I really enjoyed this ethnography both in terms of methodology as well as the content. As someone who is interested in systemic violence as it pertains to Indigeneity, I found her insight and perspective on change valuable. In Chapter 3, I believe that the use of Sofía’s classroom as a struggle between progressiveness and abolition was particularly interesting. Abuelita and her blurts about slavery and the need for African language courses force Robeson, which is a “social-justice, progressive” high school, to think about the violence it is perpetuating. Moreover, Shange considers the perception of Abuelita, which was largely negative, by the administrators. This duality is fascinating as we see it play out at Vanderbilt. For example, Dores Divest, which is a student organization that brings awareness to Vanderbilt’s relations with the oil through protest and activism, is viewed as radical and a nuisance to administrators. However, she raises valuable points about the violence that the oil industry perpetrates. On the other hand, SPEAR, which challenges Vanderbilt through the bureaucracy, does not have a negative reputation. This phenomenon is something that I still ponder and debate within my own advocacy work.
In regards to methodology, I was impressed with how she utilizes Sofía’s classroom as a means to illustrate the uniqueness of Roberson’s education while simultaneously highlighting the conformity of this type of education. She placed the classroom in a larger struggle of education inequality and colonialism while also highlighting the prescribed path to social justice is education/higher education. Utilizing an anecdote and a tangible situation to describe these trends/patterns allows the reader to better comprehend the issues and successes of this education system. I also loved how Shange refused to code-switch or italicize words. I believe that this provided some authenticity and turned their ethnographic work into a piece of advocacy/protest.
After reading this ethnography, I am left with questions about the efficacy of this school model. At first glance, it seems like a great positive change. However, as Shange further explores the history and implications of the school, I am increasingly hesitant. Is the school just a means of masking/ conforming to settler colonialism and making the best rather than challenging its current situation? Is the school performative, or are they truly creating an inclusive environment? Is this “progressive education” further segregating and imposing almost a color-blind (representation for all) approach to school rather than recognizing the unique identities and experiences of individuals of color?
1/30 Shange’s Progressive Dystopia
One Response to 1/30 Shange’s Progressive Dystopia
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think that your comparison with SPEAR and Dores Divest is apt, and I think that something that Shange’s methods aid is being able to show that duality and dichotomy. Because her ethnography is so internally focused on Robeson as the setting of her book. The school is the main focus, and she does not go much outside of that in her research. She focuses on the direct ethnography that she conducted at Robeson, and, in my opinion, uniquely waits before making connections or generalizations outside of Robeson. She is focused on the school and the students there. Because of this, she is able to go in-depth about individuals like Abuelita and show the differing, and contrasting ways in which she is viewed by the students and administration. Furthermore, I think that this insular method is a good way to go about conducting our ethnographic projects. I think it is easy to begin to hypothesize and make conclusions before research even begins. However, keeping our projects focused on the population that we are studying without going outside of that is an important method to keep in mind. For example, I am planning on researching LinkedIn and its effect on students at Vanderbilt. However, I should focus on my conversations and interviews without going and making assumptions about LinkedIn’s role in society at large until after understanding the work at play at Vanderbilt. Additionally, her ethnography clearly shows comfortability with the population and the material. Building this familiarity with your interviewees and participants is also something to take away from her ethnographic technique. Even though I love how contained and succinct Shange’s research was – I can’t help but wonder if her findings about the segregation at Robeson would be particularly relevant to other schools and districts in the US? (My hypothesis is yes)