An Open Letter to Securitas

Dear Cohort Members, here is an excerpt of the e-mail I had sent to the Chronicle Herald and Metro News with respect to my experience at work today. I thought it would be nice to share this with the group especially where it seems to intercept with the discourse within our recently concluded GSLL 6206.

 

According to its corporate website, “Securitas’ three fundamental values are: Integrity, Vigilance and Helpfulness”. However, I am inclined to disagree with this assertion based on my resent unpleasant experience with this organization

As a result of this distasteful incident, I have therefore decided to present this open letter with the hope that, perhaps, someone on the upper echelon of this organization would read this, and be able to bring some redress to the issues and concerns raised in this communiqué.

I recently contacted Securitas, Dartmouth Office, on behalf of a pregnant client of mine who was let go in January of this year. As an Employment Specialist, part of my duties in addition to assisting client to navigate a career path, is to advocate for them when deemed necessary; hence my reason for contacting Securitas to inquire why my client has not been issued a Record of Employment four months after ceasing to be an employee of the company, and after repeated attempts by her to get this required documentation for EI maternity purposes.

During my first attempt, the initial story was that my client had failed to return her uniform as required after termination. However, after I reiterated that the said uniform had already been returned, it  was checked and confirmed that the uniform has indeed been returned (by the way the uniform in question was returned way back in February).  At this junction, the story changed to the fact that the delay has been due to some changes in staffing but I was promised that the ROE will be ready by Monday (and that she will personally take care of it).

Monday came, and gone. It is now Wednesday, my client is due in July and as of April 18^th, she does not know if she has enough hours to qualify for EI Maternity. I decided to call Securitas again, and this time had the privilege of speaking with the Branch Manager. After explaining to him that my client has made several attempts to get her ROE, he was very dismissive and stated that apparently my client hasn’t made enough attempt, otherwise, he would have know about it as he’s the one responsible for issuing the ROE (which tells me that my previous call did not amount to anything). Incredibly, just like the last time, the branch manager was quick to tell me that the ROE has been delayed because my client is yet to return her uniform! Of course at this time, I quickly realized some disorganization within this organization. In similar fashion to my previous call, I reaffirmed that this uniform was returned as required. He put me on hold, came back and informed me that two of his office staff did confirm that the uniform has been returned but no one kept him in the loop. He then proceeded to inform me that I should tell my client that the ROE would be ready for pick up 9 am the following day.

I thanked him for his assistance, and then proceeded to ask if it was alright to make a comment before getting off the phone, to which he said yes. I expressed my disappointment at the way my client has been treated, and how it literally took my intervention for her to get the ROE. At this point, he became quite belligerent, and reminded me that my client should have been the one contacting them and not a “third party”. He also asked me if I worked for the Labour Board, and reminded me that if my client has an issue with them, she should have approached them directly or contact the labour board rather than having me as the middle person, and he further went on to state that he is not interested in listening to any “crap” from me whether I’m an employment specialist or whoever I am. He was also kind enough to remind me that “in this country” that’s how it’s done!

I was astounded that someone occupying such a key position within a large organization will lose his professionalism while on the phone with another professional. It was also quite disappointing that the phrase “in this country” was uttered by this Branch Manager. I can only conclude that he probably assumed having an accent meant I did not know how things are done “in this country” (even after over a decade of declaring my allegiance to Canada)

While the event has been an unsettling one for me, it has nonetheless strengthened my resolve that I will never stop advocating for those whose voice are often left unheard especially by discourteous organization such as Securitas. It has also reminded me that there is still work to be done in the area cultural sensitivity by employers around the country.

As I reflect upon my day, I am left to wonder if this Branch Manager would have greased my ear with the statement “in this country” if I had been a member of the dominant culture and if my accent has been, for lack of a better term, Canadianized.

Thank you for taking the time to read.

Redeeming Bracher’s identity: an infusion of Critical Race Theory

One of the recommendations made at the conclusion of our last class is the possibility of injecting Critical Race Theory (CRT) into the premise of Bracher’s identity formation.  Rashid (2011) defines Critical Race Theory as an endeavor to expose the “endemic nature of racism”, within the context of social milieu, and castigate its far reaching effect to impede “life chances” of people of African descent and others who do not identify with whiteness (p. 589).

            CRT, with its background in legal discourse, has incessantly delved into exploring how whiteness is an advantage while “Otherness” (Rollock, 2010, p. 65), becomes marginalized. The scope of CRT is also imprinted on education where it brings to the forefront systemic and often institutionalized ideals that promote Whiteness, and repress those who are deemed as not belonging. CRT is also employed to answer critics who see policies, such as Affirmative Action, as some form of reverse discrimination. These critics argue along a “colour blind policy” which they believe will see everyone treated equally and fairly without regards to race. On this premise, CRT posits that such notions fail to consider how history has helped to create White privilege within the society. Additionally drawing on the works of Dixson and Rouseau (2005), Rashid (2011) asserts that CRT provides an avenue for giving a voice back to the voiceless “students and educators” of African descent who are continuously silenced by the endemic, institutionalized and sanctioned racism within the realm of education (Rashid, 2011, p. 589). Rashid (2011) concludes that Critical Race Theory:

Compels us to understand the nature of racism and White supremacy in modern society, and to struggle in dynamic ways against its distorting effects on the humanity and life chances of communities of color. Though these sites of struggle are myriad, clearly educational institutions play a critical role in confronting the institutional reproduction of racial subordination. This acknowledgment emphasizes the emancipatory role of teachers, parents, community stakeholders, students, and educational scholars in challenging the dominant discourse by working in concert to create emancipatory spaces (p. 600)

It can be argued therefore, that in the context of our discourse on Bracher, Critical Race Theory thus becomes a useful tool for Black scholars to evaluate Bracher’s assertions, and reconcile his theory with our identity as people of African descent. One of the problems encountered in understanding Bracher’s psychoanalytic view on identity is manifested very early in his book. In explaining the nature of identity, Bracher is quick to dissociate his analysis of identity from what can be typically seen in other fields of endeavours where identity is often defined looking at factors such as “race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, social class, nationality” (Bracher, 2006, p. 6). While Bracher’s explanation of his hypothesize qualities of identity are relevant, the very nature of their generalization and professed universality presents a problem to those whose identity – within this universal, psychoanalytical discourse – have been denied of these well articulated qualities.

Drawing on the works of Wynter (1995) and Ladson-Billings and Donnors (1998), Rollock (2012) explains that racialized people are confined to the “edge of society from which their identities and experiences are constructed” (Rollock, 2012, p. 66). While it is true that Bracher succinctly explains how the crave for recognition is a major requirement of identity, and further buttress his claim using the words of Todorov that:

The need to be acknowledged is not just one human motivation among others; it is the truth behind all other needs. Even wealth and material possessions are not an end in themselves but a way for us to be assured of the recognition of others. The absence of recognition is, correspondingly, “the worst evil that could befall us” (Bracher, 2006, p. 8).

However, in trying to situate the above statement within the notion that racialized people occupy the “edge of society”, one cannot but wonder why Bracher did not explore the causative factors of recognition denial that most, within this “edge of society” experience, and which according to Bracher, is the worst of all evil. Perhaps, if his theory of identity has been approached from a different perspective, the problem of race and its implication on identity could have been very obvious. As eloquently noted in many of our blogs, one of the problems encountered with Bracher’s exposition on identity formation is his reductionist approach. A closer look at Bracher’s identity elements – affects, images and words – and the consequent introduction of “identity-bearing master signifiers”, to some degree reveal an allusion to race (p. 17). Bracher explains that an individual’s identity is grounded in the “integrity and status of such master signifiers and our assurance that we actually embody these signifiers” (p. 17).  He further reiterates that if the master signifiers are relegated or made irrelevant, and our connection to the signifier is threatened, there is the potential for us to want to reinforce our identity and fight back (p. 17). Analysing the preceding, it is apparent how Bracher has used the generalization of identity and a reductionist approach to explain factors such as race under the guise of master signifiers.

            Going back to Rollock (2012), some Black scholars have viewed identity formation on the margin as a vantage point where an individual can fight back, and can also “create a counter hegemonic discourse” (cited in hooks, 1990, p. 149). Rollock’s concern is that, while this concept is plausible and even commendable, it however depends on the context:

the field in which racialized others are operating, the tools or resources at their disposal, the support mechanisms available to them and the relative power of other actors present within the social space or field fundamentally impacts and brings into awkward tension the extent to which occupying a site in the margins becomes advantageous (Rollock, 2012, p. 66)

The notion of identity formation on the “margin of the society” providing an avenue to fight back, parallels Bracher’s assertion of fighting back when identity signifiers are threatened. The one noticeable difference is that Rollock is able to employ CRT to highlight the “pervasiveness of the racial power dynamics at play” (p. 67) when an individual’s identity is under attack; and provide appropriate response for fighting back. Bracher on the other hand, while acknowledging the need to fight back, leaves his audience – particularly those from within the marginalized group – out in the cold on how to appropriately respond when their identity is undermined.

References

Bracher, M. (2006). Radical Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation.

Psychoanalysis, Education, and Social Transformation, New York, NY: Palgrave

Macmillan

Rashid, K. (2011). ‘To break asunder along the lesions of race’. The Critical Race

Theory of W.E.B. Du Bois. Race Ethnicity and Education 14(5), 585-602.

Rollock, N. (2012). The invisibility of race: intersectional reflections on the liminal

space of alterity. Race Ethnicity and Education 15(1), 65-84.

The tree and the forest: an analogy for individual and collective identities

In my last blog, I examined Bracher’s view of how historicism is an impediment to identity formation. While I did not agree with this view, I nevertheless concluded that his assertion might be right after all, and that his views may actually explain why racism and prejudice will continue to thrive within the society (Ayo Aladejebi, Blog 5, 2012).

Over the past weeks, I have been struggling to understand how an individual’s identity is impacted and defined by the society. I have tried to analyse how an African proverb, “a tree cannot make a forest”, fits into this phenomenon. Assuming this proverb is accurate, it is important to explore how it interfaces with the concept of identity as presented in both Bracher and Wenger.

Bracher defines identity as “one’s sense of oneself and, more comprehensively, the sense of oneself as a force that matters in the world” (Bracher, 2006, p. 6). Bracher’s definition explicitly revolves around the notion of self and the individual. Bracher, right from the onset, dissociates his definition of identity from membership within the social setting of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, social class, nationality, age and religion. He goes on to present certain factors – “continuity, consistency, agency, distinction, belonging, and meaning” – which he describes as “distinct qualities” that an individual must experience in order for their identity to be fully validated (p. 6).

Wenger’s identity position, on the other hand, subscribes to the belief that identity is a “pivot between the social and the individual” (Wenger, 1999, p. 145). He explains that identity formation is not exclusively a concept of the individual and neither is it entirely an object of the society. Wenger contends that identity is, essentially an abstraction of both – the individual and the society. He explains that while it is important to acknowledge the individual within the construct of identity, it is also prudent to understand that the individual is an active participant within a shared community. He argues that separating the individual from the collective can be an arduous task as both concepts intertwine and the existence of one is not independent of the other (p. 146).

Comparing Wenger and Bracher, and their views of identity takes me back to my opening paragraph about the statement that “a tree does not make a forest”. Critically examining this proverb, I quickly realize the absence of a crucial piece which should be an addendum to the statement. It is apparent that Bracher, with the mind of a psychoanalyst, sees identity as starting and ending with the individual (Bracher, 2006, p. 14) while Wenger, a social learning theorist, sees identity as a continuous flow between the individual and the social, and often, with an obliterated boundary.

My postscript to the African proverb, “a tree cannot make a forest” would read something like this: but continuous cutting of the tree can create the demise of the forest. One of the unique features of Africentric learning is the recognition of the individual within the collective. It is also grounded in the belief that neither is of more importance than the other. Merriweather Hunn (2004) explains the interdependency of the individual and the community:

Communalism is expressed in an African proverb that says that a stream will never rise higher than its source. The individuals represent the stream, and the collective body represents the source. They are intricately connected and bound to each other. There is a sense of accountability and respect for each other (Merriweather Hunn, 2004, p. 69)

            Wenger, stating his position on identity, is quick to distant himself from the opinion that “there is an inherent conflict between the individual and the collective” (Wenger, 1999, p. 146). He also reiterates that, to say that the individual is a symbol of “freedom and creativity” while the collective is seen as imposing “constraints and limitations” or vice versa, would be tantamount to an erroneous assumption (p. 147). Bracher’s argument that identity bearing within the collective is constricting raises the question of what is real and what is not. He explains that collective identity gives an individual a false sense of self. He argues that an individual becomes disengaged with his or her true identity, and automatically assumes the identity of the group (Bracher, 2006, p. 114).

            Critical view of both assertions – Bracher’s and Wenger’s – will reveal that one position is not necessarily better than the other. My identity as an individual has changed periodically depending on context and location. I have assumed the identity of a son, a husband, and a father. This does not change the fact that I am a student, an employment specialist, and it does not minimize the fact that intertwined within these listed identities lies the fact that I am a Christian, a Nigerian, an African, a Canadian, an African Canadian and an African Nova Scotian.

While there are instances where these identities conflict with one another and sometimes make me question my true individual identity, they are nonetheless an integral part of my being. It is also worth noting that sometimes, I have had to assume some of these identities in order to conform to societal perception of who I am or should be. A case in reality is the fact that I became a Canadian citizen over a decade ago, but I am still required to answer the omnipresent question: where are you from?

            Going back to the idea of a tree not being able to declare itself a forest, and a forest not being able to exist without trees, it becomes apparent how intricate the identity of an individual is linked to the society. Looking at identity from the lens of Africentrism, one can see a parallel between the analogy of a “river not rising higher than its source” (Merriweather Hunn, 2004, p.69) and Wenger’s assertion that:

We cannot become human by ourselves; hence a reified, physiologically based notion of individuality misses the interconnectedness of identity (Wenger, 1999, p. 146).

References

Bracher, M. (2006). Radical Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation.

Psychoanalysis, Education, and Social Transformation, New York, NY: Palgrave

Macmillan

Merriweather Hunn, Lisa (2004). Africentric philosophy: a remedy for Eurocentric dominance.

New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education (102), 65-74.

Wenger. E. (1999). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge,

Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

History, identity formation and the dilemma of blackness

When one of my colleagues exclaimed that Bracher’s analysis in Radical Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation were that of a reductionist, it did not quite sink in until I read the ninth chapter of the book.

A reductionist posits that “the simple is the source of the complex”, and ultimately concludes that in order to understand the bigger picture, you just have to look at the bits and pieces existing within it. It does, in essence, create a potential alienation of other important elements that may comprise the whole. Therefore, reading Bracher’s explanation of how historicism is, in essence, a deterrent to radical pedagogy, I cannot but wonder how such notion can have serious consequences on my identity as a person of African descent. Based on my understanding of this chapter, my personal experience, and a shared experience as a member of the Black community, I have decided to highlight how the dichotomy in Bracher’s assertion can create a dilemma for people of African descent. I will also analyse how this notion can insidiously perpetuate intolerance towards marginalized people within the society at large.

Bracher refers to the writings of German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. According to Bracher, Nietzsche asserts that history breeds passivity among its proponent. He also contends that the lessons of history can “be learned from a relatively small piece of history” – a reductionist approach to history (Bracher, 2006, p. 111). Using Nietzsche’s quote from “On the Use and Abuse of History”, Bracher explains that an individual who has been immersed in the ideology of history is bound to be initiated into a life of culture rather than a life of living. He argues that the life of culture creates a way of thinking which is essentially from the past and has little or no bearing on the present, and if anything, it actually stifles an individual’s understands of the present (p. 111).

Bracher makes a passionate argument that history is a constriction to the identity of individual. He explains that history creates a sense of communal identity in the name of unity at the expense of the identities of individuals within the group. He wonders whether the benefit of unifying identity created by history is worth the consequent cost of “human suffering and injustice” that can emanate from it. Bracher further argues that identities such as: American, Canadian, African, White, Black, Woman, Gay, Lesbian result in elation for individuals whenever they are validated, and create uneasiness and even lead to anger when threatened (p. 112)

While it is daunting to agree with Bracher’s exposition on the role of history in suppressing identity formation, it is also important to critically look at how his assertions correlates with the experiences of those who have been the subject of repression and oppression. Bracher’s take on the role of history on identity formation is a double edged sword for the proponents of Africentrism. The foundation of Africentrism is built on the fact that Africa’s contributions have been written out of world history, and it posits that this is essentially a creation of Eurocentric hegemony. Bracher’s analysis corroborates this assertion. Describing how history can become a backbone for the creation of a dominant culture, he explains:

as feminist, African American, and other critics have pointed out, Dead white European male literary histories promote suppression and oppression of,  and repression in, those (women, racial and ethnic minorities, and others) whose attributes are not recognized in these history (p. 113)

Comparing Bracher’s take on history and its implication on identity, with that of an Africentric scholar, Merriweather Hunn on the impact of Eurocentric hegemony on world history, it does not take long to see a parallel in discourse:

Eurocentrism places the history, culture, and philosophical perspectives of people of European descent in a privileged, more valuable position than any other world culture. Eurocentrism, especially in the U.S. context, disguises itself as a universal perspective from which every culture must evaluate its experiences. It denies the value of other cultural and historical perspectives as ways of seeing and understanding the world (Merriweather Hunn, 2004, p. 2)

The preceding is in congruence with Bracher’s position that history is a tool, which different groups can use to assert that their “identity bearing is grounded in the real” and therefore “is not in need of or capable of embracing or even tolerating internal or external otherness” (Bracher, 2006, p. 113). In this regards, it suffices to conclude that Bracher’s discourse parallels that of the Africentists, and there ends the similarity!

Furthermore, Bracher explains that history is also tool used by disenfranchised group to counter the effect of suppression and marginalisation, which ironically has been created by history itself. Merriweather Hunn (2004) defines Africentrism as the embodiment of the experiences of generations of people of African descent, which needs to be fully documented and brought to the core of the existence of present generation of Black people. It does not take long to see that the premise of Africentrism is built around history – the history of black people, and without history, Africentrism loses its potency (Merriweather Hunn, 2004, p. 4)

The other aspect of Bracher’s discourse (and perhaps a more disturbing one) on history and indentity formation contends that, while history is used as a counter tool to fight the hegemonic building blocks of the dominant culture, this very action can also result in what he describes as “providing recognition” (Bracher, 2006, p. 114). Bracher explains that the inclusion of histories of different groups (such as that of people of African descent) into the mainstream will ultimately result in the vulnerability of these groups. According to Bracher, members of these groups are tempted “to put all their identity eggs into this single narrative basket”. His assertion is that, once this identity, as previously stated, is threatened, it can result in despondency and consequently “identity depletion” (p. 114).

I am afraid that Bracher is right in his assessment! One of the dilemmas faced by Black people is entrenched within this frustration of identity. We can all agree that much progress has been made in bridging the gap, and creating tolerance and understanding within the context of society. Nevertheless, it is still perplexing, when as a Black person I have to explain why I live in an affluent sub-division, why I am the only black person on the board of director of one of the largest non-denominational churches in Nova Scotia. It is becoming tiring when my wife has to continuously explain that she is on the medical staff at Capital Health and not a janitorial staff.

Drawing on Bracher’s assertion, every time I sit in class with members of my cohort, I can only imagine how we are perceived within the academic environment. Is anyone out there questioning our scholarly capability? At the end of the day, will someone question the fact that our Master’s Degree is not of equal calibre with the general stream? These are some of the questions raging through my mind, and have become more pronounced after reading this particular chapter in Bracher’s Radical pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation.

References

Bracher, M. (2006). Radical Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation.

Psychoanalysis, Education, and Social Transformation, New York, NY: Palgrave

Macmillan

Merriweather Hunn, Lisa (2004). Africentric philosophy: a remedy for Eurocentric dominance.

New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education (102), 65-74.

Black History Month: a learning process for negotiating meaning (Part 2)

A probing question was presented at the end of our last class. This is one of such pervasive questions that many of us within the Black community cannot easily provide a befitting answer to. How do we, as people of African descent, negotiate meaning in an environment that is predominantly Eurocentric?

            In my last blog, I began a discourse around the invaluable role of Black History Month – also known as African Heritage Month – as a tool that the Black community can subscribe to for the purpose of coming to a mutual agreement about their participation as inclusive members of the society. I posited in the blog that Black History Month is an important and palpable learning process that can be effectively used as a bargaining tool within our societal communities of practice. It is important to note that our identity as members of a community of practice can be manifested in two different dimensions – our active participation within the community, which defines us as belonging to that community, and our ability to have control over the definition of our involvement, which Wenger describes as negotiation of meaning (Wenger, 1999).

I will endeavour to analyze how the origin of Black History month was closely tied to the concept of critical pedagogy, and ultimately how within it, existed a learning process which has remained at the forefront of transforming the once alienated into an acceptable and participatory members of the society.

Graves (1998) positions Carter G. Woodson and W.E.B. DuBois as two uncelebrated figures within the field of critical pedagogy. He asserts that critical pedagogy, within its fundamental principles addresses the issues of oppression, power and inequality, and how they affect individuals within the marginalized groups. It seeks to understand how these individuals are able to “accept”, “engage” or “resist” these societal nuisance. He reiterates that the proponents of radical pedagogy stand on the shoulder of education as a tool to bring about “critical democracy, individual freedom, social justice, and social change” (Graves, 1999). Moreover, since Woodson and DuBois demonstrated this ideology in their role as educators, it is well deserving to acknowledge them as two of the unsung heroes of critical pedagogy.

Woodson believed that education was the only way through which meaningful contribution can be made by people of African descent to the American society. He saw the need to move beyond education as merely a means to acquire information into a need to “live more abundantly, to learn to begin with life as they find it and make it better” (p. 8).  The argument presented by Woodson echoed what modern Africentric educators advocate – the need to place the history of African people at the centre of their learning. Woodson contended that the recognition of African Americans as part of the collective American society could not be achieved without the full acknowledgement of the history of people of African descent. He maintained that the goal of American educational system should be to “revolutionize the social order for the good of the community”. Understanding of history for the purpose of creating a just society was paramount to Woodson’s cause. He vehemently asserted that any type of education that seeks to affirm the superiority of a group of people over another, is essentially the same that represses and dehumanizes the oppressed. Therefore, as a result of this type of education, it does not surprise one to see why people of African descent will conclude that their race is an inferior kind and that they will never “measure up to the standards of other peoples” (p. 9).

Through his writings, Woodson was able to make a passionate case for the understanding and recognition of the history of people of African descent. One early successful manifestation of this occurred when a group of White Teachers were able to integrate the study of African American history into their curriculum. Part of Woodson’s goals was seeing education become a tool to “dialogue across difference”. While seeing the Black person becoming educated about his history was a goal, he never relented on bringing to the awareness of European Americans the history of people of African descent in America. He believed that the tool of negotiation lies in knowing “something of the other” and since African American history is essentially part of human history, it is just as important as learning about other people. Through Woodson’s efforts, which resulted in publications in mainstream academic journals, and the involvement of the department of education in promoting the history of African American people, some white schools started participating in Negro History Week in the late 1940s.

Right here in our back yard, we can see how the institution of Black History Month, as a negotiation tool, has influenced the establishment of various causes which have today become a part of the hallmark of larger society. The development of BLAC Report on Education was essentially a part of an important negotiation process for Black people in this province. The process sought to redress the issues faced by African Nova Scotians by delving into history, and exploring how Black people have been disenfranchised within a systemic racially biased educational system. I quote a portion of the report which affirms that the quest goes beyond mere inclusion; it is about full participation, through negotiation as members of the community:

African Nova Scotian’s must begin to participate in the definition, design and development of social policy and social agendas beyond demand for simple racial inclusion and acceptance (p. 14)

Other outcomes of negotiation that can also be pointed to include but not limited to: BLAC resulting in the creation of the African Canadian Services Division of the department of Education, the creation of the Office of African Nova ScotianAffairs, the establishment of the Council on Education of African Canadians, and the birth of Africentric Learning Institute, one that is of significance important to those who are in the Masters of Education, Africentric Cohort program. It will certainly not be an overstatement to attribute these successes to the foundation laid by the institution of Black History month.

Based on the foregoing analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that Black History month was built on the premise of negotiation of meaning, if we draw on Wenger’s description of the process. Continuous participation of Black people, and active definition of what that participation entails within the society, has helped to bring about a “shared history of engagement” (Wenger, 1999, p. 84). Just as Woodson made the case that the history of black people was an integral part of American history, Wenger asserts that factors in negotiation may include language, social relations and that it is a “continuous interactions, of gradual achievement, and of give-and-take”. It suffices to say, using Wenger’s viewpoint that circumstances will continuously shape negotiation and the outcome meanings, and negotiations will continuously be renewed to result in full participation of individuals involved (Wenger, 1999, p. 52-53).

The institution of Black History Month, some have argued, has outlived its usefulness, and others have even contended that it undermines the history of black people. Those in opposition believe it is not sufficient to dedicate a month out of the whole year to celebrating the history of over 200 million people. Nevertheless, Black History month remains a powerful yet malleable weapon that has helped, and will continue to aid with the negotiation of meaning for people of African descent in a society where change is a constant thing.

References

Black Learner Advisory Committee (1994) BLAC Report Education: Redressing inequality –

Empowering Black Learner, Nova Scotia

Graves, K.L., (1998). Outflanking Oppression: African American Contributions to Critical

Pedagogy as Developed in the Scholarship of W.E.B. DuBois and Carter G. Woodson.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association (San Diego, CA, April 13-17, 1998).

Wenger. E. (1999). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge,

Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

Black History Month: a learning process for negotiating meaning (Part I)

Introduction:

In my last blog, I concluded with a probing statement that was based on my observation as a member of a community of practice in the making, I wrote:

Since learning is a tool for the creation of “practice and the inclusion of newcomers”, I can only wonder if the bowline experiment was after all, a rite of passage to initiate the group into a community of practice and welcome the once alienated into the shared domain (Blog # 2, 2011)

           

Since the penning of this statement, I have been wondering how it is a reflection of my learning experiences as I continue to be an active member of various communities of practice. In addition, it has also led to re-assessing the diverse learning processes to which I have been exposed to, and have had ideological, social and political impact on me as an individual and as a participant within the shared domains – a domain of common interest, where the competency of each member is valued, and there exists a reciprocity of learning – of my communities of practice (Wenger, 2006). One such form of learning is the much celebrated Black History Month, also known as African Heritage Month in Nova Scotia and around Canada. I have therefore decided to compose a two part blog that will seek to examine the role of Black History Month as an invaluable negotiating tool in the hands of people of African descent and how it has, and can be used to achieve the goal of becoming full participants in the affairs of broader society for the purpose of acceptance into society’s shared domain

            In order to substantiate the premise of my discourse, it is important to examine the learning experiences embedded within the institution of Black History Month. Is the learning experience palpable enough that we can confidently subscribe to its academy? What observable learning process can we critically connect to this month long event that celebrates the “history, contributions and cultures of people of African descent” (Black History Month Association). Any attempt to build this case cannot be done successfully without delving into the history, and origin of Black History Month. This will be the focus of this installment of my two part blog.

The History:

            Black History Month, as we know it today, is the offspring of Negro History week which was instituted by famous Black historian, Carter G. Woodson, the progenitor of the Association for the study of Negro life and history, the organization under whose umbrella the week was established (Library of Congress). Woodson’s reasoned that the establishment of Negro History week would have a twofold effect on people of African descent – the promotion of pride amongst black people and a window of opportunity for “greater respect for the African American community within the broader society” (Wells, 2004; Graves, 1998).

The inception of Negro week in 1926, which was subsequently celebrated through the 1940s into the 60s, became transformed and ratified into Black History Week in 1975 with President Ford urging all Americans to recognize the important contribution of people of African descent to the building of American society (The American Presidency Project, 1975). This proclamation will further become an important element a year later when Black History Week was expanded to a month long celebration, and President Ford in his message to the observance, declares that Americans have, over the last fifty years, seen a “significant strides in the full integration of black people into every area of national life” (The American Presidency Project, 1976). A decade later, the US congress enacted Public Law 99-244 which affirmed February, 1986 as the “National Black History Month” and this was further reiterated by President Regan’s proclamation.  These developments were to be followed by various annual presidential proclamations and senate resolutions, all of which essentially affirmed February of each year as National African American History Month and that it is a necessary reminder of the “rich legacy of African Americans” and “their remarkable contributions” in making America the nation it is. (The Library of Congress and Association for the study of African American Life and History)

            In Canada, Black History Month was observed in the 1950s through the efforts of the Canadian Negro Women’s Association in organizing events celebrating the contributions of Black people in the city of Toronto. It is also worth mentioning that through the “combine efforts of many individuals and the Ontario Black History Society, the city of Toronto became the first municipality in Canada to proclaim February as Black History Month, thus, re-enforcing the celebration into the consciousness of many around the country (The City of Toronto). An Ontario provincial proclamation will follow in 1993 and two years later, a motion was passed by the Canadian Parliament that officially declared February as Black History Month across Canada (Black History Canada, February is African Heritage Month and the city of Toronto). Nova Scotia celebrated the first Black History Week in 1984 through the efforts of the Black History Month Association. Today, the Black History Month (popularly referred to as African Heritage Month) in Nova has now become province wide events that showcase the accomplishments of people of African descent in Nova Scotian. This event is now being celebrated across the world to commemorate the contributions of people of African descents to the different societies to which they belong.

I am sure we can all agree that the passage of time has, without a doubt, brought about the evolution of the ideals for celebrating the contributions and accomplishments of people of African descent within the institution of Black History Month. Nevertheless, the underpinning principles behind its mandate remain an uncompromised cornerstone.

References:

Cox, J. (2004). February is Black History Month, Human Rights Office, George Brown College

Graves, K.L., (1998). Outflanking Oppression: African American Contributions to Critical Pedagogy

as Developed in the Scholarship of W.E.B. DuBois and Carter G. Woodson. American Educational Research Association.

Wenger. E. (2006). Communities of practice: a brief introduction:

retrieved Feb 7, 2011 from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm

Wells, B. (2004). Reflections on Black History Month: there is still progress to be made. Black

Issues Higher Education, Cox, Matthews & Associates, Inc., Fairfax, VA

Bowline, identity formation and the exclusion of others

In my last blog, I explored how the identity of an individual influences what they learn or are unable to learn. Etienne Wenger (2006), in his web brief introduction to communities of practice, explains that the existence of such communities revolves around the concept of a “shared domain”. The goal of each individual within this shared domain corresponds to the collective goal of the community and thus, the ultimate goal of any community of practice is the perfection of the mutual learning taking place within this “shared domain”.

In his analysis of social theory of learning, Wenger (1999) highlights four crucial points: learning for the purpose of experience formation, learning as a way of active engagement, learning as mean of belonging (identity formation) and learning as a tool for becoming accepted within the shared domain, as part of the vital components of this theory. He further explains identity formation occurring in social theory of learning as “a way of talking about how learning changes who we are and creates personal history of becoming in the context of our communities” (p. 5).

Identity connection to a bowline

I am convinced that my initial reaction to the bowline knot exercise, as demonstrated by Dr. Plumb, would have been different from the rest of the class. Naturally, it was an unexpected illustration, and intuitively, it left us all wondering about the relevance of knot tying exercise to a study in learning process (apart from just learning to tie a knot), and some, I believe might have even felt insulted that Dr. Plumb came into the class with pre-conceived notions that we knew nothing about bowline, that we did not know how to tie the knot, and that it was his duty as the teacher to teach us the bolt and knot – no pun intended – of tying a bowline. While a part of me shared this sentiment, I was nonetheless excited about the prospect.

My excitement emanated out of having had the privilege of learning how to tie different knots (including bowline) as a member of the Boy Scout of Nigeria, I immediately saw myself as having something in common with Dr. Plumb. While, it is true that I have been away from active participation within the Boy Scout organization for almost three decades, it didn’t take too long to reactivate my sense of belonging within the community of knot connoisseur. At that moment, the knot became a connection to the learning process I was about to embark on and while the learning experience was formed a long time ago, all I needed was a presentation of that connecting piece, and my identity as a member of that particular community of practice was reaffirmed.

While Dr. Plumb and I acquired our learning experiences probably at different points in time, and evidently on different continents, it didn’t prevent me from identifying myself with that learning experience. As Wenger explains, community of practice has “an identity defined by a shared common interest” and he further explains that there is a “shared competence that distinguishes members from other people” (Wenger, 2006). Since I considered myself  to be a part of this community, swiftly – though without any clue what the underpinning teaching principle was with the bowline knot – I felt at home in the context of Dr. Plumb’s presentation of the bowline knot.

Identity formation and learning resistance

            While I may say, though reluctantly, that I eventually understood the allegoric learning embedded within the bowline, and furthermore that I immediately developed a rapport and settled into my comfort zone with the concept of using a knot as part of a learning process, I wrestled with the fact that, my method of engagement as part of that community of knot experts differed from Dr. Plumb’s. I allude to the river illustration employed during the session, in which Dr. Plumb invited everyone to step into the river and swim along. In spite of the simplicity of the invitation, it however struck me that as much as I wanted to jump into the river, partly because of my connection to the bowline illustration, and because I was fully confident that I had been in that river before, I chose to stay on the shore. My hesitation can be explained using Wenger’s assertion about the sense of belonging within social theory of learning. He explains that belonging to a community is,

a way of talking about the social configurations in which our enterprises are defined as worth pursuing and our participation is recognizable as competent (Wenger, 1999, p. 5).

On this premise, I suddenly doubted my membership in the community of practice that I have, up until now thought I was a viable member. My doubt arose from seeing Dr. Plumb tied his bowline. How dare he tie a bowline like that? In my experience tying a bowline, I have never done it that way and neither have I seen anyone used that method before. Immediately, and in order to validate my learning experience which overtime has become an identity, I unconsciously put a roadblock to the learning experience occurring before me as I refused to tie the knot the way Dr. Plumb was showing the class. Even more interesting is the fact that I created a dissention within the class as I rallied those around me proving to them that my method of tying a bowline was better and easier than Dr. Plumb’s. It didn’t take too long before I won a few of my classmates to my side as they effortless agreed with me that my method was better than Dr. Plumb’s.

            I explained in my first blog that a learner essentially becomes antagonistic to learning if he or she feels that his or her identity, within the process of learning, is not being validated (Aladejebi, 2011). Bracher (2006) explains that the individual will become resistance to learning if the identity validation they crave is being provided by sources outside of the learning process with little or no effort (p. 5). As a result, the acknowledgement of my knot tying skills by my classmate further strengthened my resistance to Dr. Plumb’s attempts at showing the class how to tie a bowline.

Social formation and identity creation

One interesting learning experience acquired from the bowline adventure lies in its practical, probably unintentional demonstration, of how those, who are not part of the communities of practice, can be alienated. I made this conclusion based on my first hand experience and my keen observation of the group as Dr. Plumb introduced the idea of tying the knot. It was a familiar territory for me, and I eagerly welcomed the challenge, however, for the rest of the group, they were venturing into an unfamiliar territory and without making any assumptions, the atmosphere around the classroom spoke volume.

Wenger’s explanation of the theory of identity as a “social formation of the person, cultural interpretation of the body, and the creation and use of markers of membership such as rites of passage and social categories” (Wenger, 1999, p. 13), corroborates my observation.

Since learning is a tool for the creation of “practice and the inclusion of newcomers”, (p. 13). I can only wonder if the bowline experiment was after all, a rite of passage to initiate the group into a community of practice and welcome the once alienated into the shared domain.

References

Aladejebi, A. (2011). Africentric learning process: an undertaking in radical pedagogy. GSLL 6206 (08), Lifelong Learning Process, Blog #1

Bracher, M. (2006). Radical pedagogy: Identity, generativity, and social transformation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wenger. E. (1999). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger. E. (2006). Communities of practice: a brief introduction: retrieved January 24, 2011 from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm