“In
contrast to coercive relations of power, collaborative relations of power
operate on the assumption that power is not a fixed pre-determined quantity but
rather can be generated in
interpersonal and intergroup relations. In other words, participants in the
relationship are empowered through
their collaboration such that each is more affirmed in her or his identity and
has a greater sense of efficacy to create change in his or her life or social
situation. Thus, power is created in the relationship and shared among
participants. The power relationship is additive
rather than subtractive. Power is created with others rather than being imposed on or exercised over others.” (p. 16)
This
is from the first chapter of Negotiating
Identities. The power struggle Cummins writes about is foundational to his
arguments in the following chapters. Through this quote, the author suggests
the debate over bilingual education and teaching students from minority
backgrounds is a deeper societal issue that is played out in the classroom. Cummins
argues that power is not a zero-sum game; there is not a fixed amount of power
that only a limited amount of people can hold. Rather, power can be created
collaboratively. In relationships, each participant has the possibility of
gaining power. Schools, Cummins argues, often operate under coercive relations
of power, in which “the division of resources and status in the society” is
maintained and legitimated (p. 15). This means that the teacher has the power,
exerted through authority, culture, and language use; students – especially
minority students and/or students who speak an L1 other than English – do not. Yet
schools should operate to generate and share power with their students.
I agree: the classroom should be a place of collaborating to create a sense of power in students. I want my students to feel empowered to achieve more academically and personally. Cummins ties this empowerment to identity: students’ identities are being shaped in the classroom. Either an oppressed identity or an empowered identity can be the outcome. For my students, many of whom are of a minority ethnic background (Latino) and nearly half of whom are English Language Learners, empowerment needs to happen academically. Many of them are in a home and community environment that respects their culture and heritage; for my students, their cultural background is not lost. Their identity may be “Mexican third grade student, sister, and aunt.” Very few would add the words “writer, mathematician, artist, sports player,” etc. In my work as an educator, I can use my students’ cultural and linguistic background to promote academic success.
In my classroom now, the students are embarking on a cross-curricular study of American heritage and culture, including their own. Based solely on their eagerness to complete the project, many students see this as an unusual but exciting opportunity to learn about themselves in an academic context. This is a step toward empowering students: the project helps publicly legitimize their identities. But there is more to empowerment than opening up identity options that include a student’s linguistic and cultural background.
Lisa Delpit’s “The Silenced Dialogue” (2006) came to mind as I read these chapters. She references the “culture of power” frequently and asserts that students who are not part of that culture – i.e. the students to whom Cummins refers – need to be taught the language and rules of that culture explicitly. That is empowering, according to Delpit. I am struggling with these two viewpoints on how to appropriately exert power in the classroom. While Cummins focuses on English Language Learners and Delpit on students of color, both would argue, I believe, that classrooms are mini-societies in which power is used and transferred. Cummins argues that students should be taught in such a way that they can know their identities and then “challenge the prevailing attitudes in the wider society” (p. 18). I do not think Depit would disagree. But she would add that in order to challenge attitudes pervasive in society, students need to be taught the language with which to challenge – the language of power. Again, I do not think Cummins would disagree, necessarily. But the two viewpoints are even stronger together. Teaching the language of power is also empowering students to effect change presently and in the future.
Both authors propose the vital role of the classroom teacher in upholding his or her students and providing them with power. These viewpoints, which converge at many points, affect my ethnographic research by providing a lens through which to critically view my school and my classroom environment. Are the cultures of the students upheld and honored? Are students being empowered? What is the definition of empowerment, according to the school officials and teachers? As I spend more time in my classroom and with my students, I will play a part in making these views a reality.
I agree: the classroom should be a place of collaborating to create a sense of power in students. I want my students to feel empowered to achieve more academically and personally. Cummins ties this empowerment to identity: students’ identities are being shaped in the classroom. Either an oppressed identity or an empowered identity can be the outcome. For my students, many of whom are of a minority ethnic background (Latino) and nearly half of whom are English Language Learners, empowerment needs to happen academically. Many of them are in a home and community environment that respects their culture and heritage; for my students, their cultural background is not lost. Their identity may be “Mexican third grade student, sister, and aunt.” Very few would add the words “writer, mathematician, artist, sports player,” etc. In my work as an educator, I can use my students’ cultural and linguistic background to promote academic success.
In my classroom now, the students are embarking on a cross-curricular study of American heritage and culture, including their own. Based solely on their eagerness to complete the project, many students see this as an unusual but exciting opportunity to learn about themselves in an academic context. This is a step toward empowering students: the project helps publicly legitimize their identities. But there is more to empowerment than opening up identity options that include a student’s linguistic and cultural background.
Lisa Delpit’s “The Silenced Dialogue” (2006) came to mind as I read these chapters. She references the “culture of power” frequently and asserts that students who are not part of that culture – i.e. the students to whom Cummins refers – need to be taught the language and rules of that culture explicitly. That is empowering, according to Delpit. I am struggling with these two viewpoints on how to appropriately exert power in the classroom. While Cummins focuses on English Language Learners and Delpit on students of color, both would argue, I believe, that classrooms are mini-societies in which power is used and transferred. Cummins argues that students should be taught in such a way that they can know their identities and then “challenge the prevailing attitudes in the wider society” (p. 18). I do not think Depit would disagree. But she would add that in order to challenge attitudes pervasive in society, students need to be taught the language with which to challenge – the language of power. Again, I do not think Cummins would disagree, necessarily. But the two viewpoints are even stronger together. Teaching the language of power is also empowering students to effect change presently and in the future.
Both authors propose the vital role of the classroom teacher in upholding his or her students and providing them with power. These viewpoints, which converge at many points, affect my ethnographic research by providing a lens through which to critically view my school and my classroom environment. Are the cultures of the students upheld and honored? Are students being empowered? What is the definition of empowerment, according to the school officials and teachers? As I spend more time in my classroom and with my students, I will play a part in making these views a reality.
I love the way you connected this chapter with Lisa Delpit's "The Silenced Dialogue", and I completely agree with you: Though both arguments address different populations of students, they both state that the solution to empowering these populations lies within the teacher. When a teacher creates a collaborative relationship of power with their students, while teaching them the tools to achieve in the wider society, not only will they be able to promote those students' success, but also be able to begin incorporating "writer, mathematician, artist, sports player" into those students' identities.
ReplyDeleteThe important thing to remember while trying to build this kind of classroom culture is to create an inclusive environment that validates and celebrates each student's individual background, so as to emphasize the important role that they as individuals can play in the wider society, regardless of their ethnicity, first language, or family culture. This will work to empower the students in their own identities while you give them mechanical skills to succeed in and potentially change that wider society. After all, the best way to change a system is from within!