Giroux’s fourth principle addresses the way in which language is used in
the classroom.
He attempts to establish a method of developing discourse
through discussion that takes into account various world views and moves
beyond the sacred terminology used to mystify the concepts of equality, because
it is this archaic structure which is used to pacify the masses against insurrection.
While a good idea in principle, Giroux’s concept of a transforming narrative
lacks feasibility. In order to achieve understanding or even have an intelligible
conversation, it is necessary for words to have an accepted meaning. Constant
redefinition of terminology can only lead to further obfuscation of already
indistinct concepts. It would be nearly impossible to implement this principle
into the current education system, or any education system, without a complete
deterioration of the learning process. Giroux’s ideas might hold true within his
vision of the world, but lack credibility in the real world.
Within the classroom the teacher uses a system of nebulously ossified
terms in order to establish their own authority over the pupils, and this gives rise
to the reification of obsolete discursive formations, further entrenching cultural
standards.(Foucault 39) Giroux’s fourth principle focuses on breaking down the
discursive formation of equality, and its power relationship within the
classroom. He wishes to usurp the static nature of the discursive formation,
allowing for the transformation of discourse through discussion, and thus
instigating societal change. However as formulation gives rise to reformulation
this discontinuity retains a static power structure so that one authoritarian
Andrew Happel
1
Ewald 105H12
discourse formation is replaced by an equally detestable, but antithetical
one.(Foucault 166) Giroux’s ideal fails to break free from the inherent nature of
discursive power relationships of the classroom. Also Giroux’s narrow-minded
focus the discursive formation of equality is frustrating.
As he attempts to
transform the discursive nature with which we address equality, he fails to deal
with the structure that gives rise to discursive formation. And by failing to deal
with all discursive formations, it is impossible to transform the way in which
discursive power is derived.(Foucault 169)
Giroux’s principle is infeasible in its application to the classroom, because
learning is derived from understanding.
Understanding is based upon the
ability to communicate meaning, but when meaning becomes dynamic, it is
impossible to maintain understanding. The evolution of language takes place
over centuries, and trying to compact it into a discussion or series of discussions
causes the dissolution of intelligible definition. In a history class the constant
redefinition of words such as “equality” and “oppression” deteriorate the
students understanding of historical epochs. Historical periods such as the Dark
Ages are defined in context to the application of the term oppression as it relates
to serfdom, whereas the Roman Empire could not be properly understood
without a specific relation of the word oppression to slavery.
It becomes
impossible to define oppression within a historical context, because its meaning
flows with the conversation, making learning about these historical periods
virtually impossible. Once the learning process has been destroyed, it is even
Andrew Happel
2
Ewald 105H12
more difficult to incite societal transformation, defeating the original purpose.
As such it is nearly impossible to imagine any application to the real world.
While
good
in
intention
the
possibility
of
allowing
dynamic
transformation of discursive formations is a self-defeating proposition.
In
addition it is completely detached from any vision of reality.
Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on
Language. Pantheon Books, New York. 1972.
Andrew Happel
3
Ewald 105H12