“I consider the fundamental theme of our epoch to be that of domination—which implies its opposite, the theme of liberation, as the objective to be achieved” (Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 93).
“[T]he oppressors attempt to destroy in men their quality as ‘considerers’ of the world. Since the oppressors cannot totally achieve this destruction, they must mythicize the world. In order to present for the consideration of the oppressed and subjugated a world of deceit designed to increase their alienation and passivity, the oppressors develop a series of methods precluding any presentation of the world as a problem and showing it rather as a fixed entity, as something given—something to which men, as mere spectators, must adapt” (Freire 135).
“Class conflict is another concept which upsets the oppressors, since they do not wish to consider themselves an oppressive class. Unable to deny, try as they may, the existence of social classes, they preach the need for understanding and harmony between those who buy and those who are obliged to sell their labor. However, the unconcealable antagonism which exists between the two classes makes this ‘harmony’ impossible” (Freire 138-139).
“Cultural action either serves domination (consciously or unconsciously) or it serves the liberation of men” (Freire 180).
“Cultural literacy constitutes the only sure avenue of opportunity for disadvantaged children, the only reliable way of combating the social determinism that now condemns them to remain in the same social and educational condition as their parents” (Hirsch xiii).
“The anthropological view stresses the universal fact that a human group must have effective communications to function effectively, that effective communications require shared culture, and that shared culture requires transmission of specific information to children. Literacy, an essential aim of education in the modern world, is no autonomous, empty skill but depends upon literature culture” (Hirsch xviii).
“The recently rediscovered insight that literacy is more than a skill is based upon knowledge that all of us unconsciously have about language. We know instinctively that to understand what somebody is saying, we must understand more than the surface meanings of words; we have to understand the context as well. The need for background information applies all the more to reading and writing. To grasp the words on a page we have to know a lot of information that isn’t set down on the page” (Hirsch 3).
“The pluralist approach to multiculturalism promotes a broader interpretation of the common American culture and seeks due recognition for the ways that the nation’s many racial, ethnic, and cultural groups have transformed the national culture. The pluralists say, in effect, ‘American culture belongs to us, all of us; the United States is us, and we remake it in every generation.’ But particularists have no interest in extending or revising American culture; indeed, they deny that a common culture exists. Particularists reject any accommodation among groups, any interactions that blur the distinct lines between them. The brand of history that they espouse is one in which everyone is a descendant of victims or oppressors. By taking this approach, they fan and re0-creat ancient hatreds in each new generation” (Diane Ravitch, “Multiculturalism: E Pluribus Plures,” The Key Reporter, Vol. 56, No. 1, Autumn 1990, 1-4; reprinted in Kaleidoscope: Readings in Education, 9TH edition. Edited by Kevin Ryan and James M. Cooper. Houghton Mifflin 2001.)
“No doubt Europe has done terrible things, not least to itself. But what culture has not? . . . The sins of the West are no worse than the sins of Asia or of the middle East or of Africa. . . . There remains, however, a crucial difference between the Western tradition and the others. The crimes of the West have produced their own antidotes. They have provoked great moments to end slavery, to raise the status of women, to abolish torture, to combat racism, to defend freedom of inquiry and expression, to advance personal liberty and human rights. [. . .] Whatever the particular crimes of Europe, that continent is also the source—the unique source—of those liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and cultural freedom that constitute our most precious legacy and to which most of the world today aspires [. . .] (Arthur Schlesinger, The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society, 127).
“If we plan to survive as a species on this planet we must certainly create multicultural curricula that educate our children to the differing perspectives of our diverse population. In part, the problems we see exhibited in school by African American children and children of other oppressed minorities can be traced to this lack of a curriculum in which they can find represented the intellectual achievements of people who look like themselves” (Lisa Delpit, cited in Brave New Schools).
“Multiculturalism asserts that people with
different roots can co-exist, that they can learn to read the image-banks of
others, that they can and should look across the frontiers of race, language,
gender and age without prejudice or illusion, and learn to think against the
background of a hybridized society. It
proposes—modestly enough—that some of the most interesting things in history
and culture happen at the interface between cultures.
It wants to study border situations, not only because they are
fascinating in themselves, but because understanding them may bring with it a
little hope for the world. [. . .] To
learn other languages, to deal with other customs and creeds from direct
experience of them and with a degree of humility: these are self-evidently good,
as cultural provincialism is not” (Robert Hughes, Culture
of Complaint).
“In introducing the [. . .] computer to the classroom, we shall be breaking a four-hundred-year-old truce between the gregariousness and openness fostered by orality and the introspection and isolation fostered by the printed word. Orality stresses group learning, cooperation, and a sense of social responsibility. [. . .] Print stresses individualized learning competition, and a personal autonomy. [. . .] Will the widespread use of computers in the classroom defeat once and for all the claims of communal speech? Will the computer raise egocentrism to the status of a virtue?” (Neil Postman, Technopoly, 17).
“The Technopoly story is without a moral center. It puts in its place efficiency, interest, and economic advance. It promises heaven on earth through the conveniences of technological progress. It casts aside all traditional narratives and symbols that suggest stability and orderliness, and tells, instead, of a life of skills, technical expertise, and the ecstasy of consumption. Its purpose is to produce functionaries for an ongoing Technopoly. It answers Bloom by saying that the story of Western civilization is irrelevant; it answers the political left by saying there is indeed a common culture whose name is Technopoly and whose key symbol is now the computer, toward which there must be neither irreverence nor blasphemy. It even answers Hirsch by saying that there are items on his list that, if thought about too deeply and taken too seriously, will interfere with the progress of technology” (Postman, 186).
“The curriculum is not, in fact, a ‘course of study’ at all but a meaningless hodgepodge of subjects. It does not even put forward a clear vision of what constitutes an educated person, unless it is a person who possesses ‘skills.’ In other words, a technocrat’s ideal—a person with no commitment and no point of view but with plenty of marketable skills” (Postman, 186).
“Modern ideologies treat values either as extensions of the private interests of conflicting groups, or as subjective consciousness concealing a materialist dialectic of history, or as the public expression of private emotional needs.” (Ed Schwartz, “Civic Ideals and Modern Institutions” 1974)
“The old American homogeneity disappeared over a century ago, never to return. Ever since, we have been preoccupied in one way or another with the problem, as Herbert Croly phrased it 80 years back in The Promise of American Life, ‘of preventing such divisions from dissolving the society into which they enter--of keeping such a highly differentiated society fundamentally sound and whole.’ This required, Croly believed, an ‘ultimate bond of union.’ There was only one way by which solidarity could be restored, ‘and that is by means of a democratic social ideal. . . .’
“The genius of America lies in its capacity to forge a single nation from peoples of remarkably diverse racial, religious, and ethnic origins. It has done so because democratic principles provide both the philosophical bond of union and practical experience in civic participation. The American Creed envisages a nation composed of individuals making their own choices and accountable to themselves, not a nation based on inviolable ethnic communities. The Constitution turns on individual rights, not on group rights. Law, in order to rectify past wrongs, has from time to time (and in my view often properly so) acknowledged the claims of groups; but this is the exception, not the rule.
“Our democratic principles contemplate an open society founded on tolerance of differences and on mutual respect. In practice, America has been more open to some than to others. But is more open to all today than it was yesterday and is likely to be even more open tomorrow than today. The steady movement of American life has been from exclusion to inclusion.
“Historically and culturally this republic has an Anglo-Saxon base; but from the start the base has been modified, enriched, and reconstituted by transfusions from other continents and civilizations. The movement from exclusion to inclusion causes a constant revision in the texture of our culture. The ethnic transfusions affect all aspects of American life--our politics, our literature, our music, our painting, our movies, our cuisine, our customs, our dreams.” (Schlesinger 134-135)
“ [M]inorities discover in the au courant scholarship a justification for the systematic promotion of their grievances against the basic systems of American society which are now commonly considered ‘institutionally racist.’ These systems--such as democracy, the free market, due process, and so on--are procedural, and are intended to establish a neutral framework that allows all citizens to pursue happiness and safeguard their rights. Such institutions, however, can prove to be obstacles to the new social agenda. Minority demands, for example, always run the risk of being thwarted by the majority, which in a democracy can outvote such claims. The au courant scholarship counsels minorities that these ostensibly neutral principles and systems are in fact ideologically loaded, and in some cases mere facades for bigotry.”
(Dinesh D’Souza, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. New York: Macmillan, 1991).
