Once I would have agreed with the heading of this post. I admit it was a much more optimistic and happy part of my life. However, that was before my philosophy became engrossed with the belief that there is no positive value. Linguistically, "No Positive Value" according to Saussure (an early 20th century Swiss philosopher) refers to the way that culture structures meaning through language. It states that there is no natural essence to any object. There is nothing about a chair that makes it a chair. Nothing about a person that makes it a person. An object is labeled and used in the way associated with "chair" because that is how our society constructs it. This is proven because if there were an essence or undeniable truth to any object languages would be easily translated back and forth. Because this is not possible, defining of objects must be a social action.
This makes any label for any object completely irrelevant. A frog is only a frog because we call it "frog". A bottle is only a bottle because we label it "bottle" and use it as a container for liquids. A person is only a person because that is how we conceive of people.
This means that any object not being referred to is, in essence, a blank slate. It is nothing until it is referred to and constructed in the social mind. If this extension is made to people, then people are also nothing until they are subjected to the rules, ideologies and beliefs of society. Though this flies in the face of Christian sensibilities, it is a philosophical restructuring of the self not as an individual, but as a sum of different societal parts put together in a distinct way.
The evidence of this is in our concept of individuality. In my younger and more impressionable years I considered myself quite the non-conformist. The perpetual joke was that I was not conforming just like all my friends. the truth in this is that my non-conformism was truly only a choice of ways in which I could conform. I was really only conforming in a different way that was still allowed by society. I was deviating from the norm, but ONLY as far as i was allowed by the culture at large. I contest that all individuality is in some way either a construction of different societal regulations, or a deviation from societal norms within the prescribed alloted boundaries (though...there are instances where societal norms can be and are broken, but the repercussions of these actions are huge: ostracizing, condemnation, damnation, prison).
So if people are only summation and constructions of the concepts and ideas that society puts into them, they can only possibly structure reality in ways that society has allowed them. For example, I cannot see the world through the eyes of a 8th century Chinese Emperor because my world has been defined, structured and explained in a completely different way. I contest that this happens in ways that are just as drastic as in our American society.
Here then, is the problem with arguing that "Demography is Not Destiny." As people we are only what we know, we cannot possibly be more than what we know. We can learn and know more, but we cannot escape what it is that we know. And the lessons that we learn early/first are the most impossible to destruct. We are bound to understand and see the world as we are taught both implicitly and explicitly.
Here is the primary argument I wish to present. I believe that lessons that teach impoverished children to balance check books are valuable; however, I feel that they (and lessons of this nature along with the vast majority of lessons serving impoverished children) are perpetuating the problem. This extends not only to lessons in school, but also to lessons in life outside of school. Though the intent is to help them succeed in life, is this truly the outcome? Or is it more that they are succeeding in poverty. The lesson that should be being taught is how to escape poverty, NOT HOW TO THRIVE IN IT. (I apologize for yelling...I am a passionate man). Our school systems, for the vast majority of students, FORCE children into whatever social position they came from (or lower, as is the case with many students from middle-class backgrounds). This only proves to me that Demography is Destiny.
Our school system, as it exists right now, accepts that "Demography Is Destiny." We perpetuate the roles of the under-class in educating the poor children of the world. We are teaching them to be successful poor people.
If we truly lived in a world where "Demography is Not Destiny" then every single child in every single school would have the same opportunities to succeed AND fail. To reach the highest or the lowest rung of society. If this was true there would and could be no true perpetuating upper class. There will and always will be a class system in America; right now, however, we live in a caste system.
Now for my concession. I believe that individuals can escape this terrible, horrible, no good, very bad cycle. I truly do. This is not why I teach, but for many it is why they teach. I think it is an honorable and noble reason and I deeply love and respect anyone who teaches and follows the "Demography is Not Destiny" credo. It is a difficult role to fill, and I admire and cherish all who fill it.
I teach for massive educational reform. I teach to help children and for my love of children, but I also teach for myself. I teach so that I can move up the ladder. I teach so that I can get into the masters and doctoral programs that I want. I wish to attack the system. I wish to work with others to re-build an educational system that actually does follow the "Demography is Not Destiny" credo. To analytically destruct the system and rebuild it is the only way to achieve a system in which students are all treated as they deserve to be treated. That all students in America are inherently the same. We live in a caste system, the education system perpetuates it. I will fight against a caste system for my entire life, and I will begin working one child at a time in a classroom.
I just acknowledge that that can only go so far. I don't want to stop at one child at a time.
Right now believing that "Demography is Not Destiny" only acknowledges single extraordinary children.
It is a fallacy to define a system by an outlier.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
After reading Micheal's post, I am not only impressed by his argument but I would like to make some of my own comments based on his post.
I'm not sure if I misunderstood Micheal's comment about overcoming poverty vs. thriving on it. The activity we did in class on Thursday conjointly with the discussion of the articles proved to me that overcoming poverty is not an easy feat. I know that Micheal is not claiming it is, but how then does he propose overcoming it?
The activity proved that even with the tightest budgeting, and even with the best case scenario of a family member providing child-care...minimum wage jobs and government funding are failing the poor. The statistics we discussed in class, $5.58 federal minimum wage and even $7.50 minimum wage in Illinois, is not enough.
As I mentioned in class, my dad is a financial planner. Perhaps I come from a different view about money because all my life I have been taught to save save save. I have accounts where by saving a small amount each month, I can save up to thousands and thousands of dollars overtime. I'm not here to brag, anyone can do it granted they have an income and are able to save some money each month. Most people get richer by accumulating saved money overtime.
I just don't see how this is possible for the poor. How do they have a chance to OVERCOME poverty if they can't get out of debt? It was brought up in our discussion group that people earning government money are NOT ALLOWED to save money. Once a certain amount is saved, they are cut off from the funded money assuming they can fend for themselves with the saved money.
If a mother of 2 makes a monthly income of $1,104 and the best monthly rent she can find is $550...how does she make ends meet?
I do not understand a lot of financial things, but I do know the power of saving money. I do agree with Micheal on many of his arguments, now leaving me unsure of where I stand on the demography is not destiny debate. I do know the power of education, and I would hate to think it goes back to my love for the cheesy urban teacher movies, but I believe education helps overcome.
Michael had a very strong argument about why "Demography is Destiny," but I have to disagree. I do not feel that where you come from is where you are destined to be. Demography places a huge role in the person you will become in the future, but it is not the defining factor. The only way that your demography will become your destiny is if you allow it. Granted there are some people who may only be what their circumstances say they can be. But there are also others who will overcome poverty and create their own destiny. You are the only person who determines your destiny, not your circumstances and environments. There are many factors in our lives that we cannot control, one of which is where we come from. But we have the ultimate say so in where we are going.
I agree when Michael stated that we are defining "Demography is Not Destiny" be an extraordinary few, to some extent that is true. However he is doing the same thing by defining "Demography is Destiny" based on those people who chose to let their environment rule their futures.
Coming from a low-income family and an impoverished neighborhood, I refuse to believe that "Demography is Destiny." Sure my surroundings have played a role in the person I am today but that does not define me. If that were the case, then I would not have worked hard in school and gotten my way to college. I had to create a new destiny for myself. Based on my demography, I would be destined to be a poor Black girl. I am much more than that because I chose to be.
Creating a new destiny for yourself is extremely difficult. That is the task that many poor have to take on in order to get out of poverty. I know first hand that the government is not very instrumental in aiding the poor out of poverty. I agree with Amanda that it is almost impossible to get out of poverty when you are not allowed to save your money. My family relies on the government for financial assistance. Once my twin sister and I graduated from high school, our benefits were cut, which left my mother to have to raise four children on an income that was cut almost in half. When we were receiving benefits we were also not allowed to save any of our money. So how are we supposed to get out of poverty? Based on this situation, we could have easily defined our destinies by our demography, but we chose not to. I think that it does not matter what happens to you in life; it only matters how you respond. If a poor person responds to his/her demography be seeing it as their destiny than they will remain in poverty. But if that same poor person decides to respond to his/her demography by making the conscious decision and effort to get out of poverty than he/she they will not be defined by his/her demography. Therefore I think that "Demography is NOT Destiny."
Although universal standards of teaching would seem to be the most equal way of educating children, no child is the same. Children from different backgrounds and with different abilities need educational experiences that often, well, differ. I disagree that life-skills taught in "high-needs" schools teach poor how to be good or successful poor people. In these situations, school activities attempt to make up for some of the processes children may lack at home. Balancing checkbooks, personal hygiene, health education, budgeting, and other life skills should be taught in all schools, because all children need such life skills. However, some schools may need to highlight them more because children are not getting that type of education at home. I agree some teachers and schools may have a negative perception of their students and do not teach them how to get out of poverty. At the same time, I do not think it is fair to teach wealthy children and poor children from the same book. The two groups encounter contrasting experiences day in and day out. Teaching to the community IS a smart thing to do. BUT that is not to say text book education should be left behind. Demography may not be destiny...but it is a path marker, a giant one. All children are set to go down a different path, and paths do cross so they can switch routes. However, you have to walk differently down a puddled-path than you do a paved one.
I must start by saying I believe demography is NOT destiny, which is too strong of a generalized statement to make. It is not fact and can be disproved based on the lives of people who start poor and end rich or people who start rich and end poor. One's present does not determine one's future. As a teacher I would hope that regardless of your personal beliefs you will instill in your students that demography does not determine their destiny regardless the social economic status of your students' parents.
The reason I hold so strongly to my position concerning this topic is because I am a prime example of how demography does not define destiny; I come from a single parent home, I attended a poor inner city elementary school that remained on probation the majority of my 9yrs there, my mother has not worked since I was in the 7th grade, food stamps and government assistance are not unfamiliar concepts to me, and I can be categorized under a variety of other stereotypes about the poor. BUT, in spite of my upbringing/socioeconomic status/class (DEMOGRAPHY)I managed to graduate high school with a 3.7 GPA, attend an elite university for my major, avoid being in financial debt upon graduation, purchase my first car at age 20 without a co-signer, maintain a B+ average, and as of MAY 2009 I will have a B.S. in Elementary Education with endorsements in Math, Science, Social Science, and Language arts. Amanda stated that she was not in bragging, well I AM. One may not think that I've accomplished much because some of you may be on the same path, but we probably began this race to success from two completely different start points. And I am not the only one, Tanika also mentioned that she faced many challenges and was able to overcome them and I also know many others. My point is that as an educator I would hope that one could hold true to being the catalyst for pushing their students beyond society’s expectations. Teach them to not let their demography define their destiny based upon the simple premise “ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.”
Now my little spiel may sound a bit fairytale to some but lets take a statement made by Michael: “…any label for any object [is] completely irrelevant. This means that any object not being referred to is, in essence, a blank slate. It is nothing until it is referred to and constructed in the social mind” This is how I feel we should look at our students, they are blank slates and we should not label them as just “poor” or “destined for failure” based on their environment. Instead we should label them all “success in the making” (or something equivalent to this) regardless of their demography, this is the belief that we should construct for every student we encounter.
I have to confess that I'm not familiar with Saussure (and I can't really do any background reading at the moment), but based on Micheal's explanation, I would have to say (preliminarily, of course) that it's not a philosophical approach that I would subscribe to. While I understand and appreciate the idea that there is no natural essence to any object, I don't think this concept can be so easily transferred to human beings, mainly because it seems to discount the notion that all of us are meaning-makers. I am not merely an "object," like chair, but a subject as well, and as a subject, I have both the ability to make meaning of my experiences and, perhaps just as importantly, the ability to imagine. Imagination is part of what makes us human, and part of what makes us capable of seeing beyond what we "know" in our world.
Philosophy aside, I do understand Micheal's points about demography and destiny. Indeed, I would agree that, in far too many cases, schools DO serve to replicate the existing social class structure, and much of that can be chalked up to the way capitalism works. Wealthy kids most often attend "better" schools that prepare them to think critically, to make decisions, to lead. Poor kids more often attend schools that have far fewer resources and that teach far different lessons: following orders, being obedient, becoming a "good worker."
And I also agree that too often we're eager to see the exception as the rule: "See, that poor student worked hard and got good grades and made it to college and graduated and got a good job. Why can't you? why can't everybody?"
My laptop's battery is running low (I'm in New York as I write this), so I'm going to have to cut this short. However, one final comment for now: I don't think it's productive to see our goals as teachers as EITHER we're working to help/teach/guide individual kids OR we're working to transform the system. It's not an either/or proposition, in my view. Transforming the system is a worthy a necessary goal, but in the meantime, what do we do? If we wait around to overthrow the entire system, we may be waiting a long time. My suggestion would be to keep one eye on larger changes that would make the system work for all kids, and the other eye on what I can do right here, right now, for the kids who walk through my door.
(My apologies if there are grammatical errors in this post. I don't have enough battery juice left to proofread it.)
I have been thinking about the phrase (the proclamation!) "Demography is Not Destiny" since I left class last week. Not continuously, obviously, but often. Upon hearing it in class, I thought "Yeah! Of course it's not!" Throughout the week, the pessimistic side of me started pushing me to think more about it. Does our society really believe that demography is not destiny, or would they adopt the credo in order to force blame on the poor when they can't rise above their circumstances? If a government wanted to shift blame for societal problems such as poverty, it would be easy to say "Demography is not destiny. Look at the people who 'pulled themselves up by the bootstraps' and made something with their lives. It's not our fault that everyone wasn't dedicated enough." So there was a period during the last week that I was thinking, "Maybe it is destiny, and maybe it's up to us to shift that perception and make it history."
Then, in another twist, I read all of the comments that have gone up regarding this topic. Hearing other people's ideas has helped me to see how I really feel. I don't think demography is destiny. I think demography can be an obstacle. Granted, it may be a larger obstacle than a car breaking down on the way to work, but it's surmountable. This society should make it easier for poor families to succeed, but since there won't be an overnight 180 within our schools, communities, and government, it helps to know that being poor is not being damned to a life of disappointment. It may be a huge roadblock, but it shouldn't hinder determination and dedication. When people believe that they have reached their maximum potential, they will give up. A message that "Demography is not Destiny" is (maybe in a slightly bizarre way) uplifting, because it means that although there might be many forces fighting against you, it's not impossible to achieve better things.
This is a great topic and one of the main things that caught my eye was the statement we are teaching them to be poor successful people. That was just so interesting because many people may look at those words put together and say " how can you be sucessful if you are poor". I was kind of wondering the same thing, but I have come to realize that if a person or people are down for so long they will adapt to being a certain way because they dont know anything different, so in their eyes if they have so good come out of any situation or geta a little ahead they may start to think there is hope. Those are the people who tend to break the mold and push harder to make a change in their own lives as well as their community so that pthers can soon realize that they too can make a change. This is what came to mind when I read this so i thought I would just share.
Post a Comment