This reading carries a lot of similarities to our previous ethnographic readings (choosing a specific situation/ incidence to zoom in and then apply several theoretical lenses to analyze it). The text also resembles the Tsing and Exceptional Violence readings by frequently employing metaphors to both illustrate ideas and frame them within theoretical grounds (E.g. Frontier in Exceptional Violence, Roadblock in this reading). However, one major difference, as the prior blog post has correctly noticed, is that the language used was much more informal, less dense, and easier to grasp for the mass audience. While admittedly, this language use does not radiate the complexities usually extolled among scholars, I do think it helps to make the texts more accessible to those who might be able to make influential decisions to the issue at hand such as policy-makers, school administrators, and teachers.
I really like how the author goes deep into describing and explaining Sofia’s antiracist pedagogy (E.g. letting the children choosing names for themselves, choosing to teach about Black psychologists), thereby unfolding the often neglected political aspect of teaching and revealing the potential role of teachers as activist. Moreover, the author locates Sofia’s classrooms within the broader context of innovative policies at Robeson and restrictive systems of California. Through her analysis, she demonstrates how education, at both the classroom and school levels, can act to initiate social change, reversing “the flow from the school-to- prison pipeline toward the school-to- graduation- to-postsecondary- education pipeline.” (Wald & Losen, 2003). In doing so, the author does not blindly tout Sofia and Robeson as perfect models. Rather, she reveals the imperfections of these well-intended teacher and school in fulfilling their mission such as Sofia’s inability to form relationships with certain students and Robeson’s flawed organization of language classrooms. The chapter, thus, paints a more realistic picture of the challenging path to mend institutional wrongs and empower students.
One key focus of chapter 3 seems to be the analysis of Abuelita’s question “Why can’t we learn African?.” However, I personally find this part less convincing. The author takes the words of a young girl and frames it within different broad theoretical and historical contexts, which, to be, is a rather far stretch. While the analysis itself is engaging, I wonder whether it would be better to adopt more local frames-perhaps examine the words within the context of that particular moment or conduct interviews with the girl’s parents to understand their family’s stories.