successful failure: the building of liberal jewish education failure... · commonly view as the...
Post on 27-Mar-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Running Title: Successful Failure 1
Successful Failure: The building of liberal Jewish education
Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D.
School of Education, The Melton Center
Hebrew University,
Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905
Israel
Email: mszviman@mscc.huji.ac.il
Introduction
What follows is an essay in the traditions of both storytellers and social scientists.
Jerome Bruner distinguished between narrative and paradigmatic approaches to
differentiate between the posture in which knowing and understanding are achieved
by means of general laws and inductive and deductive truths, and an alternative
posture in which knowledge and understanding are not explained but interpreted.
In the first section, the mostly narrative one, I argue systemically, that what we
commonly view as the failure of liberal Jewish education is not failure at all, but
rather a successful adaptive strategy to hegemonic western socio-historical contexts.
The term liberal Jewish education points to a wide variety of non-orthodox, religious
and non-religious groups, which hold to open perspectives regarding the possible
integration between tradition and modernity. Regarding the use of the word ‘failure’,
it’s worth noting that I use it loosely; more as a reflection of the general discourse in
multiple encounters with professional and lay leadership and students, than as the
product of systematic empirical research, a research that is sorely missing in our field.
I assert that western paradigmatic perspectives have shaped the educational
epistemology, rhetoric, and practice of liberal Judaism in such a way as to hide the
Running Title: Successful Failure 2
fact that the ‘failure’ of Jewish education is not due to the quality of individuals
(teachers and/or students) but to that of systems; those same systems which liberal
Jews jointly and cooperatively build and sustain (in and with the world).
I suggest that when critically reviewing our paradigmatic sources we might be better
off asking: “How do the world and communities get organized in such a way as to
‘succeed’ in their educational efforts while considering this success a failure?” In
short, I propose that if we are interested in change we should shift our interests from
individual students’ or teachers’ minds to world systems and their politics.
Lastly, I introduce the concept of Cultural Education geared towards the co-
production of instructors/mediators aware of historical processes, the interdependence
of social phenomena, and the participation of a multiplicity of powers and interests in
the shaping of present meanings. I suggest that the learning of “languages and
languaging” within a carnivalesque mode might be helpful in getting us through the
next moments of our liberal history.
Reflecting on Successful Failure
Let us keep the paper theoretically light, I said to myself. Reflecting on this thought
for a second time, I wondered why I assumed that if I wanted to be in any way
relevant to Jewish educators I ought to be theoretically light. Maybe it is because my
experience tells me that we have made sure in our communities that our teachers feel
threatened or have a sense of despair when confronted with materials that seem only
indirectly connected to their immediate realities. Could it be possible, I wondered,
that this phenomena has anything to do with our teachers’ sense of failure in
Running Title: Successful Failure 3
achieving success with their students whenever teaching what has come to be known
as Jewish education? Yes!
During the many opportunities I have had to teach or to be present in sessions in
which educators are being trained, I have paid attention to the fact that as soon as
these educators- teachers (and for that matter many other adults) are seated, in rows
and or behind tables, according to educational ritual, they adopt the posture of what
five minutes ago they themselves would have characterized as that of the typical
obnoxious student.
If I am right in this observation, then it follows that students are not obnoxious but
instead, that there are settings in which people, young or old, become so. It seems
then that being obnoxious is not a quality of mind but a quality of settings, more a
function of the system than a function of the individual. If so, I wondered, could it be
that the failure of Jewish education is not due to the quality of individuals (teachers
and/or students) but due to that of systems, those systems which ‘we’ (professional
and lay leadership, students, parents, and our contexts) all jointly and cooperatively
build and sustain, while trying to preserve the appearance of creating a ‘worthwhile
reality’? Yes!
Now I had to ask myself: “How have kids and adult teachers, usually smart (at times
too smart), come to believe that the supposedly failing Jewish school system was the
best and most successful option available?” Maybe the failing Jewish educational
system was adaptive to local systemic circumstances. But if this was so what could
this possibly mean? It might mean that what is being taught at schools is at risk, if
Running Title: Successful Failure 4
adopted, of creating types of knowledge and activity that if displayed in relevant,
surrounding, social contexts would be considered misfit or dangerous in one way or
another. But how could this be?
At schools and in in-service training sessions we see youngsters and adults, for the
most part struggling with …(what indeed do they struggle with?) Are they texts? Yes
they are …and plenty of them! Mostly traditional texts. Talmud and Bible and other
texts in which students and teachers dwell on ideologies and history. Teachers in in-
service training sessions dwell on philosophical educational texts as well.
When confronting these texts, youngsters and adults alike find themselves being
asked to allow these texts to become part of their associative worlds, to become part
of their cultural resources when confronting similar situations; in short to think about
the potential relevance of these texts to their present realities. Achieving Jewish
textual literacy will allow them, so they are told, to become proud representatives of
their ethnic/religious group and partners in securing its continuity. While trying to
achieve this literacy, youth and teachers alike are subject to continuous ‘explanations’
by the experts teaching the texts, as if something prevents them from understanding
these texts as they are present(ed) (from the Latin prae-sens [sum]- “being in front
of”; as if something stands behind those words they are asked to read which is not
accessible to a normal eye (I). Their reading is continuously mediated by the expert
understandings of caring sages/teachers. Thus the ‘true’ understanding is not of the
text (the one they con-front), but of the experts’ reading of the text; which is also a
text, but not necessarily the one they have been asked to read. Of course students are
never told this, making sure that they, once again, believe understanding to be a
Running Title: Successful Failure 5
complex achievement. The constitutive texts of the tradition supposed to be theirs, are
never accessible to them. If this is so we should ask: “If the texts are not accessible
how can they become useful?”
It has happened in the past that I have regularly found myself in situations in which I
have been able to observe those same students who seemed somewhat restricted in
school, acting in clever ways when confronting situations in which they had to find
solutions to problems similar to the ones presented in the text they had studied,
without needing to refer to the text at all. It seemed that that which they had been
taught was quite dispensable. Life outside seemed not to require the texts that school,
in all of its forms, felt were necessary.
I thought to myself: “Could this be an explanation of why not learning at school
would make sense?” If indeed the outside world had no use for the knowledge
acquired, why should anyone learn it? I asked and was perplexed. I said to myself:
“Many times we learn and teach things which, though not of immediate use in our
current extra-curricular experience, can become useful in the future for ourselves or
our communities.” This being true, I was in need of a better explanation for the fact
that students seem often to achieve non-learning in spite of the efforts invested by our
teachers. I thought the reason may be that not only in our present environments is
there no need for this knowledge but that this knowledge could also be damaging in
one way or another. Though it sounded impossible, I reflected on this option. I
recollected and recognized that many times the texts presented in our schools might
suffer from being a-historical and de-contextualized and, possibly even worse, the
texts and the ways they were introduced and handled presented Jews as detached from
Running Title: Successful Failure 6
the world itself. In a sense it seemed that the efforts made in Jewish education were
such that they included a hidden message that Jews and Judaism can exist in isolation,
without recognition of and dialogue with the other, as though the development of the
Jewish People is free from historical, contextual influences. Such a message would
clearly oppose our common (and empirical) knowledge that things ‘become’ through
the differences they present, thus making ‘Jewish’ possible only when contrasted to
the non-Jewish other. It has always been clear to me that if there were only Jews (and
nothing but Jews), “Jewishness” would lose its relevance as a sign of differentiation.
This is not only true for Jews, but for all world categories which become such only by
the possibility of being contrasted to others which can be, in turn, differentiated from
them. If so, teaching ‘Jewishness’ in isolation would make little sense. Our schools
seemed to have forgotten that Jews and Judaism, to be relevant, have to be relevant to
the world and not just to the Jews.
From this perspective, not learning would indeed be adaptive. Applying Jewishness in
outside contexts as it is presented in our educational institutions might even be
dangerous. If one’s Jewishness lacks content, then one’s claim to difference is
supported with essentialist explanations, which can imply arrogance and even racism.
Moreover, it became apparent to me that that which is being taught is not reflective of
the everyday activity of the students (that Jewish at school was not the same as Jewish
outside of school), again making it prudent not to learn since otherwise our students
might find themselves mal-adapted to the world immediately outside of their
communities. And what about our students being smarter than what we thought they
were? What about the possibility that our students, in a paradoxical way, were indeed
learning what they are taught; in this case meaning that they are learning the possible
Running Title: Successful Failure 7
hidden message of our educational system, that is: “In school we will teach you the
‘ought to do’ of Judaism not the ‘what to do’” – not ‘the how of truth’ but rather ‘the
what of truth’.
If the above is correct our opening question should be amended from: “Why do
individuals fail to learn?” to “How do the world and communities get organized to
make it worthwhile for their educational efforts to fail?” In short, if we are interested
in change, we should shift the focus of our interest from the minds of individual
students or teachers to social systems and their politics.
Today, given their guiding principles, liberal Jewish educational institutions
contribute little to that which is central to present world realities when teaching Judaic
studies. They offer little if anything at all, that may serve Jewish kids in their
encounters with the fiercely competitive and global world of today- that same world
in which they want them so much to succeed. Paradoxically, the contents of the
secondary texts taught (the explanatory texts of the teachers) usually carry messages,
which attack this competitive spirit, thereby rendering the texts even less pertinent.
Even when implicitly supporting competition (through, for an example, a Bible quiz)
these anti-competitive mediated texts are negated in practice, which only reinforces
their practical irrelevancy.
These educational institutions, as we have already mentioned, teach Jews Judaism, or
so they say. This category is assumed to be unproblematic and descriptive of a ‘true’
identifiable world outside. This follows from the institutions’ a-historical and a-
contextual approach to the contents taught. Many institutions use the word ‘Jewish’ as
Running Title: Successful Failure 8
a prefix to secure their identification, since it is quite difficult to identify them as such
apart from a few ritual moments in their trajectories. Jewishness might be easily
recognizable in those compartmentalized ritual moments in which reified cultural
aspects are brought into play (i.e. festivals, text learning), but other than that, it would
be difficult to say what else is Jewish about these institutions.
Coming as I do from critical and constructivist theoretical perspectives, it seems to me
that teaching this way means sustaining a worldview that has by now long become
unacceptable by moral and empirical standards. It means that only rarely are we
invited to consider the necessary conditions that allow a group or an individual to be
recognized, stereotyped, and at times privileged or made to suffer. It means, in one
way or another, making the learner participate in the production of racism, directed
towards the other for the most part, but towards himself and his people as well.
Teaching this way means denying our experience that, though we work very hard to
make them appear otherwise, borders are ever fuzzy and porous.
Border work might indeed be necessary. But border work can be done in at least two
ways. There is the old-fashioned Western colonial way of denial and there is the
dialogic ‘humane’ way by which true recognition can be achieved. True recognition
can be dangerous to static cultural views because it also carries a strong creative
impulse. If indeed Jews (as any other cultural category) ‘become’ in difference, then
Jews ‘are’ only in dialogue, at times hazardous dialogue. Knowledge of becoming in
dialogue with others means we risk finding the other more attractive and, if continuity
is what we are in search of, that we had better find ways to make our own no less
attractive.
Running Title: Successful Failure 9
Indeed if Judaism ‘is’ and Jews ‘are’ givens, static and reified, and at present are not
attractive because of their contents or forms, then there is little chance for anyone to
become engaged in the Jewish learning process. Moreover liberal Jewish education
presents Judaism as learning and a Jew as a quality of mind, rather than Judaism as
practice and a Jew as becoming-in-activity. Therefore even when youth learn at
schools, their functioning in the world will not allow them to apply their learning
successfully. The world cannot read a Jew’s mind; it will notice only material or
interpretative difference. However liberal Jewish education does not ‘do’ rhetorical or
embodied practice. Students well know (or will soon learn) that for them to become
lawyers (or doctors, or teachers, or parents) they are mostly dependent upon hard
interactional work, equipped by languages to be rehearsed, fashions to be worn, and a
whole set of practices recognizable in context. If they fail to enact this work, at the
right time, with the right people, in the right interpretative moment, they risk
forfeiting their chosen identities. Even without venturing far into the future, students
already realize that while perhaps Jews in sentiment, they are Americans or Israelis in
their conversational and behavioral practice. This is indeed a poor compromise, since
such Jewishness is rendered meaningless without action. In return Jews are offered a
chance to succeed in the West, a West that has not necessarily been kind to difference
in general and Jewish difference in particular. So there you go, another good reason
for failing… that is, succeeding to fail.
By failing to learn ‘Jewishness’, students are fully adapting to a system, which leaves
little room for cultural variability in those domains that culture deems successful. The
‘successful domains’ of western culture are usually, in one way or another,
Running Title: Successful Failure 10
homogenized and thus very western. Hence those interested in liberal Jewish
education would do well to move from the study of children and teachers, each failing
at school or each failing each other, to the study of cultural settings in which that
failing can make sense. When doing so, we find ourselves dealing in politics, that one
issue that is still messy in western homogenized educational culture – that’s to say the
one issue disdain by the powers that be.
If we care about education, we should also ask: “What is education all about?” In a
sense it seems to be about learning. Teaching to learn is what we seem to try to get
our students to do. The problem is that we have never seen anyone learn, not the
“three R’s”, nor Judaism. What we might have seen, for better or worse, is students
focused, or not, upon texts or teachers. It is this sight that we have assumed to be
‘learning’.
The most we see in schools is people interacting, mostly verbally and at times
physically. Learning, as recent theorists tell us, is embedded in a myriad of activities
that hold a child long enough for something to change enough so that the next day’s
activities look different. In this sense, learning is less about individuals and much
more about contexts in the world. These contexts allow some knowledge to be shown
as relevant and useful while other knowledge is discarded as irrelevant.
We should ask ourselves how we believe the continuous repetition of texts induces
them to become relevant in the world contexts that surround us. If we find that our
texts are indeed irrelevant, we return to politics. That’s to say, having to search for
ways to make the world contexts in which we live amenable so as to allow for the
Running Title: Successful Failure 11
knowledge we seem to teach to become relevant. Alternatively, we can think about
how to adapt the knowledge we value so that it may become relevant to our present
contexts. Again the present western world is not helpful here. It seems not to allow for
much of our knowledge to become relevant, so it is western politics that we might
need to challenge, and not so much our students or teachers. But then we should ask if
this is indeed what we want. I doubt the answer would be a positive one for liberal
Jews. Left unchallenged, educational life becomes difficult because knowledge is
expected to be retained only as useless memories. For learning to be actively
maintained, it is in need of the active involvement of community. Learning is a
cumulative process, which requires the ongoing participation and organization of
people in specific settings who diachronically and in a multitude of settings apply the
things learned.
If learning is indeed an ongoing practice set in community and never an individual
action, it is endangered by the ‘emancipatory’ message that forms the basis of our
functioning in the western world. Particularistic cultures in the West, if allowed to
exist, are expected to be secluded to the privacy of the individual sphere, far from the
public eye (I), their public appearance constrained to ritual events. If this is so, we
have one more reason to challenge the political system. But, in spite of present
multiculturalist trends, we do not seem to want to become Lubavitchers now,
practicing Judaism in the agora (public sphere) any more than in the past, and
rightfully so. Present multiculturalist trends are ready to offer recognition, but not
necessarily equality, and we seem to prefer equality to the recognition of difference.
Running Title: Successful Failure 12
We might be better off then if we ask not why our schools fail, but instead, why
dominant cultures are unwilling to accept cultural differences, and then decide if we
want to do something about it. Instead of doing this, liberal Jewish schools seem to
teach types of intolerance as a way to flesh out their particularistic identity,
reproducing within Jewish culture the same sense of exclusion produced by the
dominant culture, without realizing that since Jews are not dominant, such intolerance
is in the long run counterproductive to the Jewish community. Paradoxically, while
investing inside our community through such Jewish education, we serve the larger
outside world, which denies us and others like us. Alternatively, this could be
interpreted as achieving our aims. On the one hand we tell ourselves that we try inside
our community, but on the other hand, we successfully ‘fail’ in the outside world.
In brief, let me conclude this section by summarizing the main points I have raised
which are contrary to accepted theory and practice in liberal Jewish education.
1- The (at times) perceived failure of, or dissatisfaction with the
products of Jewish education, have little to do with the quality of
teachers or students and a lot to do with the quality of the systems
we (all) cooperatively construct.
2- Failing to understand the above means confusing failure for what
are adaptive moves to local and global systemic circumstances.
3- Positivist western paradigmatic perspectives are responsible for the
present educational perspectives that guide liberal Jewish educational
theory and practice. Educational change will occur only after we first
change these paradigmatic perspectives.
Running Title: Successful Failure 13
4- Changing paradigmatic perspectives means that education cannot be
isolated in the autonomous individual; located externally in a static,
coherent culture; and transmitted through specific and measurable
‘educational’ tasks. It means realizing that the individual, culture, and
the learning process are best represented as contextualized,
historicized, and interactive processes.
5- I have implied that from any feasible communicational theory, for
Jews to be relevant to themselves they have to be relevant in and to the
world, an almost trivial point when considering that meaning is by
definition not a representational given but the outcome of difference
management on an historical trajectory.
6- Lastly, I have suggested that, if the above were correct, Jews would
do well to look for better educational solutions in the reorganization of
present western world politics than in the limited parameters of their
school settings or in the individual minds of teachers or students.
If up until now Jewish education has meant thinking about group membership,
individual learning and school failure, we need to change our approach. There is
nothing individual about learning, there is no prerequisite literacy for membership,
and schools are not necessarily the settings in which to achieve relevant, productive,
adaptive learning.
Running Title: Successful Failure 14
What then can we do? We can start by trying to create educational settings that
achieve success not for others (the West and its expectations for the proper
functioning of their minorities), which has meant failure for our own. How to achieve
this is a more difficult question upon which I would like to partially and tentatively
reflect in the following section.
Cultural Education
We might start by re-conceptualizing Jewish education as a particular case of Cultural
Education. By Cultural Education (CE) I mean the educational efforts invested by
minority groups who want to sustain what they perceive to be their socio-historical
heritage, while confronted with the globalizing, assimilatory power of an hegemonic
West.
Cultural Education is geared to cultivate in members of culturally, economically, or
politically ‘oppressed’ groups, a critical consciousness of their situation as the
foundation of their liberatory praxis while recognizing that their greatest enemy is the
fatalistic faith in the inevitability and necessity of existing beliefs and structures.
The classic humanities curriculum, that which traditionally guides educational efforts
towards enculturation into given traditions (Jewish, democratic, or other), implicitly
(and partially explicitly) assumes certain modern understandings of concepts such as
culture, identity, and education, which are associated with autonomous, cognitive, and
individual activities. Rather recent theoretical developments within the ‘new’
humanities and social sciences have led to a reexamination of these concepts and their
related issues.
Running Title: Successful Failure 15
Understandings of culture, identity and education (and related concepts such as
language, power and memory) have undergone a shift from de-contextualized, ideal
models to historicized, dialogically produced and transformed ones. The focus has
therefore shifted from the individual to the social arena and from the intra-
psychological to the inter-psychological. This theoretical relocation into the social
interactional sphere where historically situated participants calibrate their positions
according to complex socio-cultural relations, has the potential to promote a re-
thinking of educational aims and strategies and set the grounds for the radical (from
Latin radix for root – not a bad metaphor for Jewish education) move in Jewish
education that I suggest.
This relocation does not necessarily rule out the possibility of continuing in part with
what has been done so far, but implies the need to promote new representations of
possible models of teachers and students responsive to the new and diverse challenges
encountered today in a transnational, global world. The moment identity, culture
(cultura-ae, Latin for work) and education (from the Latin, educare, e-“out” +
ducere- “to lead”) recover their contextual historical dimensions and regain their
process-like and dialogical co-constitution, they can no longer be presented in their
glorified historical remoteness (as traditionally done by philosophy and textual studies
in Jewish education). Neither can they be presented in their present detached solitude
as static traits or pure forms (contents), as cognitive/mental properties, available for
proper transmission given a becoming context. Rather forceful consideration should
be given to the contextual socio-historical character of social processes and meaning
Running Title: Successful Failure 16
construction, emphasizing the interdependence of all such developments and
phenomena.
This calls for a deep curricular involvement with all of those humanities and social
sciences that, in the last decades, have started a critical reappraisal of modernity. This
involvement would guide participants through a reflective process toward a new and
hopefully better understanding of their own condition and social situation, and of the
powers and processes involved in their becoming. These would then no longer appear
as natural events, but rather be seen to be the result of human social activity, that
would first require understanding before steps are taken toward change, when
necessary.
It is the organization of educational practice towards these aims and its resulting
practices, which I call Cultural Education (CE). CE is geared towards the joint
production of instructors/mediators aware of historical processes, the interdependence
of social phenomena, and the participation of a multiplicity of powers and interests in
the shaping of present meanings (jewishness, or other). This awareness should allow
participants in the process to devise the strategies necessary for change (if change is
indeed their goal), and to consider the feasibility of their implementation in the
multiple arenas in which interested powers struggle for domination (i.e. educational
institutions, media channels, political arenas, etc.). These are not uniquely Jewish
educational challenges. They are salient for a multitude of other cultural groups,
which have suffered from western social, cultural, political, and or economic
colonizing tendencies in the modern era.
Running Title: Successful Failure 17
A tentative analysis of modernity using these tools would unmask “modernity” as a
homogenizing (middle-class, white, heterosexual, male, etc.) process, which tends to
control the particular narratives of ‘others’, thereby subduing them to national and
global commodifying industrial forces.
These homogenizing commodifying forces have been unleashed by the processes of
modernization which have taken place in much of the world by virtue of the
expansion of the sphere of influence of western socio-political organizations (i.e. the
nation-state, the corporation, etc.), together with their related values (anonymity,
homogeneity, literacy) and accompanying phenomena (economic crisis, ecological
crisis, detraditionalization, migratory forces, Diaspora, etc.).
The move suggested is similar to that taken in anthropology when examining central
paradigmatic perspectives in general education – its study and practice. It starts by
restoring, respectfully, the concept of culture to its historical sources; it follows by
developing the restored meaning into a methodology – cultural analysis – which in
turn allows for a shift from the individual or the socializing group as the crucial
analytic unit for educational analysis to the production of cultural contexts; and last, it
leads to a new articulation of major policy issues related to – no longer Jewish
education and its components, individual students, teachers, parents, curriculum, but
to the analysis of particular Jews in the particular context of particular western
societies.
Running Title: Successful Failure 18
If so we should then train teachers and students to be sensitive to and to uncover these
universalizing homogenizing processes and procedures as well as to consider possible
paths of action to prevent their course. Adopting this view would mean that teachers
and students would, in one way or another, be involved with the challenges posed by
globalizing commodifying educational systems and cognizant of the risks they present
to a variety of subgroups with diverse legitimate (ethnic, religious, cultural, political,
etc.) interests.
If we can agree on the above, then we should consider viewing the task of Jewish
education as the collaborative production of cultural teachers, instructors, mediators,
and students, socialized and/or acculturated to particular (peripheralized western)
socio-historical traditions. While socializing individuals into particular traditions, our
aim is to foster creative development and productive dialogic cross-fertilization within
and between traditions.
Agents participating in the process outlined would become mindful that culture has
little to do with the habits we train people to adopt and has everything to do with the
environments we build for people to inhabit. Indeed culture as activity in context, is
not so much something into which one is placed, but an order of behavior in which
one participates. In short, they would realize that our interaction in context is what
continuously produces and maintains culture.
Agents would come to share the belief that perhaps the greatest of all pedagogical
fallacies is the notion that a person learns only the particular thing he is studying or
being taught at the time. Collateral learning in the way of the formation of enduring
Running Title: Successful Failure 19
attitudes, of likes and dislikes, may be and often is much more important than the
textual or managerial lessons that are taught.
Finally agents would come to consider that the most important attitude to foster is the
desire to go on learning. Good education is a social enterprise in which all individuals
have an opportunity to contribute and to which all feel a responsibility. Accordingly
their goal would become the creation of educational processes which invite
participants to uncover the conditions (and the mechanisms which construct these
conditions as natural and inevitable) for a group to become recognized, stereotyped,
and/or functionally dysfunctional, thereby successfully adapting to an exclusive,
homogenized outside world.
These goal may be achieved by developing educational programs which bring to their
awareness our own cultural processes– assumptions, goals, values, beliefs, and
communicative modes – in their manifold forms within their historical, evolutionary
contexts as they are expressed in political, social and institutional life. This awareness
of their own cultural processes would permit them to see these as a potential bias in
social interaction and in the acquisition or transmission of skills and knowledge.
For teachers and students, this awareness is necessary so as to allow them to realize
that their failures and successes are not so much theirs but products of intricate webs
of relations located within and between complex historicized cultural patterns. It is
also relevant to make each aware of their own cultural assumptions and the effects
these have on their educational planning and behavior. And last, but not least, it is
Running Title: Successful Failure 20
necessary to raise consciousness concerning the unequal power relationships that are
endemic to state and educational institutions.
Thus we should raise our teachers and students to realize that as Jews we not only
exist through our texts, but also author ourselves as texts, poetic patch worked
narratives, composed of the multiple, evolving discursive products of numerous
chains of production. These interwoven chains of production include, among others, a
financial structure of regional, national, and global circuits; an aesthetic experience
expressed in our architecture or commodity packaging; and a social-status-creating
mechanism which regulates power, organizing body, space and time and the relations
between them. These chains produce ideological experiences, images of community,
and perspectives on the use of time and the meaning of pleasure, all of which impact
and shape our sense of Jewishness.
Our educational instructors/mediators need first and foremost to be able to read the
world and its chains of production. This literacy requires abundant theory and
descriptive power in order to uncover and cope with the complexity of the sites or
social phenomena. They need familiarity with a variety of disciplines and discourses:
Economic discourse for discussing commodities, supplies,
management.
Aesthetic discourse, to discuss architecture, advertising, display.
Political discourse, to discuss bodies, policies, planning, discipline.
Ethnographic discourse to find the beauty of the particular responses to
all of the above.
Running Title: Successful Failure 21
Historical discourse to talk about change in organization, consumption,
community.
Interpretative discourses to articulate understandings of each of the
texts, and their necessary intertextuality in practice, which, in concert,
create culture, Jewish or otherwise.
All of the above are needed to read the world and the activities that construct it, not
only in the world outside but also inside the classrooms. This might not be all that is
needed but it’s a critical start without which the rest will not follow.
All in all this essay points at the need to enrich our ‘customers’, teachers and students
alike, with languages, dialects and discourses. The central solution I offer involves the
discursive practice of ‘language-in-action’ as the generative tool of individual and
social experience. Indeed I write assuming that it is expression that organizes
experience and constructs reality, and not the other way around. From this
perspective, ‘self’ is authored in dialogue, and social groups develop their own
relatively stable coherent styles, though stylistic coherence never becomes a finished
product.
Knowledge of the uses of language (gesture and verb), the learning of ‘languaging’,
enables the recognition that we are not unrestricted agents constructing our realities,
but that, if we author the world at all, we do so by drawing upon words authored by
others. Choice of expression (identity, role, what have you) is a result of the historical
development of “heteroglossia”, the multiplicity of languages defined by their own
semantic and axiological content, which rule social life.
Running Title: Successful Failure 22
The understanding of the historical and contextual situatedness of language supports
the partial solution I have suggested regarding the possibility of overcoming our
present educational position. If indeed in our present position we ‘language western’
and lack the potential to successfully ‘language Jewish’ because of western
absolutism which has instituted its universalizing unitary language and abstracted
semantic domains, then the simple learning of language might not be enough. Thus
we might have to consider the option of counteracting it through the most powerful of
linguistic devices - that of parody and Bakhtinian carnivalesque.
Indeed since time immemorial the carnivalesque spirit has epitomized the popular
counter-culture, which rejects the ‘high culture’ of officialdom, itself ultimately
expressed in hegemonic western domination. Parody and the carnivalesque stand for
the embodied, the ambivalent, the generative, as opposed to the abstract, the fixed and
represented. The carnivalesque unsettles our present epistemological comfort. By
being grotesque, it distorts present understandings, transcends ‘natural’ boundaries,
opens an invitation to fusion and communion, and thus becomes a threat to
officialdom.
True modernity has recognized the power of the carnivalesque and has retained it as a
safety valve through which to secure its tyranny. Still the teaching and practice of
heteroglossia, parody and historicized language might serve to counteract our present
situation by supporting a new free and critical historical consciousness.
Our present situation, like any ideology, is not a given; neither is it eternal. It is not a
mystical abstraction but rather the product of socio-cultural practice expressed in
Running Title: Successful Failure 23
utterances, shaped by a common ordained language. Training towards an
understanding of language and discourse affords the possibility of de-centering the
present hegemonic authorial voice. The exploration of languages and the study of
discourses might be modest steps in the right direction.
Note
Part of the arguments forward in this paper are deeply indebted to an unpublished
work by R. McDermott and Herve Verenne, this in no way means they share
responsibility for the statements made.
Running Title: Successful Failure 24
References
Those interested in the views expressed in this article would do well to meet the
authors and encounter the theoretical perspectives that support it. A first partial list of
works is offered in the following.
Bakhtin, M. (1968). Rabelais and his world (H. Isowolsky, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. E. M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature a necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books.
Bateson, M. C. (1994). Peripheral visions: Learning along the way. New York:
Harper Collins.
Bauman, Z. (1996). Morality in the age of contingency. In P. Heelas & S. Lash & P.
Morris (Eds.), Detraditionalization. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bauman, Z. (1999). Culture as praxis. London: Sage.
Beck, U. (2000). What is globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Becker, A. L. (1995). Beyond Translation Essays toward a Modern Philology. Ann
Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Bekerman, Z. (2001). Constructivist perspectives on language, identity and culture:
Implications for Jewish identity and the education of Jews. Religious
Education, 96(4), 462-473.
Bekerman, Z., & Silberman, M. (2003). The corruption of culture and education by
the nation state. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 2(1), 19-34.
Bekerman, Z., & Silverman, M. (1999). Slaves of tradition - Slaves of freedom:
Social constructivist perspectives on the 'culture' of israeli traditionalists and
liberals. Israel Studies, 4(2), 90-120.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching as learning in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(3),
149-164.
Maturana, U., & Valera, F. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of
Human Understanding. Boston: New Science Library.
Ranciere, J. (1991). The ignorant schoolmaster: Five lessons in intellectual
emancipation (K. Ross, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural nature of Human Development. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Verenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1998). Successful failure: The schools America
builds. USA: Westview Press.
Volosinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka & I.
R. Titunik, Trans.). New York: Seminar Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. H. G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge,
Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Running Title: Successful Failure 25
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.).
Oxford: Blackwell.
top related