Political clarity and the limitations of humanistic violence in the U.S. K-12 classroom

Abstract

I examine the development of my political clarity and its relation to the exercise of humanistic violence as a K-12 teacher in the United States. Reflecting upon my experiences as a classroom and community educator, I conclude that the mission of forging a new humanity is currently not possible from within the U.S. classroom. Presenting a series of testimonios with reflections regarding political clarity and humanistic violence, I make the case that K-12 institutions constrain our ability to truly explore and commit to more humanizing ways of knowing and being. I recommend that we be wary of the multicultural trap: utilizing the ways of knowing and being of diverse peoples in order to better teach them how to know and be Western.

Keywords:

• Political clarity
• decolonial education
• humanistic violence
• multicultural trap

Notes

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 This is a similar idea to Foucault’s argument regarding power, structures, and control that reverberates throughout his writings. The State does not have to exert violence for its citizens to know that violence is a possibility. There are methods of control already situated within society that allow for coercive control by the State which citizens internalize almost as natural (or to use Freire’s language, through a lens of fatalism). Part of this coercive power is rewarding those domesticated and disciplined to follow the norms of the State, but also punishment and the fear of punishment maintain this structure.

2 In French, Fanon uses the term “le negre” to refer to Black people or Black existence. There are a number of debates around the translation of the French into English (for example, see Honenberger, P. (2007). “Le Negre et Hegel”: Fanon on Hegel, colonialism, and the dialectics of recognition. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 5(3), 15.

3 Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed is often read in the field of education for its direct connection to pedagogy found in chapters one and two. However, his third and fourth chapters deal more with the political theory underlying his text and his perspectives on evolutionary violence.

4 Footnote to Freire on verbalism as well

5 In the data analysis section I also specify that I do not build directly from Husserlian phenomenology, but instead rely upon existential phenomenology (which due to the limits of this essay I do not explore in further detail).

6 There is a larger discussion within phenomenology addressing the distinction between subjective and objective which cannot be further explored here. However, it is important to note that within the philosophy of human sciences, some argue that humans mediate all kinds of research, even those of the natural sciences purported to be the most objective. Thus, all sciences are actually human sciences and laced with the preconceptions of humans. For a more in-depth discussion, see Alexander Rosenberg’s Philosophy of Social Science, and for its disciplinary implications in the academy see Disciplinary Decadence by Lewis R. Gordon.

7 The tension between subjective and objective, between researcher and participant, between the factual and emotional, between the hypothetical and the verifiable, and between art and science have broader implications beyond my claims around the fluidity across theory, autoethnography, and phenomenology. Both theoretical and methodological questions reflect a broader analysis of the human condition itself.

8 Though the suggestion may be made that the administrator is simply enacting a role that they are tasked with as the head of a school, it seems that making decisions which do not serve students and occulting oneself from its inequitable fallout is poor leadership. In the same way that teachers are tasked with an immense responsibility in doing what is best for students despite inequitable educational conditions, the same standards must also be in place for administrative leadership. I venture to say that this demonstrates more of a concern for the chain of command than for the suffering of bilingual students in a monolingual district.

9 It is possible for someone to suggest that parents who do participate in school events are actually consenting to dehumanizing education by going along with what the educational system desires of parents (to show up at schooling events). However, my mother, like many other parents, trust the educational system to support their children. Her involvement reflected her effort to be an active partner in my education and her faith in an educational system that is not worthy of the trust of communities of color in particular. It also seems necessary here to recognize that parents who do not show up at school events are making a statement regarding educational equity. Though some may be, others are not in attendance for a variety of reasons such as having to work, needing to attend to other familial responsibilities, and even struggling with mental health. This is a complex topic that remains beyond the scope of this analysis.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Josué R. López

Josué R. López is a doctoral candidate in the School of Education at the University of Connecticut Storrs. His scholarship examines connections such as the intersection of mobility and education as a public good through his work with communities in both the United States and Central America.