Discussion Questions, Group 2, Leader: Molly Marotta
1. In reference to the Freire article: How does the class structure and democratic government, as they function in the United States, both perpetuate and resist oppression? Do you consider our current situation to be moving towards sincere dialogue? If you see a need for further (or initial) liberation of the oppressed, how can the current political structure (republic/democracy) impede this liberation?e
2. In reference to the Bourdieu article and the link: Programs such as the CES aim to provide more individualized learning experiences; could the limited nature of such programs actually be creating larger deficits and surpluses of social capital? Do you believe that the success of these unique programs will lead to their spread, and, ultimately, a greater sense of equality, or is our system too engrained as the mode of producing cultural/educational capital?
1. Thinking back to the documentary, People Like Us, do you think that the relationship of the oppressor and the oppressed as described in the Freire article is based strongly on class structure which includes the idea of "having" capital, or does something else resonate into this dichotomy?
2. According to the Bourdieu essay, all forms of capital are based strictly on economic capital. Is this true? If yes, do you think the structure of how we determine the values of various capitals has changed throughout history? If not, what is another strong capital value other than the economic base that holds other forms of capital together?
1. "The oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom. Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility". This quote in Freire's article claims that any who have or are oppressed need to constantly be in the pursuit of freedom and that freedom is the essential “condition for the quest for human completion”. Do you agree with this statement? Can you think of examples in America’s history that support this claim?
2. Bourdieu states that the two following views need to be replaced, “…on the one hand, economism, which, on the ground that every type of capital is reducible in the last analysis to economic capital, ignores what makes the specific efficacy of the other types of capital, and on the other hand, semiologism…which reduces social exchanges of phenomena of communication and ignores the brutal fact of universal reducibility to economics” in order to understand the “real logic of the functioning of capital, the conversions from one type to another, and the law of conservation which governs them.” Why does he believe this? What evidence do we have to support this notion?
1. Friere argues that only the oppressed have the power to liberate themselves and their oppressors, who have also been dehumanized by oppressing others. Friere states that oppressors "cannot find in [their] power the strength to liberate the oppressed or themselves" and also states that "only power that springs from weakness" will be strong enough to liberate both oppressor and oppressed. Do you agree with this? To what extent might this argument take away responsibility from the oppressor and lay some blame on the oppressed? On the other hand, to what extent does this argument empower oppressed people and disempower oppressors?
2. Do you believe that in struggle for liberation, the oppressed can sometimes become, as Friere says, oppressors or "suboppressors"? Do agree with him that the oppressed can never initiate violence? Can you think of any instances or examples where you have seen this?
3. Can you think of ways in which liberation might be painful, beyond the sacrifices oppressed peoples must make to gain liberation in the first place?
4. Thinking about the Bourdieu reading, in what way have cultural and social forms of capital functioned in your life and, more specifically, your education? Do you believe that, as Bourdieu says, cultural and social capital can sometimes be acquired, rather than simply inherited? Can you think of any examples?
5. Do you agree that institutionalized cultural capital (i.e. academic qualifications, as Bourdieu talks about it) is a form of cultural capital that has "relative autonomy vis-a-vis is bearer"? Can you find any limitations to this train of thought? Can this form of cultural capital really be posssessed by "any given agent?"
6. Bourdieu says that the "people who are known," the nobles, or those with great social capital, are totally perfectly visible, known to all and are allowed to spreak on the behalf of the whole group, represent the whole group and exercise in the name of the whole group. Where have you seen this idea function--in the media, in politics, in the realm of education?
1)According to Bourdieu (1986), social capital is measured by “the size of the network of connections” you possess, as well as the group you are a member of. To increase your social capital, you essentially pick out a specific set of connections as an “investment strategy” (p.249) expecting to profit from these relationships in the short or long term. Assuming this strategic quest to find connections transcends into the school arena, were these social politics a visible mechanism in your school? Do you remember students seeking to enter certain “cliques” in order to increase their “social capital”? If so, do you think these students were actually consciously attempting to increase their network of connections to raise their overall “capital”, as Bordieu would claim, or was there another reason behind all of this?
2)Paulo Freire (2007) strongly believes that political action to suppress oppression should be strictly pedagogical. If oppression should end, it should happen solely through a humanizing pedagogy “in which the revolutionary leadership establishes a permanent relationship of dialogue with the oppressed” (p.68). Do you think this is possible? Why or why not? Think about this in terms of school bullies and their victims. Do you think a school could implement a humanizing pedagogy of oppression through dialogue with the victims of bullies (the oppressed), in which they must have first admitted that they were “destroyed” by the bullies (the oppressors)? Could this work? What would get in the way?
We ended up discussing a lot about whether social and cultural capital is something that is acquired and used consciously or subconsciously. A member of our group discussed how she juggled different groups of friends in college due to different cultural capital between each of the groups.
We also thought a lot about whether cultural capital is something that defines us as people or whether we are able to break free of it and live within a community or society without being concerned about the capital we carry.
Discussion Questions, Group 2, Leader: Molly Marotta
ReplyDelete1. In reference to the Freire article: How does the class structure and democratic government, as they function in the United States, both perpetuate and resist oppression? Do you consider our current situation to be moving towards sincere dialogue? If you see a need for further (or initial) liberation of the oppressed, how can the current political structure (republic/democracy) impede this liberation?e
2. In reference to the Bourdieu article and the link: Programs such as the CES aim to provide more individualized learning experiences; could the limited nature of such programs actually be creating larger deficits and surpluses of social capital? Do you believe that the success of these unique programs will lead to their spread, and, ultimately, a greater sense of equality, or is our system too engrained as the mode of producing cultural/educational capital?
Nicole Buck - Group 7
ReplyDelete1. Thinking back to the documentary, People Like Us, do you think that the relationship of the oppressor and the oppressed as described in the Freire article is based strongly on class structure which includes the idea of "having" capital, or does something else resonate into this dichotomy?
2. According to the Bourdieu essay, all forms of capital are based strictly on economic capital. Is this true? If yes, do you think the structure of how we determine the values of various capitals has changed throughout history? If not, what is another strong capital value other than the economic base that holds other forms of capital together?
Cecilia Rannefors-Group 1
ReplyDelete1. "The oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom. Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility". This quote in Freire's article claims that any who have or are oppressed need to constantly be in the pursuit of freedom and that freedom is the essential “condition for the quest for human completion”. Do you agree with this statement? Can you think of examples in America’s history that support this claim?
2. Bourdieu states that the two following views need to be replaced, “…on the one hand, economism, which, on the ground that every type of capital is reducible in the last analysis to economic capital, ignores what makes the specific efficacy of the other types of capital, and on the other hand, semiologism…which reduces social exchanges of phenomena of communication and ignores the brutal fact of universal reducibility to economics” in order to understand the “real logic of the functioning of capital, the conversions from one type to another, and the law of conservation which governs them.” Why does he believe this? What evidence do we have to support this notion?
Melanie Courtemanche -- Group 4
ReplyDelete1. Friere argues that only the oppressed have the power to liberate themselves and their oppressors, who have also been dehumanized by oppressing others. Friere states that oppressors "cannot find in [their] power the strength to liberate the oppressed or themselves" and also states that "only power that springs from weakness" will be strong enough to liberate both oppressor and oppressed. Do you agree with this? To what extent might this argument take away responsibility from the oppressor and lay some blame on the oppressed? On the other hand, to what extent does this argument empower oppressed people and disempower oppressors?
2. Do you believe that in struggle for liberation, the oppressed can sometimes become, as Friere says, oppressors or "suboppressors"? Do agree with him that the oppressed can never initiate violence? Can you think of any instances or examples where you have seen this?
3. Can you think of ways in which liberation might be painful, beyond the sacrifices oppressed peoples must make to gain liberation in the first place?
4. Thinking about the Bourdieu reading, in what way have cultural and social forms of capital functioned in your life and, more specifically, your education? Do you believe that, as Bourdieu says, cultural and social capital can sometimes be acquired, rather than simply inherited? Can you think of any examples?
5. Do you agree that institutionalized cultural capital (i.e. academic qualifications, as Bourdieu talks about it) is a form of cultural capital that has "relative autonomy vis-a-vis is bearer"? Can you find any limitations to this train of thought? Can this form of cultural capital really be posssessed by "any given agent?"
6. Bourdieu says that the "people who are known," the nobles, or those with great social capital, are totally perfectly visible, known to all and are allowed to spreak on the behalf of the whole group, represent the whole group and exercise in the name of the whole group. Where have you seen this idea function--in the media, in politics, in the realm of education?
DeleteSofia Garza-Villalobos- Group 5
ReplyDelete1)According to Bourdieu (1986), social capital is measured by “the size of the network of connections” you possess, as well as the group you are a member of. To increase your social capital, you essentially pick out a specific set of connections as an “investment strategy” (p.249) expecting to profit from these relationships in the short or long term. Assuming this strategic quest to find connections transcends into the school arena, were these social politics a visible mechanism in your school? Do you remember students seeking to enter certain “cliques” in order to increase their “social capital”? If so, do you think these students were actually consciously attempting to increase their network of connections to raise their overall “capital”, as Bordieu would claim, or was there another reason behind all of this?
2)Paulo Freire (2007) strongly believes that political action to suppress oppression should be strictly pedagogical. If oppression should end, it should happen solely through a humanizing pedagogy “in which the revolutionary leadership establishes a permanent relationship of dialogue with the oppressed” (p.68). Do you think this is possible? Why or why not? Think about this in terms of school bullies and their victims. Do you think a school could implement a humanizing pedagogy of oppression through dialogue with the victims of bullies (the oppressed), in which they must have first admitted that they were “destroyed” by the bullies (the oppressors)? Could this work? What would get in the way?
Group 6
ReplyDeleteLate post!
We ended up discussing a lot about whether social and cultural capital is something that is acquired and used consciously or subconsciously. A member of our group discussed how she juggled different groups of friends in college due to different cultural capital between each of the groups.
We also thought a lot about whether cultural capital is something that defines us as people or whether we are able to break free of it and live within a community or society without being concerned about the capital we carry.
-Tim Broderick