October 8, 2013
Debora Kodish & William Westerman
“Negotiating Pitfalls And Possibilities: Presenting Folk Arts In The Schools”
A Brief Overview
This article focused on the importance of folk arts, urging educators to integrate them in their educational curriculum but in a proper, unbiased manner. The article explained that there is great potential to bring folk arts into schools as an aid to education, going over pitfalls that are commonly made but also methods that better demonstrate the possibilities folk arts embody.
The article told educators to first not underestimate folk arts, to “move passed the stereotypes… [and] assume that folk arts are complex and powerful symbolic forms…and make it your business to understand where the danger lies” (Kodish & Westerman 395). Secondly, educators were to look for the disagreements within communities about certain folk arts. Each person is different and we must know all the beliefs about a folk art in order to get a full, non-biased interpretation. Thirdly, educators were told to not dwell in the past. Like everything else, folk arts change over time. Educators must look at a folk art’s history, yet they must also look at evolution of that folk art overtime to understand how it has become what it is today. Folk arts are not timeless; its views and traditions transform along with its culture. Lastly, educators were told to assess the relationships between educators, students, and their own family histories. “Many common assignments used to honor diversity can backfire because they do not take into consideration the subtleties of personal relationships” (Kodish & Westerman 396). The article then supplied a small list of typical assignments that pose possible pitfalls, but also provides a list of possibilities to resolve these pitfalls. The examples are as follows.
The first example explained that having children report on their personal and family history could put them under pressure. It could also potentially “‘cheapen’ or fundamentally alter their often traumatic experiences into something valuable as a commodity (information exchanged for a grade or for acceptance from the teacher) or something exotic (further isolating and even objectifying the student)” (Kodish & Westerman 396). A suggested possibility to eliminate these pitfalls would be to invent lessons that incorporate the use of indirect framing mechanisms, allowing children to have more privacy. Even having children make up stories and instances instead of writing down personal experiences that relate to what they are learning can greatly relieve that unintentional pressure.
The second example indicates that showing and telling your personal customs and traditions can further label certain students as “different” or “other”. Some children might not even be able to understand the complexities of their cultural customs. Furthermore, pushing children to be “authorities” on cultural traditions can create implications. Encouraging children to look for differences within a given culture and exploring the many cultures to which we belong simultaneously can help eliminate some of these pitfalls. Exploring what the children do not know and how people break customs within a culture would be great ways to understand opposing views.
The last example discourages the idea of replicating festivals, where children wear some or all the elements of a traditional customs, within the school. When presented in its cultural setting, “Festival and ritual in their ‘natural’ contexts tend literally to bring many people together as communities [and] allow many different meanings of festival to emerge… In contrast, artificially ‘displayed’ festivals tend to generalize about the meaning of ritual and tradition for all involved, and depict it as spectacle not as participation” (Kodish & Westerman 397). The children may not even understand what they are doing, thus the act of replicating a festival or ritual can in fact be extremely insulting to a specific culture. Instead of reenacting cultural festivals and rituals that already exist, educators are suggested to create an imaginary, non-exploitive festival. Simply asking the different viewpoints of children on any given topic can eliminate these pitfalls.
The article concludes by stating that folk arts, when integrated in an appropriate manner, incorporate difference, without exploiting any cultures. They can be used as a powerful tool in our lessons to look at difference and compare and contrast them to experiences children already have. Folk arts can be used as “first steps at trying to crafting assignments that do not inevitably lead to one of two conclusions: either ‘and underneath we’re all the same’ or ‘we have our differences but we’re all part of the great American melting pot, or patchwork quilt’” (Kodish & Westerman 398). The goal of integrating folk arts into lessons is to critically examine and change the educational structure, incorporating universally successful, multicultural curricula.
The article told educators to first not underestimate folk arts, to “move passed the stereotypes… [and] assume that folk arts are complex and powerful symbolic forms…and make it your business to understand where the danger lies” (Kodish & Westerman 395). Secondly, educators were to look for the disagreements within communities about certain folk arts. Each person is different and we must know all the beliefs about a folk art in order to get a full, non-biased interpretation. Thirdly, educators were told to not dwell in the past. Like everything else, folk arts change over time. Educators must look at a folk art’s history, yet they must also look at evolution of that folk art overtime to understand how it has become what it is today. Folk arts are not timeless; its views and traditions transform along with its culture. Lastly, educators were told to assess the relationships between educators, students, and their own family histories. “Many common assignments used to honor diversity can backfire because they do not take into consideration the subtleties of personal relationships” (Kodish & Westerman 396). The article then supplied a small list of typical assignments that pose possible pitfalls, but also provides a list of possibilities to resolve these pitfalls. The examples are as follows.
The first example explained that having children report on their personal and family history could put them under pressure. It could also potentially “‘cheapen’ or fundamentally alter their often traumatic experiences into something valuable as a commodity (information exchanged for a grade or for acceptance from the teacher) or something exotic (further isolating and even objectifying the student)” (Kodish & Westerman 396). A suggested possibility to eliminate these pitfalls would be to invent lessons that incorporate the use of indirect framing mechanisms, allowing children to have more privacy. Even having children make up stories and instances instead of writing down personal experiences that relate to what they are learning can greatly relieve that unintentional pressure.
The second example indicates that showing and telling your personal customs and traditions can further label certain students as “different” or “other”. Some children might not even be able to understand the complexities of their cultural customs. Furthermore, pushing children to be “authorities” on cultural traditions can create implications. Encouraging children to look for differences within a given culture and exploring the many cultures to which we belong simultaneously can help eliminate some of these pitfalls. Exploring what the children do not know and how people break customs within a culture would be great ways to understand opposing views.
The last example discourages the idea of replicating festivals, where children wear some or all the elements of a traditional customs, within the school. When presented in its cultural setting, “Festival and ritual in their ‘natural’ contexts tend literally to bring many people together as communities [and] allow many different meanings of festival to emerge… In contrast, artificially ‘displayed’ festivals tend to generalize about the meaning of ritual and tradition for all involved, and depict it as spectacle not as participation” (Kodish & Westerman 397). The children may not even understand what they are doing, thus the act of replicating a festival or ritual can in fact be extremely insulting to a specific culture. Instead of reenacting cultural festivals and rituals that already exist, educators are suggested to create an imaginary, non-exploitive festival. Simply asking the different viewpoints of children on any given topic can eliminate these pitfalls.
The article concludes by stating that folk arts, when integrated in an appropriate manner, incorporate difference, without exploiting any cultures. They can be used as a powerful tool in our lessons to look at difference and compare and contrast them to experiences children already have. Folk arts can be used as “first steps at trying to crafting assignments that do not inevitably lead to one of two conclusions: either ‘and underneath we’re all the same’ or ‘we have our differences but we’re all part of the great American melting pot, or patchwork quilt’” (Kodish & Westerman 398). The goal of integrating folk arts into lessons is to critically examine and change the educational structure, incorporating universally successful, multicultural curricula.
Reflections
Being in an exceptional education course and majoring in art education, I have talked a lot about broadening lesson plans and integrating different viewpoints and cultures to incorporate various perspectives, while keeping in mind everyone’s background. This article gave insightful ways to go about educating lessons that incorporate cultures different than our own. The possibilities they suggested linked right to Wilson’s concept of linking material to popular culture they can already relate to. Even the idea of changing activities into story telling rather than acting out or exploiting children.
This article made me think back to Allie’s sketchbook lesson. We were informed that tattooing would possibly be an unethical subject choice based on the practice during the Holocaust. Just like getting to know a custom you are unfamiliar with, you must think about and research modern customs you are familiar with. I would never think about linking tattooing to the Holocaust, however someone with a Jewish background might feel extremely uncomfortable participating in a lesson that focused on tattooing. It is something I will have to keep in mind when planning future lessons. It is important to point out that no matter how old a culture or custom is, the article notes that there are always opposing views on those topics, which are important to include as well.
I thought the moral of this article was the most interesting. The article states towards the end that lessons should not indicate that everyone is the same deep down or that people among one specific culture are the same. Instead, they claim that each person is far from the same, however we should use that to an advantage to incorporate the differences among one another and broaden their perspectives. My perspective has incorporated this thought, yet it centralized around the belief that we are all the same. I said that we may have our differences, coming from different cultures and having different beliefs, but we are all still the same. Now I can see that no one really is the same and thinking that everyone is the same is somewhat naïve. In reality, no two people are the same. People may have similarities, however they are still far from the same. This is something children should know and grow and learn from these differences. Differences are a way for us to learn new things and better understand things we already know. The biggest difference occur when you look at cultures and communities you are unfamiliar with, so incorporating them into education is something of great importance, however they must be done with consideration.
This article made me think back to Allie’s sketchbook lesson. We were informed that tattooing would possibly be an unethical subject choice based on the practice during the Holocaust. Just like getting to know a custom you are unfamiliar with, you must think about and research modern customs you are familiar with. I would never think about linking tattooing to the Holocaust, however someone with a Jewish background might feel extremely uncomfortable participating in a lesson that focused on tattooing. It is something I will have to keep in mind when planning future lessons. It is important to point out that no matter how old a culture or custom is, the article notes that there are always opposing views on those topics, which are important to include as well.
I thought the moral of this article was the most interesting. The article states towards the end that lessons should not indicate that everyone is the same deep down or that people among one specific culture are the same. Instead, they claim that each person is far from the same, however we should use that to an advantage to incorporate the differences among one another and broaden their perspectives. My perspective has incorporated this thought, yet it centralized around the belief that we are all the same. I said that we may have our differences, coming from different cultures and having different beliefs, but we are all still the same. Now I can see that no one really is the same and thinking that everyone is the same is somewhat naïve. In reality, no two people are the same. People may have similarities, however they are still far from the same. This is something children should know and grow and learn from these differences. Differences are a way for us to learn new things and better understand things we already know. The biggest difference occur when you look at cultures and communities you are unfamiliar with, so incorporating them into education is something of great importance, however they must be done with consideration.