The ideas
of knowledge, learning, and higher education all have one sticky word in common
– legitimacy. There seems to be a heavy gray area in that it is difficult to
answer, globally, these three
questions:
What
is legitimate knowledge?
What
is legitimate learning?
What
makes a legitimate higher institution?
We may be able to regionally answer these questions with the
tools given to us by our immediate environment, but shouldn’t we be able to
share the idea of such knowledge with everyone – not just the
like-minded/raised?
To begin, I
don’t really agree with Gates’ view of Race in his piece Integrating the American Mind. It seems to me as if he sees it as a
quota needed to be filled for a diverse campus. This take on campus diversity
is too calculated to encompass any ounce of true compassion for the people he’s
actually speaking about. Diversity should not have to be forced and labeled as
such. I think what he speaks of is a type of racism – its just profiling in a
different way – purposefully including
someone somewhere as opposed to excluding
them for the very same reason – their race.
I do,
however, like how Gates speaks of personal identity in relation to heritage in
this piece. He quotes Richard Wright:
When I look out upon the vast stretches
of this earth inhabited by brown, black and yellow men . . . my reactions and
attitudes are of the West. (Gates 345)
He is speaking about the idea that there is essentially a
disconnect between heritage and our view of it because we are not educated in
the ways of our heritage. We have been shaped and educated in a certain way by
our current culture/society to react how we do to the knowledge of our
heritage. This could be a really interesting idea to consider when talking
about advertising. When we look at an advertisement and feel ourselves relating
to it, are we actually connecting to a common history or are we simply enacting
what our society has encouraged us to connect to in certain instances?
The next
logical step would be to question this specific encouragement from our society
– and how what/how we learn affects
our vantage point on the world and knowledge available to us. I think it could be a positive idea to learn without center – or without one
central basis of what is accepted as universal knowledge (when in actuality it
is solely western and isolating for students). This could derail the common misconception that disagreement and
argument are bad. If we are all free to come from a different vantage point and
start and stop, and thus learn, from different areas, then we will feel a
greater sense of freedom to stand more firmly behind our knowledge. There would
be a more globally open give-and-take system on what qualifies as knowledge worth knowing. W. Ross
Winterowd states relatedly on this:
We need other principles to account
for the force of such sentences as I
command you to stop, for we feel, I think, that accounting for the force of
this and others in terms of benefaction is highly tenuous and makes us uneasy.
(602)
Exposing and confronting this common misconception that
confidence in opinion is negative will only help to strengthen a developing
idea among not just students. Argument and confidence in anyone’s ideas are
capable of expanding them. If society
could operate as a cohesive institution that shares information and opinions,
then our collective understanding on subjects would be much more positively
multilayered and complex.
This also
relays over into the realm of Wikipedia and its subjective legitimacy. As Editing
Out Obscenity points out, Wikipedia, specifically, is only considered a
legitimate resource by some. Not all teachers allow Wikipedia to be used as a
credible source. Some do. This is where a disjunct develops between each
students’ learning. Yet, again, I find this a positive idea – to not have a
concrete center for what knowledge is “legitimate” or not. This relativity, in
my mind, creates a more broad result in that each student will cultivate a
unique educational experience – the same frame, just a slightly different
pathway. This also promotes for the student to do more self-guided
investigation about what they learn. Through discussion, students may find that
they disagree on some subjects (such as the legitimacy of Wikipedia) and would
have to do further research and exploration in an effort to come to some sort
of consensus. In leveling the playing field on what is considered the correct
knowledge to know, I think people would find a more passionate personal drive
to hunt for information on their own – instead of being spoon-fed by an
institution.
It is true that American learning is very skewed, as Gates describes. It is important to note that it is not meant to be this way; that the topics which are left out are not done so out of avarice or scorn. Instead, it is done out of creating what is known as “common knowledge” or what has been decided that everyone should know. The criteria for such knowledge is ambiguous, and leaves us with the question of remedy- how do to fix this situation, to have a more ‘diversified’ knowledge base? One way to create diversity in education and knowledge is to create a shared, or integrated, learning experience: one that does not rely on a single person’s knowledge, but the collective knowledge of the masses. This is where Wikipedia really shines.
ReplyDeleteBrittany pose a question: What role does Wikipedia play in the effort to create a more integrated learning atmosphere? Wikipedia is a space where a group of people can come together to piece together knowledge… essentially creating something that is greater than the sum of its parts. By incorporating everyone’s viewpoint, we cancel out bias and the need to scan for untruths.
I enjoyed your analysis of both articles, each piece gave perspective to public conversation, and each analysis provided your insight on the subject. I was a bit perplexed when I began reading Gates’ article. I do agree that American learning always has room for improvement, but his view of campus diversity is not justified. I do agree with you that Gates sees this problem as a “quota” needing to be met. This misconception can be related to one of the author’s main points, that an individual is educated in what is socially acceptable in culture versus the way their heritage intended.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Hood’s article I do her perspective that there is not a “concrete” center for whether knowledge is credible or not, instead the process of knowledge is similar to the writing process--it is never ending. This idea of never-ending knowledge and writing is what makes an audience active in the public conversation, trying to make sense of it while reading.