JOSE AUGUSTO COSSA, Ph.D. (A.K.A. ZECA)

Summary Definition of the Five Qualities of Power (Cossa 2008)

2011-04-29T17:14:00.000-04:00

*Qualities of Power*	*Definition*
Hermeneutical	Interpreter’s proximity to the authorial intent of a given text
Information	The ability to generate and disseminate what is considered true and valuable information at a given time
Manipulative	The ability to persuade another to adopt a perception and behavior that benefits the persuader
Monetary	The influence one exerts on another through the ability to provide monetary rewards or incentives
Regulatory	The ability to make rules or give directives that are perceived as binding

Source: Cossa 2008

System Transfer, Education, and Development in Mozambique

2011-03-09T19:19:00.000-05:00

International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, Vol 6, No 2 (2011)

Abstract

In this study the author used conceptual historical method to assess the phenomenon of system transfer and the association between education and development in Mozambique. The assessment was administered through critical analysis of documents pertaining to the Salazar (1924-1966), Machel (1975-1986), and Chissano (1986-2005) administrations. The findings were that (a) the colonial government created economic and educational systems for colonizing Mozambique, whereas the Machel and Chissano administrations adapted foreign systems of government and education (i.e., Socialism, Soviet, Democracy, Portuguese, etc.), to their particular context without altering the inherent theoretical basis of the systems transferred; (b) the Machel and Chissano administrations, implicitly or explicitly, perceived the relationship between education and development as circular causality rather than a unidirectional linear causality, while the Salazar administration perceived it as unidirectional linear causality; and (c) while the Machel and Chissano administrations focused on primary education, literacy campaigns, and education of women and girls, they differed in the reasons for such focus.

Full Text: PDF

Power Dynamics and the People's Uprising

2011-02-11T17:57:00.000-05:00

In the past few weeks, we have witnessed the uprisings of the people of Tunisia, Jordan, and Egypt. We have learned how the governments we, at some point, admired can easily underestimate our ability to see injustices perpetrated on us, the people. The institutions and individuals we have once entrusted with our future quickly betray our trust in their promises and the hope we once held becomes shattered by repeated disappointment. This can be true about governments, leadership, politico-economic systems, educational systems, and other institutions or systems.

In my book Power, Politics, and Higher Education... I have addressed five categories of power that speak to the situation in Egypt. Clear instances of hermeneutical power (HP) were evident in the obscurity of meaning in the speech delivered by now former president Mubarak. Mubarak crafted a message replete of evasiveness and obscurity of intention that maintained the people in the shadows and analysts/critics confused as to what the implications were; however, the people's resilience countered this sort of power and demonstrated to the world that it only takes a "no deal" response from the assumed beneficiaries/subjects of negotiations, dictations, and the like arrangements to topple the undesirable powerful systems and the people behind them.

Hermeneutical power is very subtle because those who create documents also carry the ultimate power to interpret them, so the best counter to such power is not to try to negotiate from the terms established (and the language therein) but to completely renounce their legitimacy and assert new terms in which the assumed beneficiaries/subjects participate in their framing. We have witnessed a new strategy to dealing with hermeneutical power; a strategy that can be replicated in negotiations intending to end power imbalances and injustices in various arenas of interrelations between entities and institutions--both nationally and globally. In summary, an African lesson to the world.

Informational power is more readily identifiable, but it is still subtle in that it requires a demystifying of who the guardians of information are, what kind of information is considered legitimate, and what kind of information is to be held as valuable (for well-being, development, enhancement of acceptable knowledge, etc.). For the people, new developments such as WikiLeaks, social networking (e.g., Facebook, Tweeter), and SMS have made once confident and high-level information available in a way that it has not been before. Social media and SMS have also made it easier to disseminate information amongst the so-called ordinary people (as if there are those who are extraordinary!). While these platforms are not per se triggers of a revolution or uprising, they constitute a conduit for communication about ideas, situations, plans, and so forth; thus, while not created with such an end, they provide a platform to counter elitism and information control. It is this counter to government and elite (financial institutions are included in this category) control of information that makes these institutions nervous about losing control of what they regard as not appropriate for everyone to know; in other words, the assumption that there are people who are adequately prepared to handle information about a country's security program and obscure theories and implications of national policies (social, political, economic/financial, etc.) undermines the majority of the population in a given country and the globe at large. Governments and elites have always been keen to filter the information made available to the people; ironically, those who have fought for the liberation of once oppressed peoples have often ended up using the same strategy to cease control of information in order to maintain their acquired (through popular support) position of power. The people of Mozambique understood this dilemma but, unlike the Egyptians and Tunisians, did not endure the government's tactic to shut down SMS as a means to end the uprisings. There was great outrage, but no targeted action against the government's interference in people's right to communicate. My hope is that Mozambicans will, one day, arise to the point of maximizing these platforms as a democratic venue. Egypt and Tunisia ceased the opportunity to access the means of communication and to access high-level (and once secret) information to fuel their courage to stand against elite and government abuses; hopefully, the rest of the oppressed peoples (even those who are still in the road to enlightenment) will cease these weapons (as Amilcar Cabral and Samora Machel would probably say) to counter the complex and almost invisible forces of oppression present in modern-day political systems.

In short, it is essential that the every-day person embarks in an understanding (even if a little bit) of the implications of hermeneutical power and informational power in order for our pursuit of justice to be successful. Complacency with the current systems of government is a death-wish for our civil liberties. We, the people, must constantly advance from a position of suspicion in order to participate in negotiating our freedoms and the respect we deserve.

TEACHERS AND CHANGING AUTHORITY PATTERNS IN EASTERN GERMAN SCHOOLS

2010-11-28T19:18:00.000-05:00

In Teachers And Changing Authority Patterns In Eastern German Schools, Heinrich Mintrop addresses educational change and democratization under conditions of fundamental societal transformation. The article explores the salience of shifting authority relationships in schools enveloped by systemic and cultural change. Mintrop discusses chances of democratizing schools under the new societal conditions by employing the lens of educators at eight schools in Eastern Germany, i.e., former GDR.

The dynamic of social change shifted from grassroots action to state authority. The first phase, characterized by the search for a new as yet unknown democratic socialism, was upstaged by the current phase of transition to a known model, West German society, by constituting democratic and market-economic institution in the former GDR. In top-down fashion, state and corporate managers and attorneys, mainly from the west, set out to institute new legal principles and directives and to create new organizational structures isomorphic with those in the west. Shortly after absorption of the new eastern federal states into the now all-German Federal Republic, state governments, under whose domain education falls, passed comprehensive school acts. These school acts,

1) Realigned the organizational structure of the eastern school system with that of Western states by setting up a three-track structure: The formerly untracked socialist unitary school was dissolved into a separate elementary school, and on the secondary level into a college-preparatory Gymnasium and middle lower-track combination of Realschule and Hauptschule;

2) Retained supreme authority over educational matters in state ministries of education while enhancing control of municipal or country governments;

3) Democratized the school system by instituting crucial deviations from previous GDR practices: The school acts stipulated the right of legal guardians to educate their children; the individual responsibility of teachers as classroom instructors; the dispensation of pluralist worldviews; shared decision making for parents, students, and teachers at schools and on the local state levels; students’ freedom of speech and right to file grievances; and parents’ right to sue the school; and

4) Introduced new curricular frameworks and timetables for all subjects and proclaimed a more student-centered pedagogy as state of the art.

Mintrope argues that the schools are still inhabited by the reshuffled but largely intact old socialist teaching corps and that “the tension between rapid and substantial systemic and organizational change, on the one hand, and the continuity of personnel, on the other hand, makes eastern German schools a potentially revealing case for the study of educational change.

Mintrop prefers Michael Fullan’s complexity model over technical models because (a) it directs our view to school participants who have to forge new meaning in a changed institutional environment, (b) these participants have to find new moral and ideological orientations and interpretations for a transformed societal reality and their supposedly democratic role in it, and (c) eastern German schools at this stage experience many planned institutional changes and unplanned cultural changes simultaneously.

The main objective of the reform was not how to develop a better system out of the old one, but how to make the eastern system look the same as the western. Thus the main impetus of the reform was not problem solving, but isomorphism.

Mintrop studied eight eastern German secondary schools in a northern state governed by a left-of-center party coalition and a southern state governed by a right-of-center party coalition. The population included educators, in-service instructors, state and local administrators, teachers, and administrators.

The data shows that under conditions of fundamental systemic and cultural change in eastern German schools and society, redistributed authority relationships become a salient feature of educational change. Teachers sampled are distressed by what the state does to them and what they cannot do to student and parents anymore – and what the two groups can now do to them. The state has to a certain degree withdrawn from schools taking moral support away from teachers, yet by giving up control over many pedagogical affairs the state has increased teachers’ autonomy – this is the a new kind of authority that teachers can exercise and requires teachers’ openness to rational discourse, professional competence, and critical analysis of their past and present position in society; however, data suggests that eastern German educators do have enough of this openness.

Teachers also feel that festering characterizes authority relationships with students. Many are open to student criticism and feel that disruption is a result to confusion over the meaning of freedom.

DEMOCRACY’S HANDMAIDEN: THE INFLUENCE OF MASS EDUCATION ON POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGE

2010-11-28T19:13:00.000-05:00

In Democracy’s Handmaiden: The Influence Of Mass Education On Political And Economic Change, Christenson and Crenshaw (1999) use cross-national samples and multivariate statistical techniques to test the reasonableness of expecting education to play a central role in all facets of society’s transition from “traditional” to “modern.” They focus on three dimensions of modernization, i.e., economic growth, stratification, and political democracy. The authors argue that they have good reason to suspect that a society’s chances of forming and maintaining political democracy improve with the provision of mass education. Education is transformative by gradually changing the cognitive terrain, it changes the way people view themselves, their environment, and their relationships to the state. Education fosters possessive individualism, secularization, and egalitarian or meritocratic expectations.

Arguing from a social psychological modernization theory framework, Christenson et. al. state that, “if political democracy requires an informed, self-interested citizenry, then mass education is truly the handmaiden of democracy. This follows the theorists’ argument that “the modern person tends to be politically active, optimistic about his/her ability to shape personal and societal destiny, anti-authoritarian, cognitively flexible, and open to change… Mass education’s attributes consist of (1) universal, standardized, rational curricula; (2) complex institutionalization; and (3) a focus on the individual as ‘action’ unit, with emphasis on personal achievement and scholastic aptitude; thus, conclude Christenson et. al., mass education is the paramount incubator of social psychological modernity.

The authors’ purpose is to demonstrate empirically that mass education plays a unique, integral role in macrosocial change, exerting direct influences on the antecedents of democracy, economic development and social stratification/inequality, thereby indirectly affecting democracy, as well as exercising direct effect on democracy itself. The findings demonstrate that,

(1) secondary education (as a proxy for formal education in general) has linear, positive effect on economic growth; (2) education displays complex, curvilinear relationships with measures of economic inequality, reflecting how education interacts with industrial base transformations to produce stratification systems; and (3) education has a direct curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) effect on the growth of democracy as well as its indirect effects via development and stratification.

The authors emphasize that their findings suggest that “modern mass education is at the heart of the institutional matrix we call modern society, and this high level of institutional interdependency means that education is a master variable that should not be ignored in cross-national or comparative research.”

The article follows the following outline:

A. Education and Economic Growth

A.1. Methods and Analysis of Education’s Effect on Economic Growth

A.2. Results

B. Education and Inequality

B.1. Methods and Analysis of Education’s Effect on Income/Sectoral Inequality

B.2. Results

C. Education and Democracy

C.1. Methods and Analysis of Education’s Effect on Democratization

C.2. Results

D. Education and Social Change

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION IN POLAND

2010-11-28T19:10:00.000-05:00

In Continuity and Change in Political Socialization in Poland, Slomczynski and Shabad argue, in a social reproduction theory fashion, that

Elites in nondemocratic and democratic regimes, in revolutionary and traditional societies, seek to reproduce through both informal and formal political socialization processes, the core values that underlie the prevailing political and economic order. Elites in newly established regimes, in particular, actively strive to shape the values and norms of young generations as they confront the cultural legacies, and often the leaders and political forces, of the past.

The article gauges the relative levels of support for democracy and a market economy – the new political and economic order – among three groups in post-communist Poland: Students aged 13-14 and corresponding “cohorts” of teachers and parents. Slomczynski and Shabad (a) compare political and economic orientations by concentrating on intergenerational differences rather than intraschool or intrafamilial processes of political socialization; (b) examine levels of and determinants of support for democracy by focusing on the principles of political equality, the legitimacy of the expression of group (even narrow ‘special’) interests, and the use of competitive elections for selecting government leaders and ensuring that they are held accountable to the public.

Their working definition of liberal democracy has at its core the principles of political equality, group representation, political pluralism, and governmental accountability.

The study is nomothetic and utilizes statistical method by conducting an extensive exploratory factor analysis of questionnaire items. They assessed mean differences between groups and tested for its significance at P<.05, e.g., students were less supportive of democracy than parents (that means that the difference between average scores for each item is statistically significant or P<.05[1]). Also, the authors examined the external validity of the prodemocracy and promarket scales.

Research question: To what extent do students, teachers, and parents agree with these core elements of liberal democracy and a market economy; and, to what degree do the three groups differ in terms of their political and economic orientations.

Null Hypothesis: All three groups will exhibit similar patterns of inconsistent values characteristic of periods of radical social change.

Hypothesis 1: Students are more likely than teachers or parents to favor change because the emergent ideology of democratic capitalism, as conveyed by political elites and the mass media, has a greater impact on youths than on adults. [Findings did not support; however, period effects nonetheless are evident in the ‘hybrid’ pattern of beliefs by all three groups]

Hypothesis 2: Since students have negligible personal experience on which to reject the past regime, they are more likely than adults to be affected by the political instability and economic insecurity of the transition era, and thus to be less supportive of systematic change. As for differences between teachers and parents, we expect teachers to favor systemic change more than parents since civics education requires a better understanding of democracy and a market economy. [Findings did support. Teachers tended to be the most supportive of systemic change overall, and adults were substantially more supportive of democratic principles and less positive toward a market economy than students. Thus, the pattern of intergroup differences depended upon whether the change was political or economic in nature.]

Further assessment: The relative impact of certain key determinants of support for democracy and the market among students, teachers, and parents focusing on two widely researched sets of variables known to affect political socialization. [1] Psychological dispositions involving (a) valuation of self-direction versus conformity, (b) authoritarian-conservatism versus open-mindedness, and (c) resistance to change versus acceptance of innovation; and [2] social structural characteristics and educational level strongly related to (a) one’s self-interest and hence (b) to one’s political and economic preferences. [Findings did support; however, these individual-level characteristics, while not easily manipulable, are not so closely linked to political and economic orientations as to foreclose the influence of schools and other agents of socialization on adolescents, as well as of political leaning on the part of both students and adults from a variety of experiences in informal and institutional settings. The effects of both social structural and psychological attributes of individuals, as well as of familial values, may well become stronger should the normative and institutional features of Polish society become more stable. But in the short term, other determinants and agents of socialization have considerable room to affect the political and economic orientations of younger Poles, e.g., schools, mass media, church, and students’ own experiences with political authority.]

The article has the following outline:

A. Data

Data consisted of a sample of 295 students and 53 teachers. Data were gathered through questionnaires administered to teachers; TRIADS 1993 data file (surveys in which respondents were students and parents); the analogous file, TRIADS 1978, that contained data for students and their parents gathered toward the end of the Edward Gierek’s rule and prior to the formation of solidarity; and, 1993 data from a national sample of Polish adults from which data was extracted on parents of children ages 12-14.

B. Aggregate Level Support: For Democracy and a Market Economy

C. Intergroup Comparisons

Differences between parents and students in their degree of support for democracy were smaller, but still significant.

D. Psychological Dispositions and Support for Democracy and a Market Economy

D1. Measurements of Self-Direction, Authoritarian-Conservatism, and Resistance to Change

D2. Intergroup Comparisons of Psychological Dispositions

D3. The Impact of Psychological Dispositions on Support for Democracy and a Market Economy

E. The Relative Impact of Position in the Social Structure on Support for Democracy and a Market Economy

F. Conclusion: Implications for Political Socialization

The study shows that at this time of systemic transformation neither the cultural legacy of the past nor the emergent ideology of democratic capitalism holds sway.

The authors state that their findings and interpretations argue for longitudinal and especially panel studies to investigate systematically the pattern and determinants of political and economic orientations of groups involved in political socialization. Only in such a way, they assert, can we achieve a better understanding of both continuities and changes in the process and outcomes of political learning in societies undergoing profound transformation.

[1] Usually a statistical application will give the value of P in a chart.

Thoughts on Social Welfare: Contrasting Europe and American Historical Foundations

2010-11-28T18:47:00.002-05:00

Social welfare state is an ideal model in which the state provides for the welfare of all its citizens. All Countries that advocate for a welfare state have the common objectives of provision and protection. According to Mary Beals the what and why of public welfare policy are to protect, regulate, encourage, assist, and hurt no one. Christine George (my former professor at Loyola University Chicago) defines social welfare policy as “any policy that affects the well-being of people… those things that used to be the responsibility of the family, civil society, and the church.” Both Western European countries and the USA exhibit these characteristics in their perception and reality of the fundamental function of the welfare state; however, historically they differ in who runs social welfare and whom it really benefits. To echo the power issue in social welfare, which I see as one major determinant of who benefits, Mary Beals establishes two basic questions when dealing with social welfare state: (1) how should we be governed (who holds the power and who makes policy)? And, (2) what should government do (what is the scope and purpose of government)?

The answers to questions of power (who runs social welfare?) and function (who benefits?) lead to an understanding of the baseline difference between the development of the social welfare state in the USA and Western European countries. According to Skocpol, some scholars argue that when measured against Western countries’ patterns of development of social welfare, the USA is considered a “welfare state laggard” and incomplete “because it did not establish nationwide social insurance until 1935 and because it never has established fully national or comprehensive social programs along European lines;” however, Skocpol dismisses this comparison as being illegitimate, reductionistic, and myopic (my own terms). She calls for an understanding of the historical context that led the USA to make the decisions it took as to how welfare was to be structured, who was to run it, and who to benefit. Here, in the historical context, lies the core distinction of Paternalist versus Maternalist welfare states.

One exception in the development of the USA welfare state is the fact that the USA opted at establishing an orientation towards a Maternalist welfare state by putting more emphasis on compensation and provision for women and children, although not neglecting men. This distinction, in gender-age orientation, between Europe and the USA was coupled with the fact that power was not in the hands of aristocrats of the country in a political and legal way (this I say because aristocrats have influence over government agencies even when not explicitly given power to call for decisions of policy), but power was both in the hands of the government and state legislators, a fact that sometimes caused conflict between the two entities and could not be eliminated because there was constitutional provision for legal legislators to defile government rulings on policy laws. This would not happen in Europe because the aristocrats were the ruling body and they passed laws that they thought were “for the good of the working class” and the latter had no representation to advocate for its rights.

One example of the above scenario is the fact that female-dominated public agencies in a democratized and decentralized USA could advocate for the rights of women and children because the women representing these agencies, for the most part, knew better what women and children’s plights were. In contrast, in Western European countries where the predominant form of government was traditional monarchy did not allow for any state that would depart from its paternalist ethos – Men were the ruling gender, even where the monarch was a woman, and the male aristocrats were the guardians of all socio-political affairs.

Another example is the 1935 institutionalization of the unemployment insurance as a federal-state system, but with individual states left free to decide terms of eligibility and benefits as well as tax collection from workers. This led to an uneven taxation and unemployment benefits across the states. Also, unlike in Europe, there was no evidence of a joining of social and economic policy in the USA.

These distinctive characteristics of early development in USA welfare state can still be seen today, yet Western European welfare states have changed from strict paternalism due to the various social movements and democratizations of societies worldwide. The core of the exclusiveness of the USA welfare state, distinguishing it from European national management of welfare, is still evident today even years after some programs were nationalized, i.e., old-age and other assistance programs originally established as federal programs under Social Security. Skocpol argues that the AFDC program remains decentralized and further posits, “US welfare remains, as always, both institutionally and symbolically separate from national economic management, on one hand, and from non-means-tested programs benefiting regularly employed citizens, on the other.”
...

Skocpol identifies the following theories that attempt to explain why the US is an exception to the standards of social welfare policy-making:

(1) Logic of industrialism approach posits, “all nation-states respond to the growth of cities and industries by creating public measures to help citizens cope with attendant social and economic dislocations.” Skocpol argues that the USA does not fit well in this theory because in spite of having been, before 1935, one of the world industrial leaders it delayed to institute public pensions and social insurance. According to Skocpol, this exception of the USA is reason to render this theory inadequate because it draws generalizations that lack a deeper scrutiny of socio-cultural aspects peculiar to each context.

(2) National value approach posits, “cultural conditions could either facilitate or delay action by a nation-state to promote social security, and cultural factors also influenced the shape and goals of new policies when they emerged.” Skocpol argues that the USA is an exception overlooked by this theory because the theory fails to notice and explain US civil war benefits or social policies for mothers and children. Along with the logic of industrialism theory, this theory downplays political struggles and debates.

(3) Welfare capitalism approach looks for “economically grounded splits between conservative and progressive capitalists as the way to explain social policy innovations.” Skocpol further states, “Proponents of this approach argue that US capitalists have been unusually able to use direct and indirect pressures to prevent governments at all levels from undertaking social welfare efforts that would reshape labor markets or interfere with the prerogatives or profits of private business.” Skocpol argues that although this theory helps to see the complementarities between public social policies and the labor-management practices of American corporations, one important characteristic of American policy-making and implementation is that it is caused by political processes rather than the will of capitalists because these have often opposed the establishment of public social policies.

(4) Social democratic or Political class struggle approach “underlines the relative weakness of US industrial unions and points to the complete absence of any labor-based political party in US democracy.” According to this approach US capitalists have pressurize government to prevent that it undertook social welfare efforts that would reshape markets or interfere with the interests of private business. The exception of the US is seen in the fact that the theory, although helpful to explain why the US has not developed a full-employment welfare state, overlooks the intricacy of US socio-political context that shaped social policy. Unlike most of Western Europe where the states are centralized and bureaucratized, the US exhibits a much more decentralized state and various interest groups play a role in shaping policy, i.e., groups advocating for gender, racial, and ethnic equality are among those that shape policy in the US since the formation of the republic.

...

To analyze welfare policy with fairness, I would consider the constructs of gender, equality, and equity as seen by those who engage in defining the boundaries of welfare distribution. Both schools presented in Orloff’s work are a representation of two opposed extremes that must undergo scrutiny in terms of what they value and what their agendas are; yet both are indispensable for the construction of a new paradigm from which to launch gender-equilibrated policies. A thorough understanding of the different mappings or paradigms of gender by policy-makers would be my starting point. This presupposes an understanding of the context, e.g., cultural, historical, geographical, and other sorts of context that informed the perceptions of policy-makers. One could only criticize what one knows or else the danger would be to create a new system that perpetuates the spirit of discrimination in the name of change and advocating for justice. My personal bias is that most policy critics neglect the hermeneutical approach to the study of policy before criticizing it as gendered or anything of that sort. I am not saying that hermeneutics brings a close to the problem of gender discrimination on policy, but it provides the analyst with a tool that is not so much one of negative reaction.

An example of gendered policy that I would take into account for analysis is the WIC (Women, Infants and Children). This is an example of a gendered policy, but not gendered as usually defined from a Feminist perspective. The policy focuses on a particular gender of adults, namely women, and explicitly discriminates against men who could be found in the same situation as the women entitled to the benefits it provides. If a man were unemployed or poor and a single father, he would not be entitled for benefits on the basis of gender and not social conditions.

The other example is the two tier system constituted by Social Insurance (SI) and Public Assistance (PA). SI is a system benefiting males, the rules are very clear, there are higher benefits, and no stigma attached (tied to paid work); while, on the other hand, PA is a female system, rules necessitate more visiting, has lower benefits, has stigma attached because it is more like a handout, and it’s family tied (usually women and children).

...

Social welfare is often perceived as a body of policies and programs aimed at aiding the poor and seldom perceived as policies and programs that either transfer income or provide services to individuals to improve the quality of their lives (Rom). American social welfare policies system is an incremental, fragmented, progressive, and hierarchical: It is incremental because new issues and modalities of benefits are added periodically; it is fragmented because (a) the implementation differs from state-to-state as individual states are left free to decide terms of eligibility and benefits as well as tax collection and (b) the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government are competitive amongst themselves and against interest groups, and state and federal governments each attempt to gain control over health and welfare programs while at the same time attempting to shift burdens to the other party; it is progressive because it opens itself for further definitions and understandings of social problems and solutions (incrimentalism can only exist because of this progressive nature); it is hierarchical because most of its entitlement is in view of social status and aims at elevating the fate of the underprivileged, to day this is done through workfare.

Social welfare is also characterized by a complex mix of Private and public partnerships. This is undergoing several scrutinies and critiques because of what the main question of cost of service if welfare is in the hands of privates versus in purely public hands. Today the government sponsors many programs and some merging is occurring in terms of shared cost with private charities, e.g., Catholic Charity and others.

Why learn anything about Social Welfare System? I think everyone needs to learn about it because it may be of benefit for oneself or one can use his/her knowledge to help others find help within the system. For example, I suspect that there are many women who don’t know that in Illinois all pregnant women and their children have the right to free medical aid through kidcare, whether they are American citizens or not, and their children have this right until they cease to be minors.

Rom argues that most government spending on health and welfare for the poor is channeled through just four programs, i.e., Medicaid, AFDC, SSI, and GI. There are several programs or subprograms and policies within these major categories presented by Rom and below I will list the programs and policies with short descriptions of a few:

a. Social Security: The Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Programs
b. Medicare/Medicaid is a program that provides medical care to low-income persons who are aged, blind, disable (primarily, SSI recipients), or in families with dependent children (AFDC recipients) and certain other pregnant women and children. It is an entitlement program and the federal government and state government design and administer the program. The split of cost is based on federally established matching rate.
c. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was established to provide cash payments for elderly, blind, or disabled persons who are also poor.
d. Unemployment Compensation
e. Earned Entitlements for Railroad Employees
f. Trade Adjustment Assistance
g. Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The aim is to provide support to needy children (and their guardians) when their principal wage earner is absent continuously, unemployed, incapacitated, or dead. Federal and state governments share responsibility for designing, financing, and administering AFDC.
h. Child Support Enforcement Program
i. Child Care
j. Title XX Social Services Block Grant Program
k. Child Protection, Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
l. Social Welfare Programs in the Territories
m. Tax Provisions Related to Retirement, Health, Poverty, Employment, Disability, and Other Social Issues
n. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
General Assistance programs are purely state efforts designed to provide cash and medical assistance to low-income individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid, AFDC, or SSI. They receive no federal funds.

The Allegory of the Cave (in Plato's Republic): A Brief Reaction

2010-11-28T18:34:00.000-05:00

In book VII Socrates discusses the allegory of the cave and parallels it to how he views the role of the philosopher as one who ‘illuminates’ the residents of the state by interpreting the shadows of reality that they saw in the cave. I see in Socrates’ allegory a very penetrating insight into the understanding of the goal of education. Like Socrates, it is my belief that education should play a role in illuminating those who live in ignorance; however, what this allegory brings to mind is the reality of such role in my own continent, Africa, and in light of its educational and political history. This is the approach that I will take to the text.

The allegory presents us with a conflict of values between two realities, i.e., realities within and outside the cave. This contrasting dichotomy can help interpret the dichotomy present in African education from the time of colonialism to this date. Without wanting to equate the cave with Africa, I do believe that such a perception is one that dominates education in Africa – that is, Africans need to be enlightened by subscribing to Western education. From the allegory of the cave, one can learn that such a dichotomy and a reductionistic perception of the process of education can be overcome by understanding that the interpreter’s sensitivity to the reality of those in the cave is crucial when attempting to interpret the reality found outside the cave. The dichotomy presented by Socrates is, in my opinion, a great contribution to education.

My agreement with Socrates’ allegory goes as far as applying it to the fact that there are those whose duty is to illuminate others for the benefit of the overall society or state; however, I argue further that ignorance is relative and that an understanding of both systems is indispensable for those who are called to the duty of teaching and imparting knowledge – philosophers, educators, scholars, policy makers, and leaders in general must seek to understand the worldview of those whom they are called to serve. In short, there is no system or group that can boast right knowledge; therefore, educators must seek understanding of all systems and groups with which they interact. This is also the argument that informs equal education opportunities, which Socrates astutely integrates within his discourse as it progresses.

Paulo Freire: A Quick Reflection

2010-11-28T18:26:00.000-05:00

Freire’s Pedagogia do Opremido is a political and educational treatise that aims at presenting a challenge to educational systems that embraced any sort of dominant consciousness. I concur with Freire’s argument that there is a type of education that aims at perpetuating a state of domination of one group over another because schools are a vehicle of cultural and ideological transfer and the methods used to ‘educate’ are reflections of the agendas of the system of education – This we saw in colonial times and, if we scrutinize today’s society we will soon learn that this characteristic is still prevalent.

Freire’s argument against banking education presents a weapon of defense for the oppressed, if liberation is desired. I agree that adopting the method of banking education reflects one’s attitude of superiority over another because if one did not think of other humans as inferior then the attitude would be that of co-learning rather than imposition on the premise of other’s need to learn some sort of objective reality.

I could not help but think that Freire reaction could have been an adequate response to speeches by Antonio Salazar (1967) against the liberations and wars in the Portuguese colonies. The loss of Brazil had become worrisome for Portugal and Salazar was campaigning to protect the remainder of the colonies, i.e., Mozambique and Angola; While Salazar ‘promoted banking education’ as a means of preserving Portuguese sovereignty, Freire proposed the contrary.

The pedagogical method proposed by Freire, liberation education based on problem-posing methodology, is for me an adequate model to allow universal participation in the knowledge arena; however, this will always constitute a challenge because systems of education carry ideologies of the dominant class, whether such a class is easily recognizable or not. In the case of independent states we can testify to the cyclical nature of this process where education was once of a banking nature during colonial rule, then claimed as a liberating force, and eventually returned to a banking nature when used to promote ideologies of the ruling parties. I must say that, indeed, one’s freedom can become one’s bondage – when the oppressed reaches the state of consciousness must be careful not to become oppressive to others. Freire’s pedagogy is for all humans who believe in the dignity and historicity of other humans.

Oral History and Internviewing

2010-11-21T01:31:00.000-05:00

Oral history, aka life history, has as its main goal to get a fuller account of the content because it incorporates the various emotional and phonetic expressions of the source, not only the written words. These accounts are collected through interviews, audio, and video serve as assets in reconstructing most, if not all, the interview. In this method, the interviewer must attempt to separate fact from interpretation. This is part of the challenge to the interviewer who often may get tempted to get ego-involved with the interviewee, particularly if the information is emotionally appealing to the interviewer.

The advantage of oral history is that the interviewer gets the information as is from his source and can interact with the source by using a rewind-and-fast-forward kind of technique. In written reports there is no such advantage. For example when asking about the interviewee’s birth place and family memories, the interviewer may ask further questions to clarify information that is unclear or unknown to him/her. They engage in a dialogue that provides a tool for clarification of meanings lost and misunderstood contexts or facts. This is not possible when dealing with written documents because of the absence of the author; and, even when one can consult the author, often written reports require that the author or interviewee makes corrections to the text, which may not always be convenient.

The limitations of this method are that it can be narrow and idiosyncratic, selective, and it calls for questions of reliability of memory recall. That is, interviewers are subject to one person’s perspective and the interviewees may be selective as to what information to furnish as well as the interviewer may be selective as to what kind of information to include in the report; although the selectivity of information is not always undesirable in the research it may become a catalyst of bias. To avoid these dangers, the researcher must (a) be an expert in the subject being studied and its context, and (b) establish rapport with the interviewee.

Both subject and context expertise are of utmost importance because they also aid the interviewer in the establishment of rapport. However, such expert must be cautious not to use the expertise as a detrimental tool, i.e., the expert must preserve a humble attitude when dealing with the interviewee. One important aspect of expertise is the ability to develop confidence in the subject matter, yet respect those with whom we share such domain specific knowledge, whether we regard them as novices or experts. Here I talk of expertise not in the context of literate traditions but of both, this allows for those in the orate tradition to be experts in their own right without being judged on literacy standards. The conclusion of Goldman’s article (entitled Experts: Which ones Should We Trust?) ends with a questions concerned with the kind of education that could substantially improve the ability of novices to appraise expertise, and the kinds of communicational intermediaries that might help make the novice-expert relationship more one of justified credence than blind trust. I think there is more to be done in this field; however, what we have now can aid the researcher to combat bias and arrogance by engaging in the new insights produced by scholars. Also, expertise should not be limited to the content of the interview, but should extend to the technological devices that the interviewer chooses to use to gather data, i.e., video, camera, tape-player, etc.

In addition to the elements discussed above that make for a good interview, to conduct an effective interview, the interviewer must ask questions that are pertinent to the subject yet be culturally sensitive. This is when dealing with non-Western cultures, in particular, in which communication is not as direct as “what’s your name? Are you married? Where is your place of birth?” and so on, nor are the answers as direct as often desired such as “My name is Josh. I am divorced. I was born in New York.”

Two forms ought to be carried by the interviewer that protects the researcher as well as the interviewee – this is in part a form that consents the release of information deriving from the interview. The first, the interviewee agreement consent form should contain the following information: (a) A statement of consent to participate that is clearly stated and covers all sort of indemnity elements needed to protect both the interviewee and the content of the interview; (b) name of interviewer; (c) name of interviewee; (d) signature of interviewer; (e) signature of interviewee; (f) address and phone number, if applicable, of the interviewee; and (g) date of consent. In the event of using recorders, the consent form should also include a section requesting that permission be granted to use such devices.

Internal Criticism: A Brief Reflection

2010-11-21T01:20:00.000-05:00

Internal criticism, aka positive criticism, is the attempt of the researcher to restore the meaning of the text. This is the phase of hermeneutics in which the researcher engages with the meaning of the text rather than the external elements of the document. Here, more than before, domain specific knowledge of context is essential.

In this stage of investigation the researcher and exegete engage in positive criticism, which attempts to restore the meaning of statements, and negative criticism, which places doubt on what external and positive criticism have established as reasonable findings. Here the researcher and exegete combat both aesogesis and untrustworthiness.

In positive criticism the historian and exegete assess the literal meaning of the text and the real meaning of statements. Literal meanings are the immediate meanings of a document and often fool the immature reader. Often poetry is written in a way that the meaning is hidden behind a style of language, i.e., literary devices, which necessitate an understanding of such language and what rules are applied to identify and interpret them. For example, Psalm 1 is full of metaphors and simile and unless the reader understands such devices there is no way one can understand the meaning of the passage; however, before venturing into the discovery of a meaning behind the literal text, the reader must deal with the text as is by asking “what does the statement say?” and then ask “what’s the point the author is making in the statement?” In the case of Psalm 1, the reader will soon discover that there is more to the text than a simple aim of beautifying ones relationship with God by using literary devices – there is power of meaning in the metaphors and similes used by the author and a reason for the author to select such metaphors. I am talking here of authorial intent, which in itself raises controversy as to whether such can really be known in the absence of the original author (Ryken). The verdict pronounced by some theologians such as the Biblical theology of missions’ advocates is that the theme of missio Dei is the standard against which to judge the truthfulness of meaning and legitimacy of purpose of a scriptural text.

There is another problem of language that pertains to the fact that some texts, i.e., Shakespeare, the KJV Bible, were not written in today’s language. This also requires a contextual understanding of the style in which the text was written before the attribution of meaning. For example, in the archaic English of the KJV the word gay means happy while in today’s society such is a reference to sexual orientation.

While positive criticism simply attempts to ascertain what the text means by analyzing its statements within a context, i.e., literary, historical, geographical, etc.; in negative criticism, the historian conducts (a) tests of competence; (b) gossip, humor and slander; (b) myths, legends and traditions; (c) tests of truthfulness; and, (d) discredit statements. According to Hockett, in the latter, the critic engages in ascertaining what opportunity the maker of the statement had to know the facts, i.e., eyewitness versus the conditions under which the witness observed the event and how the witness relates to other witness accounts, the position of observation, etc.. Essentially, this is the starting point of ascertaining the meaning of the text. Other sources that must equally be checked against their background are newspaper claims which may be tinted with issues of affiliation and patronage. The claims within the newspapers articles of slavery times should be scrutinized against the times and the civilization in vogue. For example, I would doubt any news article written by the mainstream newspapers during slavery times reporting on an issue of rape of a white woman by a black male, but if the Chicago Times in 2002 reported the same I would be more inclined to believe although not without suspicion since racism and stereotypes are still evident in today’s society.

The other elements to be doubted are oral testimony in the form of gossip, rumor, slander, myth, legends, and traditions, because they often result from various motives that might be questionable. The integrity of the source is of utmost importance. However, Hockett stands firmly on positivistic grounds and diminishes the value of orate traditions. Glick supports the opposite of what Hockett propagates, and today there is more evidence that even within orate traditions there are experts and novices and such experts merit greater reliance (Goldman).

Hockett discusses tests of truthfulness that might aid the researcher to deal with the question of whether the integrity of the source always goes hand-in-hand with the statements being true. The advice is to inquire whether the source had any personal interest, and the affiliation of the source to race, party, sect, society, etc. In the example of the rape during slavery, one is more likely to doubt a statement made in those days by the newspaper because the journalists were likely to be Caucasians and a part of the elite. The intentions of the source are coupled with bias, which is an enemy of impartial truth, if such [impartial truth] ever exists. To deal with bias one has to be aware of the different perspectives of the writers as they have been, or are, influenced by factors of various kinds. For instance, Hockett’s bias is evident as he rests on one methodology, i.e., positivism, to ascertain facts. His advice to refrain from investigating miracles when such are against the laws of nature is clear evidence that historians have strong biases too.

External Criticism: A Brief Reflection

2010-11-21T00:55:00.001-05:00

External criticism, which is also known as lower criticism, is a tool used by historians and exegetes to determine the validity of a document, particularly a document with some sort of historical significance. It is the first of two stages of inquiry for it is followed by internal criticism. It ventures towards inquiry regarding (a) authorship; (b) originality and accuracy of copy; and (c) if errors are found it helps assess the nature of errors found, i.e., if they are scribal errors or other kinds of errors.

In dating text, historians and exegetes assess if there are any inconsistencies in the source (text) rather than assume immediate knowledge of when the text was written, i.e., is the source what it claims to be? Does anything nullify the claim of the source? In the process of recovering, to the very best of his ability, the original text of scripture or of a document, the historian must resolve the inconsistencies found within the text or source and explain them.

Some of the dates found in the books of the Bible are conflicting with the actual times of historical events that are known to have happened in the time claimed in the books of the Bible and the names associated with them, i.e., Isaiah. Biblical lower criticism has preoccupied itself with explaining these errors or inconsistencies for as long as the external criticism technique has been in existence. With the advent of this method of criticism and others other forms of textual criticism, i.e., internal criticism, there has been conflict over whether the technique is moral for it challenges both the belief of inerrancy and infallibility of scripture; however, with general historical documents the technique is less of an issue. For example, Max Anders claims that the Bible as originally written was without errors and that any apparent error or contradiction can be explained – for him, one must separate fact from details that seem contradictory. He states that if he tells his wife that he is going to the post office and then on the way back he tells her that he picked a screwdriver at the hardware store, he would have not lied by omitting the trip to the hardware store. This, he claims, is one of the many incidents classified by critics as errors and contradictions in Scriptures.

Some biblical scholars agree that there are apparent contradictions, but the facts in the Bible remain true and untouched by the seeming contradiction – One example of this school can be seen in the field of Biblical theology of missions (e.g., John York, my former professor of this subject), where some schools claim that there is one underlying theme in the Bible, i.e., missio Dei [lat. mission of God], from which drives the entire message and purpose of the writings and is above all the seeming contradictions found in the minute details. According to this school, God’s mission of redemption of mankind is a theme that is left undisturbed by errors and seeming contradictions of manuscripts, and runs from Genesis to Revelations. This aspect of one theme will be discussed also within the context of internal criticism. I present this argument here to explain that one’s understanding of infallibility of the Bible can be a factor in determining internal evidence because some schools, not necessarily that advocated by York, have gone to extremes of not wanting to temper with the text of Scripture either because of its sacredness or because there is no need to do so since the purpose of scripture is to present a particular message and the details do not matter.

In spite of the contradictions between various biblical scholars and historians, both exegetes and historians have benefited from the technique of lower criticism because they have managed to make better sense out of conflicting passages within the literature that they analyze.

In determining authorship, the tool of external criticism helps the researcher and exegete to assess the author’s name, affiliation, i.e., religious group, political party, ethnicity, etc. In this phase the researcher attempts to determine authorship by (a) using internal evidence about the author; (b) using supplementary data from other material related to the descriptions in the text such as history, geography, etc.; (c) assessing the tone of document, (d) identifying patterns or streams that help establish connection to original author when dealing with anonymous writings; (e) identifying clues of authorship; (f) assessing the presence of second or third party speech writers, ghostwriters, and plagiarists.

In determining the evidence of date the researcher also looks at the language used, the sequence and relationship of events, the spirit and temper in the writing. There is also an attempt to detect spurious documents by assessing if the document is a forgery, if a result of plagiarism, and assess erroneous identities. The other element of investigation is questions of original form such as origin of corruption, i.e., collation, restoration of original reading, variant reading, and conjectural emendation. Another helpful tool is paleography (according to Father Michael Perko, my former history professor in graduate school), which can be very insightful in studying old documents with excellent forgeries. Paleography helps assess the quality of ink in the document and places such within a particular time frame.

Hockett uses Isaiah as an example for his discussion of authorship by providing evidence for the association between the developments of archeology, linguistics, and history with textual criticism. According to Hockett, there has been controversy over the authorship of the book of Isaiah; however, the history of Judah’s neighboring kingdom and the development of the dating technique started by Henry C. Rawlinson in the mid-nineteenth century, flowing from the deciphering of part of an inscription on the Behistun Rock, provided support for the theory that there were more than one author of Isaiah. According to critiques, contrary to conservative religious views, these developments have provided insight to the fact that there are more than three Isaiahs rather than one Isaiah as the author of the book. This internal evidence of the possible existence three Isaiahs rather than one is a result of development in academic fields that relate to what the text addresses, i.e., author, language, and events.

The book of Ruth is another example in Hackett. Ruth is an evidence of the application of the dating technique in light of the tone of the document because the theme (event) of the document is staged to have taken place “in the days when the judges ruled…” which led earlier (naïve, according to Hackett) scholars to date its writing right after the Judges; however, new scholars date Ruth after the return from the Babylonian exile because the book of Ruth presents itself (through internal evidence) as a reaction against the conservative reforms of Ezra, i.e., that all those within mixed marriages should separate from their pagan wives in order to preserve the purity of the Hebrew nation before God (Ezra chapters 9:1 and 10:44).

As seen in this discussion, the researcher and exegete as a first attempt to restore the original text, or its closest reading, must engage in determining authorship, date, and the trustworthiness of a document or source by understanding principles that guide external criticism and being well aware of advancements in related fields that will serve as supporting tools for the intricate task ahead.

The Daughter of Time

2010-11-21T00:10:00.004-05:00

A Book Review of Tey, J. (1959). Daughter of Time. New York, NY: Berkeley.

The book is a mystery novel about detective Alan Grant’s encounter with the portrait of Richard III and Grant’s consequent search for the truth about the murder accusations charged on Richard III for many centuries. In 1952, Elizabeth MacIntosh, under the penname Josephine Tey, challenged the historical narratives created by the house of Tudor (and associates) and were propagated by the likes of William Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More for many generations following the mysterious murder of the two princes, nephews of Richard III, in 1485.

The portrait of Richard III, initiates Grant into a quest for truth against the traditional view that described Richard III as a hunchback and murderer villain – a view that favored the house of Tudor even in the eyes of the common citizen. The evidence of the impact of this Tudorian perspective is seen in the fact that Grant was himself convinced of this perspective until he came to encounter a portrait of a different nature; or, at least for the first time in his life he was in a position to form a first impression of Richard III without the interference of prior information – he had no idea whose picture it was until he turned to see the signature. The striking thing in the event is his interest in Richard’s portrait among those of Robert Dudley, and Lucrezia Borgia. This is an encounter that changes the life of a man whose job was that of hunting down criminals and enemies of the monarchy.

In this book, Tey purposely sets the scene to start out that way, Grant’s encounter with Richartd’s portrait, in order to render us a view of history unheard of before. The fascinating thing is that Tey, purposely or not, teaches us one important thing – that historical research can begin from a portrait and one of the first steps is to determine whose portrait it really is and if there is any historical value that a signature can reveal – it is an evidence of the resourcefulness of artifacts. In this case, a signature at the back of a portrait becomes a door to a groundbreaking perspective of history. Tey engages Grant in external criticism of a document that mattered not to its original owner yet became a tool that would supplement a perspective of Richard III that would change the history, the daughter of time.

In terms of literary devices, the book takes the form of an epic because in it Tey attempts to recover the image of a hero, Richard III, through another hero, Alan Grant. The narrative unfolds in a linear fashion starting in a bored hospital bed and ending in a fascinating discovery. Our living hero revives his passion of working with portraits and murder mysteries and ascends to become a historian and a successful detective whose meaning in life is fulfilled as he discovers and acquits his true hero. Grants success is due to his effort to reconstruct historical evidence by means of research. He begins by deconstructing all the known ‘facts’ about Richard III and engages in the construction of new facts. His underlying question does not only hinge on whether Richard III murdered the two princes, but it hinges also on “who murdered the princes in the tower? And, Why would anyone murder them?” These questions and Grant’s personal instinct, that a man such as Richard III would have not committed a (that) murder, prompt Grant to carefully consider an analysis of internal and external evidence as well as an analysis of primary and secondary sources in order to establish the truth. Grant puts together a research team to undertake the complex task. The team made of hospital staff, friends, fellow policemen, and a researcher, provides Grant the adequate information for his work. Metaphorically speaking, this team gathers pieces of the puzzle and hands on to Grant and he puts them together.

When reading the story, one could easily charge Grant of being obsessed with mystery, but his research method cast doubt to the readers’ doubts. Reading Tey makes one wonder about the narrative and factual evidence claimed in history books and the main challenge is that of ‘whose perspective is being promoted in the books we read?’ As an African, I find Tey’s challenge to be seriously taken since the perspective of history books is often that of the dominant class or the winner. The British had not known no other story apart from that of the house of Tudor, and not being rooted in British history and life, I can only imagine and judge by limited personal observation that when Tey’s view was cast to the British public it divided the camp into three distinct groups – those who believed her view, those who scorned her view, and those who became confused by her view. Tey demonstrates that history is not impartial, it takes the shape and form of the historian and the problem of bias is as natural as we perceive ourselves natural. Often, even today when we have so much talk about freedom of speech, some historians write what characterizes their interests and write on behalf of those who provide them security and a comfortable lifestyle. Tey’s lesson to us is that a true historian, however, will seek the truth even if the truth is contrary to the interest of sponsoring agencies; nevertheless, one must not be fooled to think that there is one immaculate history. The important thing to remember is that such a belief in the absence of an immaculate history cuts both ways – that is, neither the perspective of the winner not that of the looser is the only perspective. The greatest challenge is seeking the truth in the rubble of these often conflicting perspectives.

As a novel, the book presents a very good flow of events, which are in accord with Tey’s interest. The structure and narrative are rather impressive to a first time reader, in particular. Only those who have studied extensively about British monarchy and have analyzed archival material on the life and times of Richard III would be able to see the breaches in the novel, and even then their view should be subject to further scrutiny. One needs to be cautioned of the fact that Tey’s book is a novel replete with a hybridism of reality and fiction. Fiction can be a great danger for historical research, but it can serve a great purpose if used in context and with caution. In The Daughter of Time, fiction serves the excellent end of entertaining the reader. By the nature of the book, one can tell that Tey did not intend to write a strict history book, but intended to write a book that would challenge historical narrative. I wondered if Tey had fears while writing this book and if the use of a novel as a means of spreading a revolutionary idea was Tey’s coping mechanism.

The book has the additional value of providing information about British royals, e.g., Richard III, Cicely Nevill, Edward IV, Elizabeth, Henry VII, etc., for biographers and historians. As a piece of literature, for non-historians, The Daughter of time is a fascinating reading replete with emotional instances. My initial impression was that of curiosity in regards to the nature of relationship between the detective and nurse Ingham, aka the Midget. Tey also vividly uses simple and colorful language to depict the scenes and the personages. The narrative starts off with an apparently unconcerned and mean man, and finishes with a transformed heart – compassionate and grateful to the point of causing confusion to those around. Such is the effect of discovery of truth. When one finds fulfillment in his or her search there is a sense of relief and accomplishment, and the journey of life becomes more purposeful. The last scene between detective Grant and the Amazon was, in my opinion, the climax of the emotional journey wrapped within Tey’s the Daughter of time. The Daughter of time is a story not just of history and politics, but also a story of humanity and faith – a story that portrays human relationships, compassion, and convictions.

The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States

2010-11-21T00:02:00.001-05:00

A Book Review of Holfstadter, R. & Metzger, W. P. (1955). The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States. New York, NY: Columbia University.

The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States is an analytical history of the concept of freedom and a chronological narrative of the development of the concept academic freedom. Holfstadter and Metger engage in a conceptual analysis of freedom in the circles of America academics by asking: (a) what it meant to successive generations of academic men; (b) to what extent they have achieved it; and (c) what factors in academics itself, as well as in American culture at large, have created and sustained it. In a nutshell, the authors inquire as to why freedom exists and why it has been limited (p. x).

According to Holfstadter and Metger The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States is the first part of Columbia University’s The American Academic Freedom Project, directed by Robert M. MacIver, a project that consists of two parts: (1) a historical survey of the rise, development, and vicissitudes of academic freedom; and, (2) an analysis of the contemporary situation and a study of the problems it presents, against a background designed to bring out the significance of academic freedom and its relation to the society in which we live.

As a reflection of good scholarship and awareness of broadness of topic, Holfstadter and Metger make their delimitations known by defining what it is that they are studying. They are concerned with the concept and construct freedom within college and university education, primarily with the academic freedom of faculty members and students’ freedom is integrated only when it converges with faculty freedom; however, they opt to provide the reader with pointers to some important resources that cover aspects that they did not cover in this work.

Structurally, the book is divided in two parts: (a) the age of the college, an age marked by religious and theological questions; and, (b) the age of the university, an age marked by a high preoccupation with science and social problems. Stylistically, the authors advance their analysis in a chronological fashion from pre-reformation to post-reformation intellectual history. The use of the Reformation as the reference point from which the history of academic freedom is to be seen constitutes a good indication of how the authors view Christianity as a major player in understanding academic freedom. The book is a history of the development of academic freedom within a theoretical framework of Christian history, theology, and dogma. As an indication of the central role of Christianity in understanding academic freedom since the medieval times, Holfstadter and Metger (p. 12) argue that “the intellectual freedom of the medieval scholar existed within the framework of an authoritative system of faith upheld by vigilant positive authority” and they argue that an understanding of academic freedom must take into account the contextual frameworks of its time. They rally for an exegetical study of history and posit the following:

Since it is our purpose to enter sympathetically into the spirit of the medieval academic experience and understand the function of the medieval university from the point of view of its period, it is necessary to take from the moment a relative view, accepting as given the medieval frameworks of ideas. (p. 12)

The authors invite the reader to recognize the difference between historical periods since they set the platform for the development of the concept academic freedom, to recognize the difference between the various constructs of freedom as used in each phase of the development of the idea of academic freedom, and to take into account the forces at work in the intellectual sphere as history unfolded. The chronology of intellectual or academic freedom advances with a background of Christian dogmatisms (in which heresy was defined as departure from the Catholic Christian worldview) of the pre-reformation era, a background of humanism during the renaissance and reformation era, and later a background of religious freedom and consequent denominationalism in the United States.

I agree with the authors’ choice to start with the early developments of academic freedom in order to establish a foundation for a better and thorough understanding of the “nature of the beast.” The plight for Academic freedom in America can be better appreciated when the complex developmental history is seen in perspective. When denominationalism and sectarianism are seen as major players to both promote and discourage academic freedom, one can only begin to wonder whether freedom is desired because it is a right of all citizens or if it is desirable because it serves selfish or group interests. This is a paradox surrounding academic freedom, whether one studies it within the religious framework of sectarianism and denominationalism or the political framework of democracy. Michael Perko, discussing about red-hunts and the communist saga in the United States, asserts the following:

In times when academic freedom is not challenged, academic leadership is in support of it; however, in times when it is challenged leadership rolls over it. During the times of the red-hunts, membership in the communist party constituted a ground for expulsion from, exclusion, or non-acceptance into a faculty position. (Lecture on American Higher Education, Loyola University of Chicago, 2003)

One aspect that deserves negative criticism in Holfstadter and Metger that caught my attention is their discussion of Thomas Clap (pp. 163-177). The authors depart from their methodology and ethics as historians to subjective critiques of a historical man. Clap is characterized by negative attributes in an obviously subjective manner rather than placed in the book as an actor meriting attention for his position as a leader who reflected a particular sectarian dogmatism and influenced academic freedom in his time. The authors’ passionate yet negative discussion of Clap tinted, unnecessarily, what would otherwise be a near-perfect piece of work. Despite the authors’ initial refrain from polemics, they end up raising a polemic in this section, particularly for those who would see Clap’s contribution and behavior in a different way.

Holfstadter and Metger close the book in a mixed tone of both encouragement and despair. Encouragement because the understanding of academic freedom has evolved to reach more sophisticated infrastructures and support systems and despair because unless one is assertive enough the infrastructures and support systems are of no avail. The authors posit,

In the present climate of opinion, these factors are not sufficient to give courage to the circumspect or timid, but they provide a considerable measure of security for professors who have the hardihood to assert themselves. (p. 506)

And,

No one can follow the history of academic freedom in this country without wondering at the fact that any society … should possess the vision to subsidize free criticism and inquiry, and … one cannot but be appalled at the slender thread by which it hangs … one cannot but be disheartened by the cowardice and self-deception that frail men use who want to be both safe and free. With such conflicting evidence, perhaps individual temperament alone tips the balance toward confidence or despair. (p. 506)

An understanding of this complexity and conflict is important even today. This book is relevant to the current society and provides a framework from which to understand today’s struggles with the paradox found in the relationship between democracy and academic freedom in higher education in the United States and abroad. To what extent is academic freedom truly freedom and if there is any state of nirvana in the issue of academic freedom is a question that can be asked under any system of government. This is indeed a must-read for those who are interested in higher education history, academics, and educational politics in general.

The Troubled Crusade

2010-11-20T23:58:00.003-05:00

A Book Review of Ravitch, D. (1983). The Troubled Crusade: American Education 1945-1980. New York, NY: Basic Books.

The Troubled Crusade is a descriptive, and to a small degree evaluative, history of American higher education from the period immediately after World War II until 1980. Although this is not an exhaustive treatment of the forces at work that characterize the crusade against ignorance or campaigns for equal educational opportunity, Ravitch explores a selection of forces at work that constitute the core for understanding the times of the crusade, and this she does intentionally in order to fulfill her purpose for writing the book, “This book is a report on the state of the crusade against ignorance during a particularly tumultuous time in American history.”

The prologue to The Troubled Crusade is launched from the contextual framework of Jefferson’s letter to his friend and advisor George Wythe, then the American minister to the French government, regarding the bill on religious freedom. Jefferson’s exhortation to Wythe sheds light as to the fundamental agenda and the speculated outcome of the crusade against ignorance,

Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils, and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance. (p. xi)

Ravitch’s introduction of Jefferson’s rationale displays the spirit of the crusade against ignorance and, indirectly, introduces the themes that Ravitch would engage in the text as auxiliary in placing the reforms in their context. Like the Christian crusades, the movement was to convert the ignorant (i.e., those who were victims of an evil crippling society) into the world of the knowledgeable; and, like any social movement, the crusade was destined to face opposition. In Jefferson’s ethic, inequality was to generate greater expenses than equality; therefore, the crusade to equality of educational opportunity was not a matter of choice but a necessity. Ravitch looks into the crusade with this pre-understanding and reports on the events without engaging in judgments – this is not to say that she refrains completely from judgments.

The theme of equal educational opportunity, in Ravitch, presents the dichotomy of change and resistance. Evidence of this dichotomy is seen in the constant struggle faced by movements that crusaded against social issues such as (a) racial segregation and discrimination, which were at the heart of the crusade for equal educational opportunity; (b) the Vietnam War and the Cold War; (c) sex discrimination; (d) government and educational control; (e) religious freedom and educational control; (f) student activism and educational control; (g) the education for the handicapped; and (h) urban versus rural schools. It would be unthinkable to discuss the crusade without this conceptual framework because, “what other than race, gender, politics, religion, power, and physical ability can constitute a greater source of conflict in any given society?”

Considering that the American republic was established with a hierarchical view of race and that arguing for equality of educational opportunity would challenge that initial characteristic of the republic and its segregated structure, it is no wonder that Ravitch dedicates two chapters to race and education, and even incorporates discussions on race-related movements within other chapters, e.g., Chapter seven. Race is a core issue in debates on equal educational opportunity and to this date Ravitch’s research is essential in understanding why we still have race at the center of the discussions on equal education opportunity. Again, my critique is that this is not the only issue but the core.

Ravitch describes the spirit of the crusade as a drive for change at any cost and at a high speed, “Whoever the claimant, whether representing blacks, women, the handicapped, or non-English-speaking minority groups, the avenue of political remedy was the same: To bypass educational authorities by working directly with sympathetic congressional committees and by gaining judicial supervision” (p. 311). One constant thesis in the book is the perception that the school is a means through which the goal of equity was to be achieved and the awareness by crusader groups that a dominant culture was being transferred through the school system. What is not explicitly evident in the book is whether Ravitch’s thesis, in someway, is the result of her judgment of the role of schools in society or simply an objective description of the perception of those engaged in reforms during the crusade. In other words, “did the reformers truly believe that the school is a transformer of society? Or did they perceive society to be the reason educational reforms were necessary?” This is a distinction not made in Ravitch, which a critical historian would have engaged. Forces at work are essential to understand social phenomena, but a deeper understanding of social phenomena requires a deeper understanding of forces at work and not a mere report on what such forces were.

Although Ravitch lacks a thorough critical analysis of the issues outlined in the book, one cannot judge her book on such basis, as some critiques have, because she makes clear that her intention is to present “a report on the state of the crusade against ignorance during a particularly tumultuous time in America.” – This is a wise indication that Ravitch does not intend to delve exhaustively in the history of the crusades but rather open a platform for a better understanding of the times and some whys of the crusade.

Like most historians, Ravitch recognizes the complexity of the crusade in the following statement:

In the crusade against ignorance, there have been no easy victories, but no lasting defeats. Those who have labored on behalf of American education have seen so many barriers scaled, so much hatred dispelled, so many possibilities remaining to provide the basis for future reconciliation. To believe in education is to believe in the future, to believe in what may be accomplished through the disciplined use of intelligence, allied with cooperation and good will. If it seems naively American to put so much stock in schools, colleges, and universities, and the endless prospect of self-improvement and social improvement, it is an admirable, and perhaps even a noble, flaw. (p. 330)

The book opens with the somehow simplistic-optimistic tone evident in Jefferson’s letter, the book’s content is filled with a mix of several isms, such as optimism, pessimism, and skepticism, and it closes in an optimistic tone. To close the book in this fashion is indeed opening up a challenge to one’s interpretation of historical events, particularly because I am skeptical as to whether the complexity of the issues prompting the crusade and the current issues presented in today’s discussions on reforms, for instance equal educational opportunity, will find their solution in the belief on education and not in the belief of something outside education. In my view, equal educational opportunity includes aspects that go beyond the curriculum and educational endeavors because such constructs as equality, education, and opportunity are socially construed and remain conflicting due to the multiplicity of perspectives on the interpretation of what indeed constitutes equality, intelligence, and opportunity.

Ravitch’s book is a must-read for all historians and those concerned with social transformation related to education. In spite of the issues I raise regarding its closing, I have deep respect for such an insightful reading, and there is no perfect history ever written, yet this is “close to perfect” because it does justice to its intention and promise.