Delpit: The Silenced Dialogue

As I was reading Delpit, I came to the section on the five aspects of power. The fifth one is "Those with the power are frequently least aware of - or least willing to acknowledge - its existence. Those with the least power are often most aware of its existence." I immediately thought of the "luxury of oblivion" in Johnson's book.

This connection is important because it reduces the deniability of the idea, which is what those people who have the power would want to be able to do so as to go on being oblivious and remove themselves from the uncomfortable ideas that they participate in the culture of power and even that they themselves are part of the dominant, powerful, and therefore oppressive culture. Delpit uses a great example when she refers back to the vignettes that open the chapter. That the white people would refer to research to validate their own arguments and would not accept personal experience as valid support from the person of color's side of the argument. That was a cultural code that they would access to "win the argument" but in effect they were invalidating the other person completely and silencing them.

In Johnson, the oblivion is part of denial altogether. In Delpit, this lack of awareness leads to communication breakdowns where by indirect communications are meant to deemphasize power between teachers and students (or colleagues or anyone) instead contributes to the student's confusion and alienation by the teacher who is using codes (whether they realize it or not). Therefore, the power is not actually being reduced at all, only veiled (as the power is there whether or not we admit it) and the student is never taught the rules that they are being subjected to. By not being explicit in teaching and in communication, teachers are neglecting to help students succeed in a world where there is a culture of power.

I am glad that Delpit explains that teaching the cultural codes and being explicit in language teaching of the culture of power does not mean negating the other, but that teachers need to do both - teach the culture of power and be explicit enough to also point to the beauty and validity and value of other cultures and languages. By this I think she is saying that we need not admit to the culture of power in a way that means we are hanging our heads in shame but in a way that says it is true that this exists, but it is only one section of a rich and varied quilt of colors and styles that we can draw from and examine and discuss. In this way we elevate the conversation and our society to a new level.

Johnson: Privilege, Power, and Difference

Johnson argues that the problems of difference belong to everyone, and that the social grouping that a person belongs to and the power associated with that group does not necessarily reflect on that person as an individual. He is explaining the role of societal values and how they endow some with power and privilege while others are denied. These advantages or disadvantages can be bestowed based on factors such as race, gender, sexuality, and economic status, as well as a number of other attributes.

What I found most clever and interesting is his attempt to disarm the defensiveness of those who have the power and privilege and through denial and defensiveness hold back our society's opportunities to move toward what Johnson thinks of as the ultimate goal - to change the world and eliminate these difference based troubles that we share.

For example, I have always wondered why the "family values" people think that allowing two people in love to get married somehow takes away from "family values". But this is a prevalent argument against gay marriage. Why do they feel so threatened? Johnson also addresses this "fear of the other" and dismantles the belief that it is an inborn part of our nature but rather a learned idea. I can see this because I grew up curious about people who are different from me and have an affinity to seek out and discover what I have not yet experienced in my social exchanges.

I also connected with Johnson's examples of "Mama's Boy" vs. "Daddy's Girl" because I experienced it with my own children... It was so cute and sweet that my daughter was a daddy's girl, but then after my son was born when I would snuggle him (same as I did my daughter) I was accused of turning him into a mama's boy.

Lastly, I smirked about the "diversity training" which I have heard about and was spoofed on "The Office" an so was surprised to find that they have any affect. But then, at the heart of this section on unearned advantage vs. conferred dominance was a kernel of the secret of "the threat". What if there isn't enough to go around? Why should one person give up the power and privilege and risk not having all that they want? It is easier to believe that they deserve it or earned it, rather than that it was given to them. This is what I fear will hold us back from Johnson's goal... that the people we need most to enact change are the people who least want it, those with the most power and privilege, those with the most "to lose". Or at least that is how they see things through their "pane".

IAT

I thought it was a very interesting test. Incredibly simple yet telling I suppose... but then I had little to no preference for my own race. So I feel pretty good about that. If I had come out with a strong preference for my own race I suppose I would be considering all the missteps that the test could cause. That I had trouble remembering which topics were on which side when all four were up, etc. Then again I am married to a Black man and have two gorgeous bi-racial children with him. However, as a white person I am also privy to the things that whites say to each other about affirmative action, black names like Jaquan, and even more blatant biases. When whites say ignorant things about other races and cultures I feel embarrassed for them and a little for myself even though I know that one person cannot speak for a whole race, i wish people could be ... smarter (if that is the right word) about understanding others.

I really liked the piece on Date Line about how whites are embarrassed to have a preference towards their own race but blacks are proud of it, that they have overcome societal biases that influence them against their own race. On the flip side, is a white person prejudiced if the test reveals a strong preference for white? This difference of interpretation demonstrates the level of discomfort many people still feel about race in this country. I wonder if "white guilt" can ever be washed away entirely...

To begin...

I am Jennifer Walker: Teacher, Wife, Mother, M.Ed TESL candidate & therefore also sleep deprived zombie. So far so good. A new marathon begins...