Education and Identity

Various scholars examining the context of education have noted that the process is one that is supposed to provide the learner with the critical thinking skills necessary for growth and development beyond the walls of the classroom. Richard Rodriguez and Paulo Freire have come to realize this process though the course of their personal experiences. Even though both authors have different ways of communicating this reality to the reader, it is clear that the message is the same. Both authors clearly believe that the goal of education is not just to fill the student with useless facts and information. Rather the ultimate goal of education is to help the student evolve to a point at which he or she can formulate their own identity.

Richard Rodriguez

In order to begin this investigation, a consideration of what those authors have noted about the interconnected issues of education and identity must first be examined. Beginning first with Richard Rodriguez, it becomes evident that this author examines the issues of education and identity though the process of personal experience. As a Mexican-American, Rodriguez notes that his experiences in the public education system of the United States were those that taught him to abandon his cultural heritage in favor of what could be taught through the process of academic and scholarly development. Rodriguez's experiences are compelling because they clearly elucidate the complexity of issues that face students from multicultural backgrounds in their efforts to assimilate into the larger context of American society. Rodriguez notes that because of his cultural background in his desire to learn everything that his instructors had to teach him was insatiable. Although this process of insatiable curiosity is one that served as the basis to propel Rodriguez forward, this color soon found that he was trapped between two notably different worlds that, in his youth, could not be reconciled.

To illustrate the challenges faced as a result of the conflict the parameters of culture and education, Rodriguez refers to Richard Hoggart's scholarship boy. The specific definition of scholarship boy as noted by Hoggart is one that encompasses the conflicts experienced by Rodriguez and other children facing the same challenges in the process of public education. Although the scholarship boy is notably ambitious and intelligent, he becomes conflicted by what he learns because he is not able to effectively integrate his academic progress with his family's culture. As a direct result of this juxtaposition, the scholarship boy suffers from a wide range of problems which are focused on a considerable lack of self-confidence in individual identity.

Placing this construct into the context of his own life, Rodriguez makes the observation that as his teachers gave him more information to read Rodriguez became more disenfranchised from his traditional culture and family. Overall, the process that Rodriguez describes is one in which he becomes embarrassed because of his family's lack of education. Rodriguez comes to realize that his parents do not possess the academic acumen to live in an intellectual world. Thus, even though Rodriguez notes that he takes great pleasure in living in the psychological calmness of his family-i.e. Rodriguez could be himself with his family-he also notes the consternation that this position brings because he realizes that his family does not fit into his world of academic development. Fortunately, Rodriguez spends most of his life attempting to reconcile two areas without much success. As a direct result Rodriguez matures into an adult believing that his family and his heritage are something to be ashamed of.

Although Rodriguez is not able to reconcile these two specific domains of his life as an adolescent or a young adult, by the time Rodriguez finishes his dissertation on English Renaissance literature he comes to realize that the goal of education is not to disenfranchise the individual from his or her identity. Rather the goal of education is to give the student the tools that he or she needs to develop an individual identity that can effectively integrate all aspects of culture, academia and personality. Through this process of reconciliation, Rodriguez comes to see the notable problems associated with being a scholarship boy. Rodriguez makes the following observations with respect to this issue:

The scholarship boy does not straddle, cannot reconcile, the two great opposing cultures of his life. His success is unromantic and plain. He sits in the classroom and offers those sitting beside him no calming reassurance about their own lives. He sits in the seminar room - a man with brown skin, the son of working-class Mexican immigrant parents. (Addressing the professor at the head of the table, his voice catches with nervous­ness.) There is no trace of his parents' accent in his speech. Instead he ap­proximates the accents of teachers and classmates (p. 6).

The context of the scholarship boy is one that does not allow for the individual student to integrate information and construct an individual identity. Instead, the grandiose world of academia is placed at the center of the individual's life and held up as a paragon of how one should live. The scholarship boy pursuing this paradigm of what he believes the a pursuit of more worldly and worthy pursuits, comes to view the past, his heritage, and his traditions as something that can not be reconciled with his new shiny world of academic excellence. However, when the specific information learned in the context of academia is placed into the framework of the individual's background heritage this is one of the nature of education and learning takes place. The individual comes to realize the importance of opinion, self-confidence, and identity. Through this process, the individual reconciles the past through an integration of what is learned in academic discourse.

Recognizing the error of his own personal development, Rodriguez makes the following observations about the scholarship boy: "The scholarship boy is a very bad student. He is the great mimic; a collector of thoughts, not a thinker; the very last person in class who ever feels obliged to have an opinion of his own. In large part, however, the reason he is such a bad student is because he realizes more often and more acutely than most other students...that education requires radical self-reformation" (p. 6). While it is evident that Rodriguez's intent is not to offend students that have become "scholarship boys" it is clear that Rodriguez sees the problems associated with this position. Clearly, the scholarship to lead to a more integral understanding of the external world. However, Rodriguez clearly demonstrates that in order for this understanding to have meaning for the individual must be reconciled with individual personality, opinion, and identity.

When the successful synthesis of identity and education are complete, the individual will have developed greater self-confidence and his or her opinions and worldviews. With this information, the scholar can become contributor, in that he or she can provide a unique viewpoint for examining the extra world. Synthesizing all of the information that has impacted academic growth and development-this includes both cultural and academic development-the individual can finally become a scholar. In this context, it becomes quite evident that education, even of itself, is not an end. Rather, education is a means to and end that facilitates the development and integration of the individual into a self-confident scholar that is capable of looking at the world through a unique perspective. Unfortunately, as Rodriguez points out, many individuals are able to make this connection. As a direct result, these intellectuals remain disenfranchised from society and from the very culture and history that comprise and they really are.

Paulo Freire

While Richard Rodriguez provides a personal account of his journey from academics to scholarly development, Paulo Freire provides a more academic examination of this process. To begin his investigation Freire examines the basic context of the student teacher relationship. He notes that in many respects this relationship is one that has been standardized in the context of what both society and students expect with respect to educational outcomes. Freire argues that, "Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat" (p. 1). Freire notes that this process of education is what is known as the "banking" concept of education. Deposits are made by the instructor and withdrawals are predicated on the ability of the student to regurgitate information when asked.

While the banking concept of education is what serves as the basis for Freire to formulate his arguments, the specific actions that take place within the context of this paradigm all want constitute problems for the student. In particular, Freire notes the binary opposition that is created in the context of education as a result of the utilizing the banking paradigm. According to Freire, "The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence. The students, alienated like the slave in the Hegelian dialectic, accept their ignorance as justifying the teacher's existence..." (p. 2). When defined in this manner, it becomes evident that the process of education is one that requires the existence of a natural antagonism between the teacher and student. Although this facilitates the development of education for the student, Freire believes that this process is one that is antithetical to the true nature of education.

In order to demonstrate how education should be developed for the individual student, Freire compares the banking concept of education to the basic context of liberal education. As noted by Freire "The raison d'etre of libertarian education, on the other hand, lies in its drive towards reconciliation. Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students" (p. 2). The process of liberal education is one that requires a notable give-and-take between student and teacher. The binary opposition between the student and teacher resolves as both parties accept the fact that both have knowledge and information which should be shared and explored in a mutual relationship.

In comparing the processes of banking education and liberal education, Freire contends that the process of banking education limits the ability of the student to develop individual opinions and eventually an individual identity. Liberal education, on the other hand, allows for a more integral educational experience that ensures that the personal development of the student. To solidify this point Freire makes the following observations:

The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world. The more completely they accept the passive role imposed on them, the more they tend simply to adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited in them (p. 2).

What this definitively suggests is that if students are to develop an individual identity as the result of academic learning, this information must be integrated into the larger context of who these individuals are rather than just the information they can espouse when asked by their instructors.

What is perhaps most interesting about the information provided by Freire is that it elucidates a dichotomy that has been created by the educational system itself. According to Freire the goals of education as defined and developed by those in charge of it are to help the student become a problem solver and overcome the social oppression that occurs as a result of a lack of education. However, in most instances the educational system has relied upon the use of banking paradigms as the central means for teaching students. Freire argues that the basic context of banking education circumvents the specific roles that have been outlined for the development of education: "Its objective is to call the attention of true humanists to the fact that they cannot use banking educational methods in the pursuit of liberation, for they would only negate that very pursuit" (p. 6). In this context, it is evident that the educational system has created a dichotomy that cannot be resolved unless the goals or means of education are altered in some fundamental manner.

To resolve this dichotomy, Freire recommends changing needs of education such that the banking paradigm is abandoned and liberal education becomes a more integral part of the process of education. Freire contends that the rudimentary concepts of liberal education ensure that the student is able to acquire not only the specific academic information necessary to make competent decisions, but also the relative skills that will help the student make informed choices. In this context, it is evident that the shift that needs to occur is one that will promote the ultimate development of identity for the student while also ensuring that the academic information that is necessary for competent decision-making is presented. Here again, much like in the case of Rodriguez, the importance of synthesis between the individual at his or her experiences and what can be learned through academic discourse must take place in order for the process of education to be fully realized.

Arguably, the process of transforming education is one that carries with it notable problems. For the most part, educators and teachers have come to view the process of education as one that is inherently antithetical to the development of the individual. For this reason, the process of education has become watered down and, at the present time, only facts, figures and basic information are translated to the student. Through this process, the student only learns information, not how to order or make sense of it. As such, the process of education, as currently practiced in the system of public education, is not one that seeks a higher goal of integration and learning; rather it is one that only seeks to ensure that the student has the specific information that he or she need to pass a test. Unfortunately, what information is learned in this manner, it is never retained for a significant amount of time. Only until the individual can effectively integrate knowledge and facts into his or her own personal experience can the process of education truly take place.

Conclusion

What Rodriguez and Freire note about the current system of public education is critical if educators in the United States want to improve the basic context of how students learn in the classroom. At the present time considerable controversy over what specific paradigms should be utilized to improve the quality of public education have been widely debated in scholarly discourse. However, as examined by Rodriguez and Freire it becomes evident that the problems facing American public education are much more basic than the specific teaching methods that are being utilized in the classroom to facilitate various forms of education. Teachers and administrators consistently few students as objects rather than living and developing entities with personalities and identities. Because these factors are marginalized in the classroom, this sets a precedent for the student to marginalize these assets through the process of education and in the context of general growth and development.

If changes are to be made to the current system of education, instructors and schools must come to realize the value that students contribute to their own growth and development. The information that is taught in the classroom must be integrated into the larger context of who students are, such that these students are able to see worth in their own ideas and opinions. For Rodriguez, the inability of the educational system to reconcile the specific issues promulgated an extensive journey which eventually led to an epiphany. However, one cannot help but wonder how much better Rodriguez's life could have been if he was able to effectively synthesize and integrate his family and educational life at an earlier age. Unfortunately, Rodriguez had to wait until he was old enough to figure out these issues on his own. Luckily he was able to accomplish this goal. Evidently, there are those that simply cannot make these connections. As a direct result many live in an academic world that is notably disenfranchised from the real world in which most people live.

In the end, the goal is to improve the quality of education that students receive. Both Rodriguez and Freire clearly believe that this process can only happen when student is able to integrate academic information into his or her own personal experiences. When this occurs, the individual is able to see the broader social relationships that have impact for human growth and development. Without these vital connections, students will be unable to effectively integrate what they have learned in the classroom to better understand themselves and the world around them. As such, the revelations presented by both Rodriguez and Freire have notable implications for the development of public education. Clearly, changes are needed if education is to serve the larger goal of shaping individual identity.