This is a very disturbing issue, thank you for posting this to the various Foucault listservs, Clare.
I used to belong to this list a while ago but when my PC died - so did many of the connections on it. Thank you Clare for hooking me back up again!
To (re)introduce myself, I am a final year PhD student at QUT (Clare is one of my excellent supervisors). In my doctoral work I use Foucault to question what influence the discourses and practices of schooling may have in the construction of disorderly behaviour and the recognition of particular children as a particular kind of "disorderly". My object of interest is ADHD and the rising rate of diagnosis and pharmacological control of children.
As such, I have been following the frenzied media comments about education in Australia for a while now and can provide some context or lead-up for Auty's inane column, in which others may be interested.
Auty's rant was provoked by comments by the Australian Prime Minister John Howard who, as others have already mentioned, has repeatedly attacked postmodernism using the media -
particularly in the last six months, no doubt to get other issues off the front page; i.e. AWB, children overboard etc.
First his attacks on "postmodernism" were about its supposed influence on university teacher education in Australia generally - turning education faculties into "quasi sociology departments" with out-of-touch lecturers who would "drop dead with fright if suddenly parachuted into a Year 9 classroom". (Not me, I like teenagers - it's little kids I'm scared of).
Several weeks later, Howard attacked the way history is taught in Australian schools. His rationale for this was the alleged lack of knowledge of important dates by young parlimentary staff members (particularly in relation to the history of Federation). He complained that postmodern relativism was responsible for reducing the study of history to a "fragmented stew of 'themes' and 'issues'... where any objective record of
achievement is questioned or repudiated". He advocated that the teaching of history be overhauled to incorporate a "structured narrative" that should
cover "the great and enduring heritage of Western civilisation, those nations that became the major tributaries of European settlement and in turn
a sense of the original ways in which Australians from diverse backgrounds have created our own distinct history". (!!)
Particularly he wants a focus on names and dates of important events/people, especially the history of Federation and Australian political history...
(probably so that at least someone will remember him in 50 years time).
Most embarrassing however was his argument that the postmodern influence on the teaching of history had produced a "black arm-band view of Australian
history" particularly with respect to the dispossession and subsequent barbaric treatment of Aborigines. I was really pleased to see Dr Chris Sarra, an Aboriginal educator here in Queensland, engage with this in an SBS current affairs program last night, Insight. [See http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/# for a story on Australian culture and identity: Aussie Rules - click on archives]. The problems of/with the "Australian identity" - what it is, what it should be, what it ain't - is at the basis of much of John Howard's neo-conservative ranting. To be honest, even though I have Australian citizenship, I still haven't a clue what the Australian identity "is". All I know is that I don't like what Howard, his sicko-phants and the media are telling us it should be.
Prompting the Auty article was John Howard's latest attack on the teaching of literature in schools.
AWB is really hotting up in other words. He has complained that "the English syllabus taught in Australian schools is being dumbed down by
"rubbish" postmodern literature". However uninformed, Howard's comments influence others (either equally uninformed or with an axe to grind like Auty). The comments range from:
"authorities seemed too willing to succumb to political correctness at the expense of quality traditional literature. I share the views of many people about the so-called postmodernism ... I just wish that independent education authority didn't succumb on occasions to the political correctness that it appears to succumb to," he said.
"We all understand that it's necessary to be able to be literate and coherent in the English language, we understand that it's necessary to be numerate and we also understand that there's high-quality literature and there's rubbish. We need a curriculum that encourages an understanding of the high-quality literature and not the rubbish."
Somewhat problematically, Howard does not venture any indication of what the "rubbish" is. He simply criticises popular culture, whilst valorising the
"traditional". But unless one has been living under a rock for a very long time, it is well-known that 400 odd years ago, Shakespeare was writing popular culture!
Sparking this whole debate was the inadequately reported incidence of a school-based assessment which asked students to conduct an interpretive analysis of Shakespeare's Othello utilising Marxist, Feminist and race theory. The head of the private girls school, "defended the question, arguing that it asked students to show their understanding of Othello's themes. "It's phrased in a slightly different way ... but it's about the role of women, the role of black men in that society, the role of the worker, which I think are clear themes of Othello," she said.
Ms Allum, also chairwoman of the academic committee of the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia in NSW, said it was a legitimate
way of interpreting Shakespeare's themes using a modern-day understanding of feminism, race relations or Marxism. "There's always been different ways of
looking at a play and drawing different meanings," she said.
I agree with Ms Allum and deplore the attack on the study of literature in Australian schools and universities which I feel is not only of a high
standard but, most importantly, goes some way towards teaching students critical literacy or how to think. Without it, we will have an even smaller
number of people in Australia who know John Howard is talking out of his... well, ... ear in an effort to deflect media and public attention from the
scandals involving his govt.
Perhaps what is scaring them is that a postmodern/poststructural reading would elucidate the strategies behind such tactics - to denounce Marx's philosophy (via an attack on Marxism a la Communism) and postmodernism generally by attacking the character of Michel Foucault is an attempt to dilute the strength/utilisation of these philosophies in critiquing the damaging effect of neoliberal economic rationalism and/or elucidating Howard's discursive practices for what they are - strategic rhetoric. And, if he's successful, the media will run with these beat-up's of education on the front page of our national newspapers, rather than the latest dishonest thing our government has done.
I wonder why it is that the media has never noticed Treasurer Peter Costello starts talking about tax cuts/tax reform whenever there is a huge problem like the Australian Wheat Board kick-backs to Saddam Hussein? Perhaps they need to get into some critical literacy themselves. David McInerney's explanation - Murdoch - is a pretty good one.
Cheers,
Linda
Linda J. Graham
Centre for Learning Innovation
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Graham,_Linda.html
CRICOS No 00213J
I used to belong to this list a while ago but when my PC died - so did many of the connections on it. Thank you Clare for hooking me back up again!
To (re)introduce myself, I am a final year PhD student at QUT (Clare is one of my excellent supervisors). In my doctoral work I use Foucault to question what influence the discourses and practices of schooling may have in the construction of disorderly behaviour and the recognition of particular children as a particular kind of "disorderly". My object of interest is ADHD and the rising rate of diagnosis and pharmacological control of children.
As such, I have been following the frenzied media comments about education in Australia for a while now and can provide some context or lead-up for Auty's inane column, in which others may be interested.
Auty's rant was provoked by comments by the Australian Prime Minister John Howard who, as others have already mentioned, has repeatedly attacked postmodernism using the media -
particularly in the last six months, no doubt to get other issues off the front page; i.e. AWB, children overboard etc.
First his attacks on "postmodernism" were about its supposed influence on university teacher education in Australia generally - turning education faculties into "quasi sociology departments" with out-of-touch lecturers who would "drop dead with fright if suddenly parachuted into a Year 9 classroom". (Not me, I like teenagers - it's little kids I'm scared of).
Several weeks later, Howard attacked the way history is taught in Australian schools. His rationale for this was the alleged lack of knowledge of important dates by young parlimentary staff members (particularly in relation to the history of Federation). He complained that postmodern relativism was responsible for reducing the study of history to a "fragmented stew of 'themes' and 'issues'... where any objective record of
achievement is questioned or repudiated". He advocated that the teaching of history be overhauled to incorporate a "structured narrative" that should
cover "the great and enduring heritage of Western civilisation, those nations that became the major tributaries of European settlement and in turn
a sense of the original ways in which Australians from diverse backgrounds have created our own distinct history". (!!)
Particularly he wants a focus on names and dates of important events/people, especially the history of Federation and Australian political history...
(probably so that at least someone will remember him in 50 years time).
Most embarrassing however was his argument that the postmodern influence on the teaching of history had produced a "black arm-band view of Australian
history" particularly with respect to the dispossession and subsequent barbaric treatment of Aborigines. I was really pleased to see Dr Chris Sarra, an Aboriginal educator here in Queensland, engage with this in an SBS current affairs program last night, Insight. [See http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/# for a story on Australian culture and identity: Aussie Rules - click on archives]. The problems of/with the "Australian identity" - what it is, what it should be, what it ain't - is at the basis of much of John Howard's neo-conservative ranting. To be honest, even though I have Australian citizenship, I still haven't a clue what the Australian identity "is". All I know is that I don't like what Howard, his sicko-phants and the media are telling us it should be.
Prompting the Auty article was John Howard's latest attack on the teaching of literature in schools.
AWB is really hotting up in other words. He has complained that "the English syllabus taught in Australian schools is being dumbed down by
"rubbish" postmodern literature". However uninformed, Howard's comments influence others (either equally uninformed or with an axe to grind like Auty). The comments range from:
"authorities seemed too willing to succumb to political correctness at the expense of quality traditional literature. I share the views of many people about the so-called postmodernism ... I just wish that independent education authority didn't succumb on occasions to the political correctness that it appears to succumb to," he said.
"We all understand that it's necessary to be able to be literate and coherent in the English language, we understand that it's necessary to be numerate and we also understand that there's high-quality literature and there's rubbish. We need a curriculum that encourages an understanding of the high-quality literature and not the rubbish."
Somewhat problematically, Howard does not venture any indication of what the "rubbish" is. He simply criticises popular culture, whilst valorising the
"traditional". But unless one has been living under a rock for a very long time, it is well-known that 400 odd years ago, Shakespeare was writing popular culture!
Sparking this whole debate was the inadequately reported incidence of a school-based assessment which asked students to conduct an interpretive analysis of Shakespeare's Othello utilising Marxist, Feminist and race theory. The head of the private girls school, "defended the question, arguing that it asked students to show their understanding of Othello's themes. "It's phrased in a slightly different way ... but it's about the role of women, the role of black men in that society, the role of the worker, which I think are clear themes of Othello," she said.
Ms Allum, also chairwoman of the academic committee of the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia in NSW, said it was a legitimate
way of interpreting Shakespeare's themes using a modern-day understanding of feminism, race relations or Marxism. "There's always been different ways of
looking at a play and drawing different meanings," she said.
I agree with Ms Allum and deplore the attack on the study of literature in Australian schools and universities which I feel is not only of a high
standard but, most importantly, goes some way towards teaching students critical literacy or how to think. Without it, we will have an even smaller
number of people in Australia who know John Howard is talking out of his... well, ... ear in an effort to deflect media and public attention from the
scandals involving his govt.
Perhaps what is scaring them is that a postmodern/poststructural reading would elucidate the strategies behind such tactics - to denounce Marx's philosophy (via an attack on Marxism a la Communism) and postmodernism generally by attacking the character of Michel Foucault is an attempt to dilute the strength/utilisation of these philosophies in critiquing the damaging effect of neoliberal economic rationalism and/or elucidating Howard's discursive practices for what they are - strategic rhetoric. And, if he's successful, the media will run with these beat-up's of education on the front page of our national newspapers, rather than the latest dishonest thing our government has done.
I wonder why it is that the media has never noticed Treasurer Peter Costello starts talking about tax cuts/tax reform whenever there is a huge problem like the Australian Wheat Board kick-backs to Saddam Hussein? Perhaps they need to get into some critical literacy themselves. David McInerney's explanation - Murdoch - is a pretty good one.
Cheers,
Linda
Linda J. Graham
Centre for Learning Innovation
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Graham,_Linda.html
CRICOS No 00213J