently forgotten) by the workings of the upper class” (Bleach,

2010, pp. 39). The makeover represents othering in that Claire’s character acts as the saviour – the upper class helping the poor to momentarily elevate her out of her class and win the prize ‐ a romantic pairing. Ultimately, despite some transformation within the characters and “in spite of the momentary class leveling,

Claire is still popular and privileged come Monday morning” (Bleach, 2010, pp. 40). 28

We take from this that despite the interpersonal and emotional transformation of the characters the strength and pull of social class remains stronger.

Conclusion

To conclude, we observe the purposes of education are multifaceted.

Classrooms and institutions do not exist in a vacuum and are not devoid of values.

These values seep into institutions from the surrounding society and students bring their worldview into the classroom. Transformative learning is vital to the process of education and demands to call into question taken for granted assumptions.

Transformative learning moves beyond an education that is merely a passive gathering of skills; learning that is transformative requires action on the part of the learner. Transformative learning demands that education change the way students view their world (Brock, 2010). Clearly transformative learning is learner centred and not focused on an education that requires obtaining facts or skills as ‘proof’ that learning has occurred. Transformative learning challenges the epistemology of traditional views of education and seeks to move beyond acquiring facts and skills.

Transformative learning is not what Freire (1970) describes as filling learners up with knowledge with the assumption that they are empty vessels waiting to be filled

(Freire, 1970).

Given our understanding of transformative learning, social stratification and social class are elements that contribute not only to the process of education but also to the process of transformative learning. Social class has become an uncomfortable topic giving way to other concepts such as diversity and 29 multiculturalism. Social class and transformative education intersect and are underpinned by the uneven power relations present in a society that is stratified by class. Dominant ideology that rewards middle class views affects transformative learning and reinforces unequal power relations.

These dominant ideologies are present in the John Hughes film, The

Breakfast Club. We have observed the differing social classes through the characters in the film and we see how social class filters their experiences with one another and in within the greater context of the school and the society around them.

Through the discourse of the characters we see the difficulties associated with social class and how this shapes and limits the effects of transformative learning. We also see that social class remains a strong and difficult force within education. We hope, optimistically, that transformative learning can open a discourse on social class and that transformation fares better in our classrooms. Social class is not left outside the walls of the school it envelopes learners and institutions alike, and there is an interplay between social class and all other elements in the education process. As we continue along in the process of education, we must appreciate the effects of transformative learning and recognize social class as a shaping force for students throughout the learning process.

References

Arnett, R., (2006). Eighties Noir: The Dissenting Voice in Reagan's America. Journal of Popular Film & Television, 34(3), 123‐129.

Aronson, P., (2008). Breaking barriers or locked out? Class‐based perceptions and experiences of postsecondary education. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, (119), 41‐54.

Bathmaker, A., Avis, J., (2005). Is that 'tingling feeling' enough? Constructions of teaching and learning in further education. Educational Review, 57 (1), 3‐20.

Bleach, A., (2010). Post feminist Cliques? Class, Post feminism, and the Molly Ringwald‐John Hughes Films. Cinema Journal, 49(3), 24‐44.

Bowden, M.P., (2010). Socio‐economic status, cultural diversity and the aspirations of secondary students in the western suburbs of Melbourne, Australia. Higher Education, 59(1), 115‐129.

Brammer, R., (2009). Left of centre teen life love and pain in the films on John Hughes. Screen Education, 56, 22‐28.

Brock, S., (2010). Measuring the Importance of Precursor Steps to Transformative Learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 60 (2), 122‐142.

Brym, R.J., Lie, J., & Rytina, S. (2010). Sociology: Your compass for a new world Third edition. Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd.

Deziel, S., (2006, November 13). The man who understood teenagers. Maclean's, 119, 7.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Furlong, A., (2009). Revisiting transitional metaphors: reproducing social inequalities under the conditions of late modernity. Journal of Education & Work, 22(5), 343‐353.

Hollingworth, S., Williams, K., (2009). Constructions of the working‐class ‘Other’ among urban, white, middle class youth: ‘chavs’, subculture and the valuing of education. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(5), 467‐482.

Johnston, I., (2006). Engaged Differences: school reading practices, postcolonial literatures and their discontents. In Kanu, Y. (Ed.), Curriculum as Cultural Practice Postcolonial Imaginations (pp. 117‐130). University of Toronto Press: Toronto.

Kroenert, T., (2009). The gospel according to John Hughes. Eureka Street, 19(15), 5‐ 6.

Lambort, C.M., (2008). Implications of hierarchical complexity for social stratification, economics, and education. The Journal of General Evolution, 64(5‐7), 430‐435.

Nesbit, T., (2006). What’s the matter with social class? Adult Education Quarterly, 56(3), 171‐187.

Nohl, M., (2009). Spontaneous Action and Transformative Learning: Empirical investigations and pragmatist reflections. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 41(3), 287‐306.

Pearce, J., Down, B., & Moore, E., (2008). Social class, identity and the ‘good’ student: Negotiating university culture. Australian Journal of Education, 52(3), 257‐271.

Reay, D., (2006). The zombie stalking English schools: Social class and educational inequality. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(3), 288‐307.

Sadovnik, A., & Semel, S., (2010). Education and inequality: historical and sociological approaches to schooling and social stratification. Paedagogica Historica, 46(1), 1‐13.

Sacks, P., (2009). Educating the Hierarchs: College and class in America. New Labor Forum, 18(2), 76‐84.

Scott, S., et. al. (1998). Learning for Life: Canadian Readings in Education. Toronto: Thompson.

Spencer, B. (2006). The Purposes of Adult Education. Toronto: Thompson.

Stuber, J.M., (2009). Class, Culture, and Participation in the Collegiate Extra‐ Curriculum. Sociological Forum, 24(4), 877‐900.

Tanen, N. (Producer), & Hughes, J. (Producer) & Hughes, J. (Director). (1985). The Breakfast Club Flashback Edition [DVD]. United States: Universal Studios.

Taylor, E., (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: a critical review of the empirical research (1999‐2005) International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26 (2), 173‐191.

Teitelbaun, K., (2007). Class matters – or no (middle‐class) child left behind. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(3), 361‐375.

Tisdell, E. (2006). Spirituality, Cultural Identity, and Epistemology in Culturally Responsive Teaching in Higher Education. Multicultural Perspectives, 8 (3), 19‐25.

Veenstra, G., (2010). Culture and Class in Canada. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 83‐111.

Walters, D., (2008) Existential being as transformative learning. Pastoral Care in Education, 26 (2), 111‐118.

Walton, J. D., (2010). Examining a transformative approach to communication education: A teacher based study. College Student Journal, 44 (1), 157‐177.

Wright, R. & Sandlin, J.A., (2009). Cult TV, Hip Hop, Shape‐Shifters, and Vampire Slayers: A Review of the Literature at the Intersection of Adult Education and Popular Culture. Adult Education Quarterly, 59(2), 118‐141.