Darcy Markham Analysis #3

How do my own root metaphors, which grew out of the cultural map of my own childhood, affect the way I approach learning and my students?

The fact is, that each one of us carries out our daily existence within the cultural maps that we have entrenched within us. These cultural maps are “an abstract description of trends towards uniformity in the words, deeds, and artifacts of the human group” (Kluckholm, 1968 as cited in Pai & Adler, 2001, p. 24). Embedded within this cultural map are the root metaphors, which allow us to function on a day-to-day basis. These root metaphors “provide a conceptual and moral coherence to a culture” (Bowers, 2000. p 27). Often we are not even aware that these root metaphors exist as they are reproduced through the linguistic process. Even if we do recognize them, they are often so deeply engrained within our thought process we do not always recognize their influence on our behavior.

As a teacher of students with learning disabilities I have a developed a perception of what intelligence is and how it operates. The cultural map that I follow in my daily life recognizes that each person is an individual with different ways of approaching tasks. Yet within this cultural map is the idea that individuals must continually progress towards a goal despite these differences. Kaplan states that, “this view of the young is based on the questionable assumption that human beings grow sequentially towards a supposed ideal or inescapable state” (as cited in Pai & Adler, 2001, p. 36). The idea of individual differences and the linear progression of learning and reaching a goal is not a universally accepted fact. It is a part of the culture that I exist within. Yet I often accept this idea as universal and function within my teaching as though it were universal. When I look at my students, I judge them based upon this linear progression that is expected. They are tested quarterly to determine whether or not they have made satisfactory progress towards their goals, if they have not, then I go back and adjust my teaching in an effort to ensure that they make satisfactory progress. Seldom in this process has it occurred to me that all progress is not linear, or that perhaps the child is not ready to learn the material being presented at that point in time? As Montagu (1981) warns “it is unreasonable and destructive to expect a child to do equally well in all areas of growth because [individual] rates of developing aptitudes and learning different subjects and skills vary significantly” (cited in Pai & Adler, 2001. p. 177).

Embedded within this idea of individual progress is the cultural root metaphor of intelligence, which has been transmitted through the culture that I have been raised in and the education that I have received. According to this root metaphor, intelligence is tangible. It operates much like a machine or a computer. Information is input into the brain, the brain processes this information, determines the connections to other information already stored within the brain and then files the information into some filing cabinet or storage center within the brain where it can easily be retrieved. It is obvious that this root metaphor is linked to the current educational beliefs of the American culture and to the industrialization and technological advancement within Western Society. Because I view intelligence in this manner, I also view students who have difficulty in learning material as having some malfunction within this storage and retrieval process. It is as if there is some mechanism within their brain that is not functioning properly and therefore is in need of remediation.

It is obvious that such root metaphors make it easier for us to understand complicated processes such as brain function and presents us with an easy way of explaining phenomenon, which occur through the use of these root metaphors. The danger however, is when we believe that these root metaphors are the only way to explain how these processes function and dismiss alternate views and explanations. As a special education teacher these root metaphors allow me to explain the unexplainable and provide a convenient way of thinking about how learning occurs. However, I am also constrained in the way I view other forms of intelligence. The cultural patterns that exist within the educational system place a greater emphasis on print-related learning, which is a fairly recent trend within the historical context of mankind. This emphasis ignores the oral traditions of learning, which have been a part of the mythopoetic narrative process of learning for thousands of years. In doing so, oral patterns of intelligence are given less emphasis further constraining the ability of my students to learn within the educational system that they are placed.

The language that we use determines how we think. The language patterns that have developed over time within our culture affect how we think and view the world around us. As Vygotsky stated “language determines the development of thought rather than thought determining language” (Vygotsky, 1968, p. 75). If we explore this way of understanding the development of thought and intelligence, we begin to see how both are tied to language and the linguistic patterns of our culture. Therefore, as “children acquire vocabulary necessary for spoken discourse and metacognition, they are learning to think within the earlier expressions of cultural intelligence encoded in the metaphorical constructions of language” (Bowers 2000, p.157). These metaphorical constructions then determine how we approach teaching and learning. These linguistic patterns are evident in the labels that we apply to the world around us. In the case of students who have difficulty in functioning in the educational environment, they are labeled according to the linguistic patterns that are embedded in the root metaphors of western thought. We label these students as “learning disabled.” If we look carefully at this terminology we can identify the thought patterns, which influence how we view these students. The term “able” means the ability to do, if we add the prefix “dis” meaning not, we identify these students as not being able to learn. By applying the label to these students we come to view them as “less than” the other students within the educational environment and thus treat them differently. Our thought patterns, which have been influenced by social Darwinism to believe in the survival of the fittest, regard these students as less fit and therefore in need of greater assistance, despite the extent of their difficulties.

Students themselves, who understand the linguistic patterns of the culture, also view themselves as “unable” and fall into a self-prophetic situation. Teacher’s expectations tend to decrease when dealing with these students. Less is expected and more assistance is seen as needed. Rarely does it occur to teachers that perhaps there own cultural maps and the metaphors that are embedded within them create the “disability.”

As Taylor (1994) states,

“Our identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence, often by the misrecognition of others, and so a person or group of people can suffer real damage, real distortion, if the people or society around them mirror back to them a confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves. Nonrecognition or misrecognition can inflict harm; can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being”

(p.25).

If we look at the cultural beliefs of Western society and their view of intelligence, it is not difficult to understand why teachers find dealing with these students so difficult. Teachers expect that students will progress linearly towards the educational objectives as set out in the curriculum. When students fail to meet the threshold as dictated by the state standards, the child is viewed as deficient, not the state standards or the cultural beliefs that underlie them. The idea that the curriculum itself and the methods that we use to teach it may be responsible for creating the problem, is not even considered. This is due to the fact that the educational system, as a whole, fails to recognize the cultural patterns and root metaphors, which drive the system of education. It is a difficult process to remove oneself from one’s beliefs and consider alternate views. It requires examining the basis of those established beliefs and their origins. Yet without examining those beliefs we function within a narrow vision of thinking and learning which may in fact not be absolute but rather based upon the linguistic patterns and root metaphors of our culture.

Therefore, in order to effectively teach students, and more specifically those students who have difficulty in learning we must be able to move beyond the labels that have been placed upon them. The fact is that the label “learning disability” is much the same as the labels that we apply to numerous ethnic minorities and limit our expectations of these students. I would suggest that these labels impact how we view these students and impact the ways in which we relate to and evaluate those children. As pointed out by Pai & Adler (2001) “Rigid and stereotypic labeling of the learner is likely to result in an unfair assessment of his or her educability which in turn may limit the child’s social and intellectual growth.”

As a teacher of students who struggle within the regular education curriculum I realize that I must view each student in terms of their own progress towards their educational goals, not my own perceived notion of how they should progress along the culturally biased standards laid out in the curriculum. Further, it is important for all children to recognize their own progress and to view themselves as learners. By recognizing students as learners and identifying their progress we strip away the barriers that blind us of their progress. Rather than comparing them to some arbitrary standard that is culturally laden or against one another, the comparisons should be made against their own advancement. Doing so allows us to move beyond our cultural biases and recognize the value of each individual learner.

The value of recognition goes beyond just student progress. In the many years that I had taught special education, rarely if ever did I speak to my students about their own “disabilities.” In fact, many of my students probably had little if any knowledge of the reasons that they came to my classroom everyday. On the few occasions where I would over hear comments made by other students towards my students, such as “retard” or “dummy”, I reacted much the same way as Paley (2000) did and “became rigid and pretended not to hear” (p. 5). I did not realize at the time that my own lack of recognition was sending a message to my students that their difficulties were something that we did not talk about, which inevitably told them that their was something wrong with them.

This is a lesson that I have learned from a dear friend and teacher who opened my eyes to my own lack of recognition of the students I taught. Her approach to students who had difficulty in learning was to talk about their problems. Not only did she talk to the students about the different ways in which they learned and their “disability” but she talked to all of the children about these students. Sometimes there would be long discussions over why my students had problems and what was “wrong” with them. Her answers often amazed me. She was quick to point out that not all of us were able to do things equally as well, some people could draw very well, others could play instruments, still others could build things, but because we could not do one of those things did not makes us better or worse than anyone else. She would also talk about how the brain worked and how certain parts of the brain were stronger for some people than others. She would bring in pictures of the brain and books, but the main thing she did was talk about the differences, which in essence validated each student’s identity.

As a child I would often encounter people who were in wheelchairs or somehow “different” from others. I remember being told “ do not stare, it is impolite.” Like Paley (2000) who was taught by her parents and the adult world around her to show “respect by completely ignoring black people as black people” (p. 9), I was taught that it was disrespectful to acknowledge “handicapped: people as handicapped. This lack of recognition was part of the cultural map that I carried within me and into my teaching and limited my effectiveness as a teacher.

Slowly, though watching this teacher I began to “see that the patterns of recognition that I had perpetuated within my classroom had a detrimental effect on the students, which I taught and began to change these patterns” (Markham, 2003). By the simple act of recognizing these students I validated their identity and freed then from some of the cultural restraints, which limited their ability to progress. And like Paley, my students and the other children began to respond in a positive manner. Through my recognition I have given legitimacy to those students who view themselves as different thereby authenticating their identity and improving their self-esteem. No longer are my students continuously constrained by my own lack of recognition but they now have an opportunity to develop as learners.

By giving recognition to my students differences, not only have I given them the opportunity to develop by I have given myself an opportunity to grow as a teacher. By the simple act of giving recognition I have removed one barrier, which constrained my ability to teach effectively. I now am able to recognize some of my own cultural biases and the linguistic patterns that limit my ability to reach and teach my students. By recognizing some of the root metaphors, which guide my thought process, I have enabled myself to become more effective as a teacher. I no longer regard my students as “learning disabled” but as students who learn differently. Just this act of changing my language allows me to think differently about the learning process. It allows me to move beyond the metaphor of intelligence as operating as a machine and to view it instead as a developing organ within our bodies, that needs to be nurtured and developed. In so doing, I create an atmosphere that is nurturing and allow my students to progress on their own terms.

References

Bowers, C. A. (2000). Let them eat data: How computers affect education, cultural diversity, and the prospects of ecological sustainability. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.

Markham, D. (2003, Fall). What expected recognition does Paley change? Module 5 Working Paper 1. EDF 500. Northern Arizona University. (Available on request from dmarkaz@aol.com).

Pai, Y., & Adler, S. A. (2001). Cultural foundations of education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Paley, V. G. (2000). White teacher. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25-44). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1992)

Vygotsky, L. (1968). . Thought and language. Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT Press.