Feminist educators, such as Carolyn, M. Shrewsbury, have continuously worked to question the traditional patriarchal structure of education. The idea of Feminist pedagogy emerged from struggling to build a platform that values and recognizes women’s contributions, as well as creating a successful and liberating experience for all students in the classroom.
Carolyn M. Shrewsbury uses her article, “What Is Feminist Pedagogy?” to further educate her readers on the theory, describing it as “a vision of what education might be like but frequently is not.” The theory suggests breaking away from the traditional patriarchal structure of education, in order to work towards eventually turning that vision into a reality. Shrewsbury further illustrates this vision as some sort of transformation, turning the traditional classroom into “a liberatory environment in which we, teacher-student and student-teacher, act as subjects, not objects.” The transformed learning environment will allow us to “engage with others in a struggle to get beyond our sexism and racism and classism and homophobia and other destructive hatreds and to work together to enhance our knowledge [and] engage with the community, with traditional organizations and with movements for social change” (8).
Sadly, we live in a society in which people experience different levels of social, political and/or economic discrimination, whether it’s individual or structured. Members of dominant groups are considered to have more access to privileges while having a lack of challenges or barriers because of their powerful position in society. Whereas members of minority groups experience disadvantages, oppression, barriers and challenges because of their lower reputation/position in society. So, living under the means of a patriarchal society means that men are members of a dominant group and the women are members of the minority group. This means the traditional patriarchal structure of education is male-dominated, as it promotes male privilege, power, control and the oppression of women. Shrewsbury expresses that “focusing on empowerment” can help to push those traditional patriarchal means of power and domination behind us, which “embodies a concept of power as energy, capacity, and potential rather than as domination” (10).
“Empowering classrooms are places to practice visions of a feminist world, confronting differences to enrich all of us rather than to belittle some of us. Empowering pedagogy does not dissolve the authority or the power of the instructor. It does move from power as domination to power as creative energy” (11).
In my opinion, this is an extremely beneficial tool to use in the classroom because it helps to encourage both students and teachers to respect one another and their differences, as well as remove the uncomfortable power standard that is placed between them. Teachers can use this strategy to speak on difficult topics that usually aren’t spoken about both in and outside the classroom walls, due to the traditional patriarchal ‘rules’ that society has placed on the education system. This can help to build community between the teachers and students, as well as avoid the fear of generating discussions and making connections with one another about these very real and important subjects.
This brings us back to the Shrewsbury’s vision of the theory: a “liberatory classroom” that will strive, as it rebuilds the foundation of the traditionally controlled learning environment, turning it into a place where “members learn to respect each other’s differences rather than fear them” (8). I really enjoyed Shrewsbury discussion about her vision of the “liberatory classroom” because I found myself making connections to the classes that I have taken with Professor Savonick! In each class, we always talked about these avoided societal topics that are usually unspoken about because society thinks of them as complicated, or scary or too complex. These topics were never really brought up in high school, so I wasn’t really knowledgeable about any of them…until I signed up to take her course for the first time. I absolutely loved how open and comfortable we were when we were discussing about and connecting to these topics. Since it was my first time diving deep into a lot of these sometimes difficult subjects, I really appreciated how we learned through emotion, which is the total opposite of how traditional patriarchal learning is. Personally, learning through emotion helped me to develop a better understanding for what we were learning and helped other students to draw connections from their own lives, which was shared with the rest of the class. Her classes are full of individuals who are accepting, non-judgmental, caring and open to learning anything, and if there was a difficult subject to discuss, she would always guide us through it as best as she can, and she did great! I really feel as if Professor Savonick’s class is Shrewbury’s vision of the “liberatory classroom” because of the community that she builds between her and her students through her patience and honesty with each and everything we learn!
Discussion Questions:
- Does Shrewbury’s vision of the “liberatory classroom” remind you of a personal experience you may have had in the past? If so, explain what that experience was like and how it made you feel. If not, explain how you would envision a “liberatory classroom” and how it would make you feel, compared to a traditional patriarchal classroom.
- Describe what your own vision of a “liberatory classroom” would look like in the eyes of a student, or in the eyes of an educator.
- If you had to persuade/convince to a dominant patriarchal group member that feminist pedagogy is essential in the learning system, what would you say?
Works Cited:
Shrewsbury, Carolyn. What is Feminist Pedagogy? 1993.
Gabby,
I must admit that while reading some of the articles assigned for today’s class, I too found myself thinking about this ENG 529 class with Dr. Savonick (and I promise I am not trying to be a teacher’s pet by saying that). In regards to your first question, I have fortunately found myself feeling like I am in a “liberatory classroom” on a number of occassions. I will note that I have felt this way much more often in college than in high school, but I do not think that’s too much the fault of my high school teachers, but rather a product of the high school learning environment. Thankfully, here at SUNY Cortland in my Adolescent Education: English department, I was lucky enough to take classes with Dr. Geoffrey Bender, Dr. Cori McKenzie, and Dr. Tyler Bradway, who immediately jump out to me as some of the most influential professors I have had, and who made me feel like I was in the sort of positive classroom you describe in your post. Their classrooms, not unlike Dr. Savonick’s and also Dr. Radus’s, have, in my opinion, often created an environment that allows for critical thinking about a variety of subjects, some of which are based on social and political issues that could tear a classroom down if not handled properly. These environments have also allowed for me to think critically as an individual, and as a group with my classmates, which I think is important to a liberatory classroom.
In regards to your third question, I often wonder about this sort of situation. I imagine that if I had to persuade a dominant patriarchal group member, likely a fellow male (let’s call him Chad), that feminist pedagogy in the learning system is essential, that I could come up with a pretty solid response. However, I then wonder if I should be the one to convince Chad, or if I should turn the “microphone” to someone who more closely identifies with feminist pedagogy, like a female colleague (let’s call her Brenda). Being a white man, I think doing this could be a positive way to sort of use my privilege, as I could have the chance to give up my voice so that someone else’s voice, who might not otherwise be heard, could be heard. However, I then wonder if me talking to Chad would be more impactful than Brenda talking to Chad, because Chad could disregard Brenda’s ideas about feminist pedagogy because she is a woman, and therefore she is looking to advance things for people like herself. Chad would likely be kind of a swine for doing this, but I think the majority of people would agree that they could see this happening. So, instead of that, would it be better for me to talk to Chad about the importance of feminist pedagogy, because then he’d be hearing me, someone like him, talking about the importance of pedagogy surrounding a group he is not directly a part of? However, would that then be an example of me using my privilege to continue to keep oppressed voices quiet? Did that whole spiel make any sense at all? I hope so, because I would be interested to hear what people in our class would say about it — and since we are in the type of classroom we are in, I would feel confident that the conversation would be civil and beneficial, like “liberatory classrooms” should be.
Jacob Smith
For some context, this is the (actually quite comprehensive) Wikipedia page for the Lehman Alternative Community School (LACS): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman_Alternative_Community_School
At a school where many of our classrooms are more liberatory, proving that it is possible (to an extent) to create a liberatory learning environment in a public school setting, given certain caveats. My school was created as an experimental democratic, alternative school in 1974; while many so called “free-schools” were created at the time, my school is one of the few that still exists, thanks to the fact that Ithaca City School District is relatively resource-wealthy and able to support it. From my experiences at LACS, I’ve learned that there are certain structures in place that need to be there at a school level to feel liberatory: since our students are exempt from Regents, we have relative freedom of our curriculum, we have a variety of experiences designed to create stronger relationships between students and teachers, and since we only have 200 students in grades 6-12, every teacher knows every single student. With that being said, these structures alone aren’t enough to create a liberatory classroom alone–there are a few teachers in my school that fail at this regard, and even the best teachers often have days where this isn’t possible.
To create a liberatory classroom, I think teachers need to go beyond the structures to give students voice and choice in their curriculum–but also in a way that is developmentally appropriate. For example, you mentioned in your blog post the power of the way that Dr. Savonick structures her classes (and I absolutely agree) — but asking a high school or middle school student to take the same amount of control over the syllabus as we have would have very different results. In fact, at my school, teachers often go awry when they give their students too much control over the curriculum, or assign a project that is so open-ended that students can’t figure out where to begin. I also think it’s important to acknowledge the ability of an individual group of students, or even outside factors, in shaping the environment. With that in mind, I found bell hooks’ anecdote about her early morning class to be especially liberating to read: I’ve been there in my first year of teaching, and it took a really long time to stop blaming myself.
However, with all our discussions over teaching, it’s important to mention the practicalities–which is why I think of Omolade. As I said, I’ve stopped blaming myself for the two classrooms (one first period, one last period) where my students failed to really engage as a community. At the same time, my job is to create an exciting classroom for the students who are in front of me, not the students I wish I had–and so if that means making my classroom less so-called “liberatory” to meet the needs of the students I have, I need to make that decision. Excitement over learning is different than learning for liberation–but it is a process. For example, if my students are excited over playing a Kahoot game, they are not necessarily engaging in higher order thinking, but they are excited nevertheless, which can lead into more liberatory learning. For a long time, I resisted learning by rote, memorization, and games–but it’s important to realize that these activities can build engagement and liberation the same.
Finally, when I think of what a liberatory classroom feels like, I think about bell hooks’ dedication: “to all my students/especially to LaRon/who dances with angels/in gratitude for all the times we start over — begin again — /renew our joy in learning.” Upon researching this line, I learned that hooks wrote this dedication in honor of a student who once danced with her in the classroom, but passed away at a tragically young age. A month and a half ago, for the first time, I lost a former student: an incredibly intelligent young man named Alek. Alek struggled with mental illness during the two years he was in my classroom and sometimes completely disengaged, but more often than that he astounded his classmates with his analysis, historical connections, and fierce debating skills. He’d hate that I was saying this, but when I think of hooks’ dedication (in both senses)–when I think of Alek and the relationship that we had– the ups and the downs–the profound impact that his thinking had on me and how much I learned from him–the note I wrote him on his high school graduation day–that to me is a liberatory classroom.