In class on Monday, we extensively discussed Dewey's "My Pedagogical Creed" (1897) and drew connections to how we think about the role of technology in the classroom. Dewey has arisen in some of our other classes, and certainly many of the themes that came out of our discussion about his perspective resonate strongly with our work in general. I would like to pull out a particular aspect of Dewey's work and draw a connection that keeps shouting in my mind but which I haven't gotten the chance to work into a class discussion (yet). Dewey's central idea is that schools are part of social life, not simply preparation for it. In the course of our discussion, as an expansion on this idea, someone commentedthat "school performs a parental function". What might this mean? And does it ever actually happen?
This phrase immediately brought to mind a passing (but powerful) assertion made by Nel Noddings in Education and Democracy in the 21st Century:
"In the complex 21st century world, there should be a healthy recognition for interdependence at every level. Recognizing that all of us need a caregiver at some stage of our lives, we should encourage greater appreciation of those who provide that caregiving (Fineman, 2004). ... In Chapter 6, I will discuss ways in which we might profitably expand the curriculum by drawing on women's experience - experience that, historically, has been rich in caregiving." (Noddings, 2013, p. 10-11)
I very much look forward to reading Chapter 6, because this idea is incredibly compelling to me. By "this idea" I mean the thought that school and curriculum was originally designed in America by men, for men, and the feminine perspective is absent, yet has something quite valuable to add. Perhaps one of the valuable things this perspective could bring is a sense of the "parental," or more specifically, "maternal". Perhaps schools could "care" more by taking on more characteristics of "caregivers," while at the same time instilling in students themselves the qualities of caregivers. If the feminine perspective was brought into the design of curriculum and of school structure more broadly, maybe then schools could more closely resemble home life in the sense that students would be provided a safe environment in which they feel comfortable and even loved - that is, cared for. Perhaps the result of this expansion would be realization of some of Dewey's ideals, which remain elusive to this day.
Just as my last post was Dewey filtered through the eyes of a chemist, this one is Dewey filtered through the eyes of a feminist. I think the female voice is valuable and all too often squashed. Somehow Noddings, by obliquely suggesting that our education system is, at its core, male in origins and aims, spurred an "Aha!" moment in me. I do believe that appreciation of the female voice could help achieve some of the goals Dewey had for education. I am unsure of whether Dewey would agree with me - after all, he lived at a time when women's voices weren't exactly prioritized - but I think that if his vision is to be realized in the modern world, this is one dimension that can't be ignored.
You make an interesting connection, Anne, and Nel Noddings' work on "care" in teaching concretely illuminates *some* of the ways that school, at its best, is about MUCH more than the 3Rs, embodying many of the positive influences on the nature of the profession made by female practitioners (at the level of actual practice, rather than at the policy level). Most probably, in fact, Dewey took as a given that most teachers would be women, especially in the primary grades. My mentor, Fred Goodman, spoke of another "3"--the three S's--sisters (as in nuns), spinsters and spouses who largely staffed schools. These women did jobs that men mostly didn't generally seek *in part* because teachers were low paid, a practice that was justified by the often dubious argument that women weren't family breadwinners, etc.
ReplyDeleteAnne, as I suggested earlier today, it seems quite likely that the school, as one of the most potent forms of hegemonic control, may simultaneously eliminate the feminine from education and teaching while also defining that which is excluded as feminine. Therefore, females could be considered doubly-excluded: shut out of the schoolhouse, and left with a domain outside the schoolhouse that they had no part in establishing. In this view, though, femininity is a construct rather than something that is innate.
ReplyDeleteWe spoke this morning, and I sense that both you and Noddings would describe something feminine in the world that is not constructed but is essential. However, isn't it possible that nurturing instincts are not biologically-derived, but culturally-constructed as feminine qualities by masculine power? This question is, I think, roughly the line between the 2nd and 3rd wave of feminism. (Personally, I'm 3rd wave. I suspect that everything is constructed.) ;)
The feminist perspective you bring here is really interesting and something I hadn't considered at all. I went back and skimmed through some of Dewey's creed after reading your post, and I could definitely see how a female voice would contribute positively to his vision. One of his statements for which this stood out the most to me was: "I believe that, as such simplified social life, the school life should grow gradually out of the home life; that it should take up and continue the activities with which the child is already familiar in the home." For me, this spoke to the importance of teachers in a "caregiver" role, and I agree that women may have more to offer than men in this regard.
ReplyDelete