education for whom?

Education for Whom?: An Assessment of the System of Privilege and Oppression in the American School System

Comprehensive Examination Submitted to the Department of Language, Literacy and Sociocultural Studies

By Jorge A. Garcia

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Arts Degree March 22, 2007

Education for whom? 1

Ic pehua in quinmachtia, Comenzaban a enseñarles,

They would began to teach them,

In iuh nemique, como han de vivir,

how they should live,

In iuh tlatlacamaztique, como a las personas how to the people,

In iuh temahuiztilique,

han de honrar y respetar, they should honor and respect,

In quimomacazque, como se han de dar,

how they have to give up themselves,

In quallotl, in yecyotl, a lo conveniente y a lo recto,

to the appropriate and rightful,

Auh inic quitlalcahuizque, como han de dejar,

how they should leave,

In ixpampa ehuazque, huyendo con fuerza, leaving with force,

In aquallotl, in ayecyotl, lo no bueno, lo no recto,

what is not good, and not right,

In tlahuililocayotl, De la perversión, from perversion,

In tlacazolyotl, Y de la avidez,

And from greed.

Huehuetlahtolli (the ancient Word) Prof. Arturo Meza Gutiérrez (1997)


Table of Contents

Abstract ……………………...…………………………………………………………..3 I. Introduction …………………………………………………………………….4 II. Theoretical approaches to education ……………………………….………8 III. Achievement ideology and white supremacy …………………….….……18 IV. Tezkatlipoka: Empowerment through the internal self ..………..……..….27 V. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………..…..34 References


Abstract

The purpose of this essay is to explore the issue of race, class and education in the United States.

The premise in mainstream society is that class and education are related. This is because

education supposedly serves as the equalizer between social classes. This premise leads people

to believe that education can be a stepping point to a better way of life. Because the education

system in the US is based on the notion of white middle class achievement ideology, and taking

into account that the racial component in the US is not all white nor middle class; then I will argue

that the role of the educational system should not be to superimpose white middle class values but

rather to promote true cultural diversity and a systems approach to be able to undertake the

education process as an interrelated and holistic component of the environment in which the

student grows. In this essay, I will explore the different theoretical positions that argue both in favor

and against the values of the existing educational system. In order to center my arguments in a

tangible example, I do an overview of the way the Mexika people educated their children before the

invasion of the Spaniards. Specifically, I introduce Tezkatlipoka, an archetype, that the Mexika

used before the conquest to support the development of the members of that society. The

introduction of this cultural precept is to contextualize the educational systems that might support

Chicanos and Mexicanos living in the United States.


I. Introduction

I regard the past as a conception of time enclosed into a social construction of the human

species. In ordinary time, we call these social constructions history, which in the human experience

become ingrained deep into the human consciousness of the group (Freud, 1939). Human

consciousness allows us to keep track of time and space. It also allows us to analyze the past,

understand the present and envision a future. These are social constructions that are fixed in a

historical continuum that describes specific events. To modify outcomes, Bell (1992) encourages

us to envision changes in the future by knowing the past.

The purpose of this essay is to situate and contextualize the educational process in the

United States through the lenses of critical race theory and indigenous education. The goal is to

understand the positionality of our educational system as part of a white system of privilege and

oppression.1 The objective is to contextualize education as a process by which human beings

achieve integration and balance (Cajete, 1994), rather than a system of differentiation (Alexander,

1987; Parsons, 1959) and oppression (Akom, 2003; Allen, 2001, 2002; Landson, 1998; Maiz, 2004;

Mills, 1997). Because the United States is regarded as a place of opportunities, I analyze why the

current system continues to produce high drop out rates (Kozol, 1992; Pizarro, 1999). Because the

educational system is both a social experience (Rodiles, 1989) and a “political undertaking” (Nieto,

2002), I use these determinants as references to situate the Mexicano and Chicano experience. I

also use their cultural heritage as a medium by which this group2 can become “socially determined

[to change their future] and [become] creators of human futures” (Kalantzis, Cope, & Slade, as

cited in Nieto, 2002, p.10). 1 The white system of white privilege and oppression follows the denomination made by critical race theorists who view it simply as whiteness (Allen, 2001; Mills, 1997; Akom, 2003; Daniels, 1997) which defines white supremacy. 2 For the purposes of this essay, I do not regard the Mexicano and the Chicano as two different minority groups. These does not mean that they share the exact same social and cultural experience; it simply means that they came from the same racial, cultural, and traditional roots, that of México Profundo (1994).


Gutiérrez (1987), in Tezcatlipoca: Nuestro ser interno, asserts that this notion of “creators

of human features” is known by Native Mexicans through the ancient conception of Tezcatlipoca.

Tezcatlipoca is a word in the Nahuatl3 language, which literally means smoking mirror. This

concept was used to understand human behavior through our own reflection. It was also used to

teach people how to connect their heart with their mind, and through this process find a heart and a

face (Cajete, 1994; Gutiérrez, 1997; Portilla, 1961; Rodiles, 1989) as a way to be subsequent and

responsible with one’s actions. This process of cognition and self evaluation demanded a

sophisticated process of education, which I argue, can still be used to teach in schools today.

Because the past is important, I start my analysis in 1492 when the Europeans first set foot

on what equivocally would be known as the Indies. In this year a new chapter of history began for

the inhabitants of this continent. Strange white bearded men mounted on floating artifacts landed

on their territories (Zinn, 1980). As they moved in, they destroyed practically everything they found.

They destroyed peoples’ way of life, their traditions, and worst of all; they committed the worst

genocide human kind has ever acknowledged (Mills, 1997). As they moved into these territories;

they needed to justify their greed and disregard for human life, and so they invented stories and

myths about the people they encountered. With the support of the church (Hankel, 1937), people

were classified as sub-humans, and disseminated entire demographic areas.4 In their view, people

on this side of the sea did not have regard for the land, and so for the Anglo-Saxon it became their

Manifest Destiny5 to possess it all.

The question, however, is what have we learned about this process of conquest and

colonization? What does this process of appropriation teach us about schooling and education?

3 Nahuatl is the original language of the Mexican people. This language is still spoken in various native communities in central Mexico. 4 Yañez (1992) Doctrina argues that when the Spaniards first went to Isla Española there were at least three million people, and that in 40 years they were disseminated to two hundred people 5 For more information on this concept see http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/E/manifest/manif1.htm#coi


Were Natives savages, and if so why and how did they develop the sophisticated polities that

Europeans found all across this continent? If having highly developed polities meant that

educational systems existed, what were these systems? We know very little about these systems,

therefore my point of departure and analysis is to move backward from the present to the past to

understand the process of education established to redeem the “Other.”6

To redeem the Other Europeans created stereotypes. One stereotype was that of People

of Color as the antithesis of white people. In this case, being white7 became a racial privilege to

which all those who assimilated could be part of. For the purpose of this paper, I refuse to continue

this racist tendency. Within my analysis, I refer to people of color as simply people, not just as

people different than whites, but rather to all people who are marginalized both physically and

psychologically by a white system of privilege and oppression.8 Following Bell’s (1992)

contentions, two main precepts are the guiding points of my research and analysis. The first is

“racism is an integral, permanent, and indestructible component of this society” (p. ix), and so our

task as educators should be to undermine the ignorance that fuels this system. The second is that

in order to call ourselves educators, we should “demand human behavior from the other” (p. x) by

exercising the human values of honesty, generosity, bravery, and respect.

In order to analyze and assess education, in the first section of this paper I analyze

theoretical perspectives on education. The second section covers the notion of the American

dream and its middle class values and their relation to the achievement ideology and white

supremacy. In the third section I review Indigenous perspectives on education. I focus primarily

on the term Tezkatlipoka as an indigenous process of education through which the individual

6 In this case the Other refer to those who Europeans, and now Americas, do not see as equal to them, and so the term implies that there is clear differentiation between those who are white and those who are not, or those who are assimilated into white mainstream society and those who are not. 7 For the purpose of this essay, when I refer to white people, I will refer to them grammatically as white with a lower w, and not White as it is commonly understood as grammatically correct. 8 By a system of oppression I mean a system in which the norm is white-anglo-saxon-protestant values and language


becomes critical of him or herself as part of a holistic environment. In this section, I include cultural

precepts that might be useful to contravene dropout rates and school failures for

Chicano/Mexicano students.

My contention is that because history and sufficient research has shown that education, in

the United States, is an extension of a white system of privilege and oppression, then what is

needed to correct this system is not educational political reform. Rather a change in the way

education is imparted within our classrooms and the teaching methodologies that are used to

teach. The purpose of reevaluating education is not to create dichotomies between the ideas of

assimilation and resistance, for they already exist, but rather to add information to an educational

process that should neither be conditioned nor confined to ideological frameworks. Besides, if

“education is a political undertaking,” as Nieto (2002) contends, then this essay adds another

variable to the process of evaluating the way that people regard education as a form of critical

consciousness and development. This variable is cultural determinism as a form of self-

determination and cultural sovereignty through education.

The next section will overview educational theory to determine how education is

conceptualized using different ideas about how and why education is a determinant in this process

of integration and differentiation, or assimilation and resistance.

II. Theoretical approaches to education

Before attempting to understand the ideas that have served as the foundation for

education in the United States, we have to ask ourselves, what is education? As social disorder

swept throughout Europe after the revolts of 1848 (Namier, 1964), structural functionalists began to

envision secular education to ensure social order within the evolution of the industrial revolution


that emerged from Europe. In this respect, structural functionalists, such as Durkheim (1956/1973)

and others began to question the purpose of education, and the role that it should play in this social

order (Durkheim, 1973) dominated by political economy (Marx, 1956). This quest pushed Euro

Americans to develop a structured form of education to organize the society they where creating.

This fact does not mean that education did not exist in Native societies (Cajete, 1994; Gutierrez,

1997; Rodiles, 1989). It means that whites envisioned their own form of socialization through

education. Because education is not an exclusive development of Europeans, then to define the

meaning of education we have to explore different views about education. Furthermore, since we

live in a society where both Native and Euro-American values and forms of education coexist,

understanding the differences between these views is important to fully understand the human

process of cognition and growth. Through an analysis of these current views, we can attempt to

define how our present society can benefit from alternative perspectives on education.

The modern educational thought that Europeans put forth to regulate their society began

by developing secular morality (Durkheim, 1973),9 as opposed to religious morality. In my view this

is the way which Europeans began to set their structured system of education above those

systems that existed long before they set foot on this Continent. The goal of rationalizing

education not as an art but rather as a rational process (Durkheim, 1973) allowed the development

and control of the role that the subjects played within the social system (Parson, 1959). The

transition to secular morality also marked the beginning of state controlled form of education that

deemed the individual as an object that had to learn the dispositions needed of a society that

began emulating the norms and rules of the industrial forms of production (Alexander, 197).

9 Durkheim in this sense is just one example of a long line of thinkers that emerged from the evolution of Western thought. The idea about morality, in European thought, has gone from religiously based to secular, to a modern form based on secularism disguised on a quasi religious idea about morality.


Durkheim (1956) in Education: Its nature and its role, argues that education is the

“influences that nature or other men are able to exercise either on our intelligence or on our will” (p.

61). Education, based on Durkheim’s definition, is a process by which a person, through direct

support and guidance, or influence, is able to develop his or her own intelligence and personal will

power to fulfill his or her personal aptitudes. Based on the notion that intelligence and will is

something that can be “influenced”, then we can assert without much margin of error that

intelligence and personal will is a human quality inherently obtained at birth, and that through

teaching and guidance human beings are able to develop their inherent qualities. The point is that

if education is a process by which intelligence and personal will is developed, then education

should not be thought out as a fixed process confined within the halls of a building we call school,

but rather an interactive process that takes place within the family, the community-at-large (Cajete,

1994; Gutierrez, 1997), and a process that incorporates “multiple intelligences” (Gardner, 2006)

that facilitate the process of cognition and human growth.

John Stuart Mill (as cited in Durkheim, 1956) also refers to this process of development

and education as way to bring the student “closer to the perfection of our nature” (p. 61). The issue

with this contention is that perfection refers to a state of excellence and rightness that European

philosophers, deeply influenced by religious thought,10 argued could be nurtured through a natural

process of development. This process of development, as it was imparted to Natives, end up to be

a quest by which Europeans wanted to redeem the Other by providing them with “civilized

education” (Adams, 1995, p. 21). Because the education developed by Euro Americans was

rooted in religious morality, rather than in secular morality, then the foundations of this education

system became an assault on the structural functionalist idea set forth by Durkheim (1973) in

10 To be more exact, Peter Lombard (c. 1100 – 1160) can be deemed as the father of perfectionism through his religious ideas in the Four Books of Sentences (Libri Quattuor Sententiarum) (For an informal note on this subject see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection)


Secular Morality. In this book, Durkheim argues that “the morality of undeveloped societies is not

our. What characterizes them is that they are essentially religious” (p. 6). Therefore, by

differentiating their moral values from those of “undeveloped” societies, Durkheim began a process

of establishing the foundations of a white supremacist state where whites were above other. The

point to make is that much of this discourse, in my point of view, was or could be viewed as false

consciousness developed to justify the supremacy that whites began to experience through their

colonization efforts. Marx (1956) analyzed the way the ruling classes created perceptions by which

the masses could be subdued to voluntarily participate in the social-economic system that benefits

the elite. To this respect he argued that the dominant ideas are nothing more than the expression

of a dominant relation based on materialism. Ideas that flourished based on dominant relations

turned whites into the dominant class. This dominant relations based on materialism can be seen

as the false consciousness that justifies and perpetuates white supremacy.

Adams (1995) in Education for Extinction presents the arguments made by the European

colonizers that practically advocated “their commitment to Christianization was also rooted in the

assumption that civilization, as the highest stage of man’s social evolution, was only possible when

erected upon a firm foundation of Christian morality,” (p. 23) therefore, what they need to complete

their goal was an “army of Christian school-teachers” (p. 27) Unfortunately, the notion of

“education for civilization” (Child, 2000, p. 74), which in essence could have been based on the

Pythagorean idea of bringing the parts of the human together, end up in a process of differentiation

in which not just the individual was expected to be differentiated through a linear system of

education, but also a system by which whites would be differentiated from the Other. In spite of the

theoretical arguments that an individual can be perfected through a socialization process, the task

of explaining how schools inform the process of human education and development, as a process

that requires far more than simple intellectual and technical subjects is still unanswered. It requires,


Native scholars argue (Cajete, 1994; Gutierrez, 1997; Rodiles, 1989), a deep understanding of the

personal history, culture, traditions, and harmonious understanding of the social, cultural,

economic, and political environment in which the individual lives.

Within the Western system of education, one presupposes that the educational system

provides the support needed to all students so they can achieve greater intelligence and personal

will, as well as “a state of perfect equilibrium and cooperation” (Alexander, 1987, p. 46). Being that

within functionalist ideas, the approach is to balance the role of the individual with that of society,

then why is this notion not reflected in the retention rates for minority children.11 If schools are

places of learning, and learning is a human trait and a way by which an individual brings out his or

her personal aptitudes, then why do children prefer to resist the school system by dropping out of

it? (Kozol, 1992). Is this outcome a result of school being a rigorous institution that requires

special skills? Durkheim (1973) contended that education was not an art. Under his rational

approach, he argued that education was a scientific endeavor that could “provide insight into

action” (p. 2). If this is the case, then what does the current trends of school failure tells us about

schools, at least for minority students, as places where failure rather than personal excellence is

the norm for millions of children. Furthermore, who fails when students become antagonistic about

their education? Do students fail for resisting the school system, teachers fail for not having the

proper education to teach and guide the students, or the school system for being inefficient and

just a mere extension of a system of privilege and oppression. Regardless of who is responsible

for school failure, it is obvious that schools are failing to the task of bringing out the highest

qualities of minority students (Miller, 2007), and for millions of minority children “civilization” is a

11 According to the National Association of School Psychologists “the rate of high school non-completers aged 16 to 24 in many urban areas is as high as 35%.” While the 1994 census data showed that 20% adult population age 25 did not completed high school. (http://www.moreland.k12.ca.us/Discovery/NASP/dropout_rk.html)


fallacy rooted in white arrogance, ignorance and deception. Schools, in this case, are simply

serving as instruments where bodies are molded to fulfill the roles prescribed by needs of the

economic system (Apple, 1990; Bennett & LeCompte, 1990; Giroux, 1983). The inherent need of

capitalism to define the role of the individual as another piece in the assembly line has turned the

school system simply as an “agency of socialization” (Parsons, 1959, p. 33), which reproduces the

social structures (Apple, 1980; Bordieu, 1977; Giroux, 1983). The problem is that in this process of

socialization, the needs of the individual are not met, for the ultimate goal is to fulfill the roles of a

society that depends on available human labor that is not required to question his or her

environment. The Other is simply expected to follow directions well, and that they call education.

The problem with the present state of affairs is that within this system the fine qualities that

Mills (1997) and Durkheim (1956) refer to in their definitions about education are partially nurtured

in a small group of people. Within this white system of privilege and oppression, the general notion

is that the white system of privilege, or whiteness (Allen, 2001, 2002; Daniels, 1997), is just a

homogenous society ruled under a meritocracy. Within this meritocracy (Allen, 2001), those who

want to be part of it have to conform and climb the ladder of success to achieve success (McLeod,

1995). The problem with this notion of achieving success, which is based on current social

realities, is that instead of schools bringing out the fine qualities of students; the student is required

to conform to the rules prescribed by whites, and in this process the teacher, whose role is to act

as an agent of socialization (Parsons, 1959), executes this to differentiate between students who

have the potential to succeed and those who do not. Because this process of socialization and

differentiation is racist and amoral, then what happened to the inherent qualities that every child

brings with him or her at the time of birth?

One logical explanation of this disparity is that in reality, and amid the great thoughts about

what education should do and be, the school system continues to be a “contested terrain” (Giroux,


1983) in which the need to civilize the Other is exercised (Adams, 1995; Child, 2000). Under this

notion of the school system as part of a system of oppression designed to civilize the Other,12 the

school acts as an instrument that differentiates the student from everything that is familiar to him or

her (Child, 2000) In other words, under a racist system one can only suppose that education, as

stated by Durkheim (1956) and Mill are not necessarily the goals that the system pursues to help

the student achieve greater intelligence and personal will power. Rather, it serves as an

instrument to consciously create a social being that fulfills a predefined role within the social

system, even if within this process the fine qualities of the individual are ignored and suppressed.

At least this is the general view that emanates from the arguments that functionalists put forth to

explain how the social system ensures its survival through the differentiation of roles (Alexander,

1997; Feinberg & Soltis, 1998; Parsons, 1959). This differentiation of roles, functionalists argue, is

necessary to ensure that social stability is achieved. In terms of social continuity, one can

understand from a practical point of view that equilibrium needs to be achieved to ensure social

order and cohesion. The problem is that minority students are paying a high cost to live in a social

system divided by racial lines, and one in which they are in a disadvantage with respect to whites

(Bell, 1992; Mills, 1997). The argument can be made that in fact this is education for civilization,

and that civilization in this sense means that the human being needs to conform to the forces that

sustain our social world. This argument can be accepted, but then it means that education, within

the realm of Western society, is not what we think it is. It is just a process by which people are

tracked into the prescribed roles that they are assuming as members of an organized and

predefined social order. If this is what education is within our society, then the arguments made by

12 In Faces at the Bottom of the Well, Derrick Bell (1992) defines the “Other” as a “distinct [and] subordinate ‘other.’ Within this context and distinct and defined personalities, he adds “whites include themselves in the dominant circle—an arena in which most hold no real power, but only their privileged racial identity.” (Pg. 8)


both Durkheim and Mills do not reflect the social, cultural, economic and political reality of those

whose needs, perceptions, and aptitudes go beyond assimilating into a work force. That is, it is as

rational to think that conformism is the way to live in balance, but likewise; it is rational to think that

not to conform is also a human trait that every human being is entitled to. Feinberg and Soltis

(1998) argue that in the American school system the main goal is to preserve the status quo, and

education is simply reduced to “develop the psychological dispositions appropriate for work and

citizenship in [an] industrial society” (p. 21). Within this notion of social reproduction, we can assert

that education is a system of reproduction and differentiation that is not designed to bring out the

highest qualities of all the children entrusted to it.

Cleary and Peacock (1998) in Collected Wisdom argue that the reason why we have under

achieved in education is because of the dissonance between the school system and the

experiences of the students are at odds, and the result is rejection, resistance and conflict instead

of acceptance, harmony, and cognition. There are two basic points that in my view hinder the

process of helping someone bring about his or her best human abilities.

The first fact is related to the current system of education which for students other than

white students was created to provide people with an education for civilization (Adams, 1995).

Therefore, one can conclude that for people other than white people education was not necessarily

about bringing out the best of their abilities, but rather for them to assimilate the norms, language,

and culture of the Euro American society. If this is the case then the system was not created to

fulfill the purpose mentioned by Durkheim (1956) and Mill. It was rather to simply assimilate the

social norms and predispositions of education as a form of providing the Other with a sense of

belonging into the white system of privilege.

The other factor has to do with another reality beyond the notion of cognition and

pedagogy. Cajete (1994), in Look to the Mountain argues that education is part of a set of


“complex activities for forming human learning” (p. 25). His definition adds another variable to the

process of education. It suggests that education is not just about highlighting the aptitudes of a

person, but rather that the act of teaching and learning is dependent on complex activities.

Therefore, it should be viewed from a systems approach under which the parts of the education

can be connected to the whole experience of the student as a component in the social system that

evolves continuously. He goes on to explain that education is part of a “holistic context that

developed the importance of each individual as a contributing member of the social group” (p. 26).

If this is the case, then we can say that education is also a process by which the intellect and the

human praxis come together to form an existential experience by which the individual learns about

his or her special aptitudes. Furthermore, this process of cognition and development is extended

to connecting these aptitudes for the benefit of the self and the collective group. In other words,

education is a way by which the individual gets a sense of belonging and acquires a greater sense

of responsibility for his future and that of his extended family and community.

As I reflect on this point, I ask myself what is the importance of analyzing and

understanding the current educational system within the framework of integration and

differentiation, or assimilation and resistance? Certainly the high numbers of students who drop

out of the school system are a determinant to understand why students in the United States reject

the existing notions of education and success. Instead of choosing to join the labor force, they

become gang members, sell drugs, or worse, become drug and alcohol addicts. If the opportunity

is there for all to grab, (McLeod, 1995) as the achievement ideology inform us, then why do

minority students not just assimilate and attempt to climb the ladder of success? Why do they


resist the educational system and the ideological framework designed to instill a desire to become

the Other?13

Pizarro (1999), in his essay Racial Formation and Chicana/o Identity, states that “with

official high school dropout rates of Chicana/os hovering at 35 percent and other estimates ranging

from 50 to 75 percent, understanding the struggles of Chicana/os will be essential for the United

States as we enter the new millennium” (p. 191). Pizarro is right in that at the national level there is

the need understand this trend.14 The problem, however, is that within a meritocracy not everyone

enjoys the same privileges to equally compete for resources, and so I would argue that people

affected by this trend need to empower themselves to fully understand the future consequences

that ignorance and illiteracy will create. The reason why this is important is because within our

society, the school system becomes a place where values, preconditions, and perceptions are

created and transmitted, and so the need to understand deficient forms of schooling is a

responsibility that everyone should be concerned about in order to ensure that true education is

taking place.

Parsons (1959) in his essay, the School class as a social system asserts that “the school

is the first socializing agency in the child’s experience which institutionalizes a differentiation of

status on nonbiological bases” (p. 35). If this is the case, then within this differentiation process

students are placed in different tracks to ensure that their place and future role in the social system

13 Alexander (1987) in his attempt to explain Parson’s concept of the “dyad,” as the “image of a perfectly coordinated two-person interaction” (pg. 47), exemplified the Other as part of a dyad, which is perceived to be in “equilibrium [with] the expectations which each other has for the interaction must perfectly complement the expectations of the other.” (pg. 47) These expectations in a racist society, however, are based on power relations in which white privilege plays a role in determining the way this equilibrium between the components of the dyad. At the end to maintain this “sociologically significant relationship” (www.m-w.com), under the notion of power relations, the fact that A makes B something to do means that the equilibrium is not balanced naturally, but rather that this balance is forced. In addition, as Bell (1992) exemplified in “Faces at the bottom of the well,” “by focusing on a distinct, subordinate ‘other,’ whites include themselves in the dominant circle—an arena in which most hold no real power, but only their privileged racial identity.” (pg. 8) This is why the notion of a dyad, as a concept that interrelates is false because the relationship is not balanced, but rather conditioned to the power of A or B, but not both. 14 A point to understand is that this reference is not just about Chicanos, but rather about Blacks, Asians, and other marginalized groups that experience the symptomatic problem of school failure within their communities


is determined by factors beyond his or her control. Being that this is the case, and within the

framework of functionalist theory, schools serve just as the “placer” and the role creator. Thus, we

live in a society that is preconditioned, and so the question for most marginalized groups is how

racism is undone to help children overcome a system of oppression that is designed to “weed out”

those who do not fully assimilate into the white system of privilege and oppression (Giroux, 1983).

In this case, schools will continue to be contested spaces where students without knowing it are

resisting a colonization process implemented to redeem the Other (Adams, 1995). And so the

critical issue is that education is reduced to assimilation and indoctrination, rather then to a process

by which students “learn at the very highest levels.” (Nieto, 2002, p. 18)

In short, education is not, or should not be, a process by which individuals are trained to

“subordinate [themselves] blindly to the collectivity, to become the creature of society.” (Durkheim,

1956 p. 64) If this is how education is viewed and imparted, mostly under an ideological framework

that does not reflect the needs and goals of the student, then a reevaluation needs to take place

because one thing is to train someone to become a loyal subject of the State and another thing is

to help someone to become a complete human being who is responsible and capable for his or her

own destiny. To be able to understand the social dissonance that emanates from these

contradictions, it is useful to understand the ideological framework in which social theories and

ideas are translated to. In our case it is the notion of the American dream and its middle class

values as the conceptual frameworks that serve as determinants for success within a white system

of privilege and oppression. My contention is that within these notions of success lies the way in

which schools transmit an ideological framework that under the subjective notions of “the American

dream” and “middle class values,” reinforces a racist system of privilege and oppression.


III. Achievement ideology and White Supremacy

From the point of view of functionalists, the perception has been that class and education

are interrelated (Parsons, 1959) and that by aspiring to a better life and assimilation into

mainstream society one can achieve the American dream (Avery, 1981). This premise ignores the

fact that the foundations of class and education are based on racist practices15 that have created

social differences between racial groups (Mills, 1997). These differences benefit the political

economy under which Western society founded its system of privilege and oppression.

Additionally, the ideological bases of this system ignores the fact that both class and education are

social constructions based on a “structure of relations” (Bordieu, 1977) developed to maintain racial

differences (Omi & Winant, 1994). Therefore to achieve social mobility within this system, an

individual has to think that he or she belongs to a higher social class and that education would be

the way by which ascension from one social class to another would take place. This state of mind,

Marxists would argue, is rooted in a false consciousness that predisposes the individual with a

sense of power and ownership into the white system of privilege and oppression. Within this

system, racial inequalities are maintained based on the illusion that success is achieved through

individual merit (Allen, 2001). This is how through a meritocracy the ideological precept is that

individual achievement takes place through hard work and personal merit (Allen, 2001; MacLeod,

1995). Thus, the achievement ideology, in a capitalist society governed by a political economy

(Marx, 1956) is the “dominating myth” (Allen, 2001) by which anyone can climb the ladder of

success (MacLeod, 1995). If this is true, it is important to understand how racial preference plays a

role in social inequalities between those who make it and those who do not. One thing to keep in

15Marx (1956) argues that in a system controlled by political economy, social relationships are based on “money and speculation” (p. 161), which in turn creates a set of values by which structural relationships and expectations, within the school system and society in general, are based to fulfill the needs of a capitalist society


mind is that the ideology of achievement presupposes that the social system is free from prejudice.

It also presupposes that everyone starts competing equally with access to the same resources,

and that the medium to achieve equality is the school system.

Allen (2001) in, The Achievement Ideology and Whiteness: “Achieving Whiteness” or

Achieving Middle Class”?, states that the school system, as an extension of the white system of

oppression “rewards students of color whose aspirations, either consciously or unconsciously,

revolve around achieving whiteness” (p. 17). He also adds that the end result is that, within this

framework of racial oppression and white privilege, those who make it through the hoops are an

example for those who do not achieve individual success (p. 18).

The achievement ideology, as an extension of the white system of privilege and oppression,

only tells us that education is the way by which people from lower classes might gain access to the

values of the higher classes. It fails to inform that social and economic differences exist between

those who compete for resources, and that these differences are the determinants of who makes it

through and who does not. The general perception then is that succeeding or failing within the

current system is a matter of individual effort, rather than a predisposed social dysfunctionality that

goes beyond the level of effort that an individual might put in. Does this mean that students who

do not assimilate the values of the middle-class nor become “white” are less intelligent? Of course

not, but the answer to this question has to do more with historical racism and expectations, than

with individual effort.

Jeannie Oakes (1985) in Keeping Track, argues that from the beginning of education in the

United States, the general assumption has been that society is subdivided in classes because

society had “a natural hierarchy of intelligence” (p. 37). These assumptions were made as

standardized testing was being introduced to assess people’s intelligence. According to Oakes,

however, these tests were “biased to favor certain classes and social strata,” (p. 38) and so


“structural racism” (Allen, 2001, p. 4) was rationalized to maintain the superiority of whites as the

supreme racial group.

It is clear from this analysis that from the early days of the inception of the educational system

in the U.S., the educational pioneers did not see the development of the educational system as a

tool for the betterment of society; it became a tool to assimilate non-white immigrants and Natives

into the white-Anglo-Saxon-protestant society (Child, 2000). Understanding this historical fact is

important to be able to transcend the current reality and “transform it” (Freire, 1993, p. 35) through

radical [and collective] action (Allen, 2001, p 14). So the question is whether reality, within a state

of white supremacy, can be transformed? The answer is yes. It would take, however, interracial

unity and the revaluation of the bases by which we define our social system and cosmology.

Through this process of social change whites will have to first acknowledge that conscious or not,

they continue to exercise their white privilege, even if their covert intentions are not to do so. Allen

(2001) argues that “the main impetus for the abolition of whiteness has to come from people of

color” (p.15), which in essence might be true based on the humanizing factor that Freire (1993)

alludes to as part of the “subversive force” (p.11) that people nurture through a life experience of

oppression and racism. To abolish white supremacy, though, whites will have to give up their

power and privilege, and understand that social change will only be possible when they actively

and consciously work to eradicate the injustices that they continuously help to reproduce.

The current school system is part of a system of privilege and oppression that serves as an

instrument to socially stratify those who are considered “weak.” (Rossides, 1997, p. 5) Based on

the theoretical and ideological frameworks that have been developed to both advance and resist a

white system of privilege and oppression, the need to understand how the school system plays an

intrinsic role in the success or failure of minority students will be instrumental to overcome racism.


An important factor in this process of “learning to undo whiteness” is the need to thoroughly

understand how the notion of the American dream and its middle class values were born.

In the early modern history of this country, from the arrival of the first pilgrims from England

in the 1600’s to this date (Zinn, 1980), American society was mainly composed of white-Anglo-

Saxon protestant individuals who came to this Continent to be “free from prejudice of any sort.”16

Their aim became to establish an Anglo-Saxon protestant society whose values would be defined

by “hard work, frugality, modesty, cleanliness, truthfulness, and purity of thought and deed.”

(Oakes, 1985, p. 25) The racist perception of the founders of American society was that they, and

not others, possessed these values. Under this notion, they were promoting not a set of values

they possessed, but rather a sense of individuality, which, in the long run, aimed at eradicating the

sense of community that traditional societies were regulated by. (Childs, 2000; Zinn, 1980, p. 104)

The idea was to create a homogenous society that shared common ideals and values, (Oakes,

1985). These ideals and values would dictate the success of the individual by personal merit (Allen,

2001; McLeod, 1995). In essence this idea of success responded to the overall goal of achieving

perfection through a structured system of education. The problem, however, is that the state of

mind established to compete for success has proven to “interfere with performance, and

perfectionist behavior becomes an obstacle instead of a means to achieving the goal.”

(Perfectionism, 1998)

In theory, the intent and purpose of establishing a better society than what Europeans had

experienced in Europe was perhaps something they needed. In practice, these settlers brought

with them racial and religious prejudice that have defined the nature of the American society as a

racist society (Bell, 1992; Mills, 1997; Zinn, 1980). Based on marked social, cultural, economic, and

political differences between whites and other racial groups, the goal of creating a better society,

16 Internet citation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American.dream


through the American dream and upper social mobility to the middle class, has never really

materialized for millions of people (Brooks, 2007). Mills (1997) argues, however, that the notion of

the American dream and the values of the middle-class family were created to establish the

standards by which non-whites could be measured and objectified to monitor and control their

development in regard to the dominant society (p. 14). If this is the case, then the idea that

children assimilate these values and the notion of the American dream is nothing more than just an

illusion that only a small group of people might achieve through his or her life experience (Pizarro,

1999). In this sense, and for the purposes of perpetuating the white system of oppression and

privilege, those who make it and enjoy the ranks of the white middle-class society become “a buffer

between the upper classes and the masses” (Rossides, 1997, p. 61). The need to understand the

racial dynamics that perpetuate racism is and will be instrumental to contravene the current system

of oppression and privilege. It will also be important to eradicate differences between those who by

the nature of their level of consciousness can work together to resist whiteness (Allen, 2002, p.

111)

In retrospect, the main issue about having standard values and a common society is not

necessarily wrong. The problem is whose society we live under, and what are the social

determinants predefined as social values. Schools could and should play a role in bringing out the

high qualities, intelligence, and will power of students so they can transform themselves through

the educational experience and become critical thinkers (Akom, 2003). The challenge is that

because the school system is viewed as an institution that instills white moral and social values,

minority children are already in a disadvantage because the values they bring with them to the

school do not have the same values as those of white society. Consequently, they are led to

believe that to succeed they have to seek the values of the dominant society to “climb the ladder of

social mobility” (McLeod, 1995, p. 3). Because this process of competing is based on being the


best in what one do, then in the Gale Encyclopedia explains that “perfectionists engage in

dichotomous thinking, believing that there is only one right outcome and one way to achieve that

outcome.” Additionally, they “also pay selective attention to their own achievement, criticizing

themselves for mistakes or failures, and downplaying their success.” (Perfectionism, 1998) Based

on these findings, then one can conclude that the white system of privilege and oppression creates

a process in which the individual has to oppress him or herself in order to be part of the competing

individuals who consciously or unconsciously try to be white (Allen, 2001). Within this system of

oppression, using the American dream and its middle class values as determinants for success

distorts the role that schools should play in bringing the inherent qualities of all children. It also

creates a situation in which children learn from early age that to achieve the American dream all

they have to do is become individualistic, when in fact most of us owe our personal development to

our families and communities (Cajete, 1994, p. 26). In addition, individualism through schooling

only helps to create a society in which children are taught to judge others and where preconceived

notions about others create divisions along racial and class lines.

The issue of course is not that children should not hold as important the values of “hard

work, frugality, modesty, cleanliness, truthfulness, and purity of thought and deed” (Oakes, 1985).

These values and the notion of individuality are human traits that need to be nurtured, along side

other values that are equally important.17 The question is who is defining these values and under

whose terms? In this case, schools, apart from home and the community, are the places were

social values can be nurtured as an addition to the intellectual development that students are

exposed to. Within the white system of privilege and oppression, however, not everyone has the

same opportunity to be exposed to a sophisticated system of education and to the set of skills that

17 In Look to the Mountain, Cajete (1994) refers to “attain knowledge, seek truth, wisdom, completeness, [and vision] as the determinants that in his perspective as a Native scholar should be to guide the purpose of the school system. (p. 34-35)


allow an individual to be highly organized and functional (Lareau, 1987, p. vii), which at the end

become determinants to access the resources needed to excel. This brings me to the question

about how the middle class is related to the system of oppression, and how social differences are

perpetuated through inequality and social “dispositions” (Bordieu, 1977).

Lareau (1987), in Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary

Education, explains that the social differences between middle-class and working class families are

interconnected with social class and the social system. She states that “upper-middle-class

workers appear to have a pattern of interconnectness between work and home,” and “through

these relationships upper-middle-class parents are drawn into tighter connections with other

parents and educators than are working-class parents” (p. 173). Although, Lareau points out how

interconnectedness is important because it explains that success largely depends on the ability

one might have to activate the social and cultural resources needed to succeed, it still does not

explain the way social structures are designed to perpetuate social differences. Furthermore, it

does not explain the way social differences are the primary determinants through which unequal

distribution of resources takes place. In addition, her research shows that the place that one holds

within this system of privilege influences the level of interconnectness that exists “between family

life and school life” (p. 139). Her research suggests that social class is a determinant in the

interconnectness between family life and school life. If this is the case, then within a meritocracy

the playing field between lower and higher classes will continue to be uneven because not

everyone has the same opportunity to activate the cultural and social capital needed to ensure the

success of children.

Akom (2003) in Reexamining resistance as oppositional behavior alludes to the need to

create social interconnectness by guiding “cultural and social resources” (p.320). His research is

very important to begin a process by which working class families can activate the social and


cultural capital needed to ensure that their children have the support needed to gain interest in the

school system. In this respect, and in terms of his investigation into the way the NOI creates

agency for its members, Akom also explains that through “structural assimilation,18… the [Nation of

Islam] NOI provided highly valuable forms of academic and social support by connecting these

seven young women (and other members of the NOI) to an organizational collectivity that was

committed to helping them achieve” (p. 317). In another words, the solution to structural racism is

to create structural assimilation into the society from which working class students might come

from. By doing this, working class parents can ensure that their children, through support groups,

can resist the educational system, without having to defect from it.

To this effect, Bordieu (1977) in Cultural reproduction and social reproduction, through the

notion of habitus, which he describes as a system of dispositions that mediates between

“structures and practice” (p. 487), explains that in order to understand the nature of dispositions we

need to understand the laws that govern “inter-generational mobility processes to the detriment of

the study of mechanism which tend to ensure the reproduction of the structure of relations between

classes” (p. 487). Understanding interconnectness from the view point of habitus is important

because the argument that higher classes are just activating, for their benefit, the social capital that

they have acquired is a racist argument because it presupposes that within a meritocracy everyone

has the same opportunity to activate social capital, and that even if lower classes have social

capital, that it is equally valued when in fact it is not. In this sense, students from areas that are

neither white nor middle-class are not able to activate the resources needed to succeed based on

the “structural racism” (Allen, 2001) that continues to perpetuate social differences. Why is it

important to know this in relation to the oppressive nature of the system of oppression? It is

18 Akom defines structural assimilation as a way by which the Nation of Islam promotes “traditional values, such as hard work, and separation (affirming their own racial and cultural identities)” (p. 320)


important to know this because as Bordieu asserts when explaining habitus, “[it] discreetly

integrates individuals into a social world geared to the interest of the ruling classes; habitus

engenders attitudes and conduct that are compatible with the reproduction of class inequality” (as

cited in McLeod, p. 138). It is important to understand these contentions because at the end

education should not be a stepping point into a social class, but rather it should be “a subversive

force” (Freire, 1993, p. 11) that can and should be used to empower students through critical

consciousness and social responsibility.

Functionalists tend to suggest (Alexander, 1987) that the end goal of education is to

objectify the socialization process to create equilibrium (p. 50). If this is the case, then the task

should not be to promote entrance into the middle-class as the solution to problems with schooling

and school drop out. Rather, the focus should be to provide awareness and education about the

information that people should have about benefits of the school system and the resources needed

to succeed. The system of oppression and privilege, however, promotes the belief that one has to

belong to a certain social class, or play a social role (Alexander, 1987) to be able to access and

activate resources, when in fact class and social roles are social constructions that largely depend

on social dispositions that can either reproduce “the structure of relations between classes”

(Bordieu, 1977) or bridge the differences that exist between them. The unfortunate part is that

within a social system ruled by white supremacy, children who are not considered to hold the

values attached to the white system of privilege are pushed to the side and eventually out of the

system. At the end, the issue about success should be focused not so much about achieving the

values of the middle class, but rather about activating the resources needed to excel in school.

Minority students from working-class parents do not need to assimilate to middle-class norms to

obtain this knowledge; they need empowerment and education to access and activate the social,

cultural and economic resources needed to succeed. This is the reason why the issue about social


inequality is instrumental for the future of minority students. We need to keep in mind that by

excluding children from having access to the resources needed to succeed, the system of

oppression creates inequality, social stratification, and the ideology that in this individualistic

society everyone has an opportunity to succeed. The result is that minority students are derailed

into a social reproduction system that will not allow them to learn the type of information that they

will need to change the course of their fate. In the next section, I explore the necessary information

to change the course of one’s life from the perspective of Tezkatlipoka.

IV. Tezkatlipoka: Empowerment through the internal self

Because the drop out rates continues to show that Latinos (Chicanos/Mexicanos) in the

United States are far behind whites19 in accomplishing school success, then the issue for future

development is how can the fate of millions of students who are expected to fail be changed. Can

we find the answer by evoking a “social imagination” that can be created by intersecting “biography

and history” (Mills, as cited in Daniels, 1997, p. xi). This is a task that will have to be taken to help

regain the sense of dignity, identity, and belonging of the children who from early age begin losing

faith in a system that does not respond to their dreams and aspirations (Kozol, 1992). The works

of Akom (2003) and Nieto (2002) are testaments that change is possible, the challenge is simply to

envision social change in a way that is appropriate and in harmony with our natural world.

Akom (2003), documents how the Nation of Islam has created not only a Black

achievement ideology to contravene whiteness, but also a system of support that provides to its

members the “social networks, conversion of their identities, and collective ownership and formal

membership in the organization” (p. 313). Akom’s research project showed that it is possible for

19 According to the National Center for Education Statistics, “Hispanic students were more likely than white students to leave school before completing a high school program: in 1999, 7.8 percent of Hispanic students were event dropouts, compared with 4.0 percent of white students.” (For more information see: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/dropout/)


minorities to create counterideologies that are “transformative” (p. 318) rather than reproductive.

This transformational dynamic, he argues, “produces a social consciousness whereby students are

encouraged to politicize their cultural resistance and develop counterideologies, while they assess

the costs and benefits of not playing the game” (p. 318).

Nieto (2002) also alludes to the need for changing the “entire learning environment” (p. 66)

to be able to provide the sense of belonging that students need to succeed in schools. Like Akom,

Nieto alludes to the fact that changing the way education is imparted has to be part of a shift in

consciousness in which “the maintenance of traditional values, ethnic pride, and close social and

cultural ties with members of the same group (Rumbaut & Ima, 1970, as cited in Nieto, 2002)

becomes the main objective of the educational process. She advocates the establishment of true

multicultural education to avoid “partial and biased education” (p.37). Furthermore, she asserts that

“multicultural education invites students and teachers to put their learning into action for social

justice” (p. 40), and thus induces students to be critical thinkers, decision makers, and creators of

solutions rather than to continue to be part of the problem. Nieto cites the success of the Punjabi

in the United States as an example that success can be achieved by retaining the traditional values

of the group (Gibson, as cited in Nieto, 2002). She also contends that the success of Southeast

Asian students is correlated with “the maintenance of traditional values, ethnic pride, and close

social and cultural ties with members of the same group (Nieto, p. 70). The value of learning about

the efforts that this ethnic groups are doing to stop school failure is important because it shows that

to contravene the negative impact of the white achievement ideology, group support, Akom and

Nieto, show is important to provide a sense of security that the white system of privilege and

oppression fails to provide.

Another approach is to explore the ways by which culture and social dispositions were

managed in other societies. Specially to understand how pre-European societies managed the


ways by which the members of their society were educated. One group that managed to preserve

information about the way they educated their youth is Mexika20 people from central Mexico

(Sahagún, 1999; Tezozomoc, 1987). Before moving further on with this section, it is important to

clarify that schooling has not been exclusive to whites, and thus exploring other systems of

education that predate the invasion of Europeans to this continent is neither to regress a process of

human growth nor to idealize the past. This exploration is important to contextualize and validate

cultural developments and processes that white society has undermined for 500 years. Besides,

analyzing educational issues from another perspective, rather than the European perspective,

might allow us to develop solutions that create a “sense of ultimate grounding” (Heirich, as cited in

Akom, 2003, p. 314) from which students can relate to the cosmology and cultural precepts that

defines their sense of identity, belonging, and purpose in life.

I center my analysis on the indigenous culture of Mexicanos and Chicanos as the

descendants of the original peoples from Anahuak.21 I do this from the perspective of complex

systems (Bourgine & Johnson, 2006) to be able to look at the educational process as an integral

part of the holistic development of the human being with its environment. The holistic development

includes the self, immediate family, extended community, and society in general. The reason why I

choose to use complex system as a frame of reference is because the individual self does not exist

in a vacuum and so this approach can help incorporate a holistic view and a set of solutions that

society in general can adopt to confront the challenge to resolve the problems that an individual

might face throughout his or her life as part of a collectivity. To do this, I refer those authors who

describe the way the Mexika people regulated their educational process and I correlate that 20 When referring to the Mexican society that predates the arrival of Europeans, I will refer to it as the Mexika with k simply because Mexico is not an Spanish word, and so within the traditional and grammatical forms followed by those who maintain the Mexican tradition the agreement is that in order to better represent the phonetic sounds of the Nahuatl language, from which the word Mexico is derived, k, rather than c, is most appropriate. 21 Anahuak represents the geography of what is now called Mexico and part of Central America


implicitly with the notion of complex systems. I also assert that because most Mexicanos and

Chicanos are not alien to this land, that is, through their genealogy that still track back part of their

ancestry to pre-Columbian societies, then the methods by which their ancestors taught can also be

understood from the frame of reference of indigenous education. Furthermore, this information, in

my own personal view, can be as valuable now as it was back then to counteract the educational

deficiencies within the white system of privilege and oppression.

Cajete (1994) also contextualizes indigenous education as “the complex of activities for

forming human learning” (p. 25). These complex activities, many authors suggest, are the bases

from which education is situated within the healthy relationships of the community (Gutiérrez,

1997). Furthermore, Mazatzin Acosta (personal communication, February 17, 2007) contends that

education is “a bridge between the past and the future of a culture; it is the point of unity between

the human beings of the past and those of the future”. Because in indigenous societies the

educational process was largely focused on the individual as a contributing member of the

community (Cajete, 1994), this form of education, and the fact that it is a cultural bridge, ensured

that the members of the community had not only a clear role within the community, but also a

spiritual connection with the world (Cajete, 1994). Within the social and spiritual context of the

Mexika people, the social determinants of the educational process was largely based on the

perception that personal virtues were aptitudes that were placed upon them by the creative

energies.22 Based on this conception, the goal of the educational process was to nurture these

virtues (Hernandez, n.d.) in the new human being23 (Marx, 1956). Nurturing specific virtues was

22 From a personal point of view, these notion of creative energies does not mean that the Mexika were highly religious as some authors tend to argue (Rodiles, 1989), but rather it delineates the fact that these societies were integrated with a cosmology under which they saw themselves integrated with the whole, rather then differentiated from it. 23 Marx refers to the “new man” and to avoid falling into the European conceptions of “man” being the prototype for development, I just refer to the new human being to be as inclusive as I can of women, and attempt to break away from sexist remarks that tend to live the female gender in the background


important because communal production, both urban and rural, was centered to fulfill the needs of

the community, city, or urban center to which the individual belonged (Rodiles, 1989). In this

sense, education in Indigenous Mexico, revolved around the family and the group, and education,

in this sense, was a social endeavor in which everyone participated (Rodiles, 1989). Under this

system of education, the elders held a special place within the community, for they were the

primary holders of oral traditions, customs, history, and the complicated concepts they had about

cosmology (Rodiles). Under this complicated and intertwined process of individual development

and social responsibility with the Kalpulli24 through individual effort, sustained by the community at-

large, a consciousness of strength and unity was created (Rodiles), which was appropriate for the

complete and individual development of a human being (Marx, 1956). This form of education also

allowed for organic growth in tune with the “material evolution of their existence” (Rodiles, 1989, p.

313). Within the context of communal education and personal development this is how indigenous

communities ensured that the individual had a sense of belonging and that his or her education

had a meaning and value for the integral development of the community as a whole.

To nurture alternative methods of education, teaching needs to be viewed and exercised,

at least within the context of Mexicanos and Chicanos, differently to bridge the gap between the

experience of the students’ environment and the school system (Nieto, 2002). In order to bridge

this gap, it is my contention that the way instruction is imparted needs to change. For example,

instead of regarding the school system as an agency for socialization where differentiation takes

place (Parsons, 1956), it has to become a place where integration and interconnectness (Cajete,

1994) takes place for the student. Instead of defining the role of the teacher as simply a role player

within the social system (Alexander, 1987), he or she needs to become someone who helps the

student explore “the nature of the social and personal ideas that gave rise to the divine spark in

24 Kalpullies were urban and rural communities


man’s heart and transformed him into an artist, a poet, a sage” (Cajete, 1994, p. 35). The

transformation of the student is really important because apart from being a role player within the

social system, the student is also someone who has responsibilities not just to himself or herself,

but also to his/her family, his/her community, and up to certain respect with “plants, animals, and

the whole of nature (Cajete, 1994, p. 26). In other words, the human being, within a more holistic

conception, is more than a simple role player; he or she is a reflection of the creating forces that

exist within our cosmos. The individual is a creature who in essence is a creator himself or herself

who through a process of discipline, learning, and experimenting becomes engaged in his or her

own educational process with a defined purpose that goes beyond material accomplishments.

Within Mexika society, literature shows, education was a very important facet in which the family,

the community, and society in general played a very important role (Cajete, 1994; Gutierrez, 1997;

Rodiles, 1989) to help the individual achieve this goal. Next, I explore how the Mexika taught their

children and what we can learn from their methods.

Whereas in this society the function of the individual is seen as that of a role player,

(Alexander, 1987; Parsons, 1956) and so he or she is tracked into the particular system of

education that will help the student play that role. In ancient Mexico individuals were also expected

to play a specific role (Rodiles, 1989), a role that was integrated into the social system through a

rigorous process of education, commitment, and a deep understanding of the self (Gutiérrez, 1997;

Rodiles, 1989). To educate the members of their society, the Mexika people developed archetypes

that helped conceptualize the intricate forms that the student needed (Gutierrez, 1997).

One of the archetypes that the Mexika conceptualized was known as Tezcatlipoca, which

literary means the “smoking mirror” (Gutiérrez, 1997). This concept, within a process of cognition

and pedagogy, became the door through which the individual would access his internal self and

would augment his or her mental capacity, innate capacities, and will power (Gutiérrez, 1997, p.


16). This is why the metaphor of a smoking mirror was important because it implied that in order to

grow; the individual was expected to clean his or her mirror in order to see himself or herself in it.

In other words, the intellectual development of the student was not conditioned to just of that as a

role player. It was a process of cognition through which the student would get to know his or her

internal self, and from this social conditioning the learning experience would evolve (Rodiles,

1989). The idea was that the student, as a sovereign individual, would be able to see himself or

herself, as he or she really was, and from this personal cognition his or her innate qualities would

be in harmony with himself/herself and everyone else (Gutiérrez, 1997, p. 20). Additionally,

achievement was not rooted in an internal need to excel above others; it was rather a collective

sense of achievement. Knowing now that pre-Columbian societies were neither savages nor

uncivilized, but rather highly developed societies, Mazatzin Acosta (personal communication,

February 17, 2007) argues that “the more civilized a nation is, and the more a society evolves, the

scientific thought of their members extends and the explanations of parents to their children are

more logical and their children evolve toward a scientific thinking. These conditions civilize that

nation and allow the maturity of that society. “

To bring this process of cognition to harmony with the individual and everything else

around, the student was taught at four levels. These levels were cosmic, astronomical, human,

and spiritual (Gutiérrez, 1997). Each one of these levels was taught to be important for the growth

of the student, as well as for the benefit of society in general. To achieve harmonious growth, the

student was expected to acquire discipline, humility, abstinence, respect, and truthfulness.

Students were also expected to speak properly and to respect adults and elders (Hernandez, n.d.)

In terms of areas of study, they were trained in traditional culture, history, paint, music, law, theater,

poetry, and astrology (Hernandez, n.d), among other subjects. In spite of the fact that Europeans

regarded traditional societies as savages and ignorant, students in this society were introduced to


a process by which through self discipline and respect he or she would learn about their internal

self and from this self learning experience students would practically be introduced to the subjects

that allowed harmonious growth and direct support into the development of the community. The

question, for Mexicanos and Chicanos, living within a system of white privilege and oppression, is

what the past teaches us about education, and how these forms of education can be used to undo

racism.

Educational systems for minorities need to be rooted in a critical race theory (Akom, 2003;

Allen, 2001) that aims at creating alternative teaching methods that are rooted in social systems

that predate the current system of oppression. Furthermore, it needs to be a critical pedagogy that

aims at eradicating hate, prejudice, and the disregard for the Other (Allen, 2006). If the conditions

under which we live do not change, we will continue seeing hordes of minority students failing and

filling the preconditioned roles that whites assign to those who are expected to fail, which in most

cases are poor people. In this sense, the concept of Tezcatlipoca, as a derivative of a much larger

wealth of information on forms of education that can support the current trends of under school

achievement, is a concept that needs to be studied and applied to attempt to eradicate the apathy

and disregard for education that the Mexicano/Chicano students are experiencing within this white

system of privilege and oppression.

V. Conclusion

There is no doubt that since the arrival of Europeans, societies have changed. The advent

of industrialism changed social relations and with that the way society was structured. The

individual was seen just as another piece in the assembly line whose aim should be to produce a

tangible benefit that was needed and that could be quantified financially. This system of material

need was structured in a way that it benefited a few, and in racial terms; those who benefited the

most were whites. As this system advanced, it turned into a white supremacist state where white


supremacy became the norm, and schools became the physical spaces where students were

being assimilated into this white system of privilege and oppression. This is why Adams (1995)

states that “the next Indian war would be ideological and psychological, and it would be waged

against children” (p. 27). He goes on to quote Merrill Gates who “declared in 1891 that “the time

for fighting the Indian tribes is passed.” What was needed now was an “army of Christian school-

teachers”’ (p. 27). The result is that a great majority of children, who in real terms go unaccounted

for, end up rejecting the school system as a form of resistance to the overt notion of colonization

through the educational system. This dynamic, as critical race theorists contend, creates a social

disparity that affects the individual and his group and fuels a preconditioned state of school

rejection expected by white supremacists (Allen, 2001; Mills, 1997). This precondition is basically

that, as expected, the student would fail and thus will help recreate the same system he or she is

trying to resist (Bordieu, 1977; Giroux, 1983). Because people of color are expected to abolish

white supremacy (Allen, 2001), this cannot be done without undoing internalized racism and getting

rid of the values of hate and disrespect that Europeans introduced to us. In order to undo this

system of privilege and oppression, from the standpoint of critical pedagogy and the epistemology

of people of color, we need to reenact the way Indigenous societies educated their children. This

process of change needs to be done with love, respect, and humility. To undertake this, and in the

case of Mexicanos and Chicanos, we need to bring back ancient archetypes that can help us deal

with our internal self (our minds) from where all of our desires, contradictions, and needs emerge

(Gutierrez, 1997). Through this process of education based on the empowerment of the self, we

will be able to regain our sense of pride, dignity, and belonging that is needed to focus our energies

and efforts in lifting our communities and reinventing the society that future children deserve. Up to

now, whites have a proven record of failure and deception when it comes to educating non-white

students. The task for the future is to continue supporting the noble task of abolishing white


supremacy and its vices, but to do that; we need to completely review the past and bring back that

knowledge, the pedagogy and epistemology that is inherent to the people of this land.


References

Adams, D.W. (1995). Education for Extinction. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Akom, A. (2003). Reexamining resistance as oppositional behavior: The Nation of Islam and the

Creation of a Black achievement ideology. Sociology of Education, 76 (October), 305-325. Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and Curriculum. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Apple, M. W. (1980). Analyzing determinations: Understanding and evaluating the production of

social outcomes in schools. Curriculum Inquiry, 10 (1), 55-76. Alexander, J. (1987). Lecture 3: Structural-functionalism. In J. Alexander (Ed.), Twenty lectures:

Sociological theory since World War II (pp. 36-51). New York: Columbia University Press. Allen, R.L. (2001) The Achievement Ideology and Whiteness: “Achieving Whiteness” or Achieving Middle Class”? A paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational

Research Association. Seattle Washington, April 13, 2001. Allen, R.L. (2002) Wake up, Neo: White consciousness, hegemony, and identity in the Matrix. In J. Slater, S. Fain, & C. Rossatto (Eds.), The Freirean Legacy: Educating for Social Justice (pp. 104-125). New York: Peter Lang Publishers, Inc. Allen, R. L. (2006). The race problem in critical pedagogy community. In C. A. Rossatto, R. L.

Allen, & M. Pruyn (Eds.), Reinventing Critical Pedagogy: Widening the circle of anti oppression education. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Avery, E. G. (1981). In Limbo: Immigrant Children and the American Dream. The Ethnic American

Dream, 8, (4), 25-31. Batalla, G. B. (1994) México Profundo: Una civilización negada. Mexico: Grijalbo. Bell, D. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: the permanence of racism. New York, NY: BasicBooks. Bennett K. & LeCompte, M. (1990) Theoretical and Historical Overview of the Purposes of Schooling. Bordieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.) Power and Ideology in education (pp. 487-511). New York: Oxford University Press. Bourgine, P. & Johnson, J. (2006). Living roadmap for Complex Systems Science. Retrieved from

Once-CS Portal, web site: http://moreno.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/Conf/ONCE_CS_RoadMap_V22%5B12-71_111%5D.pdf

Brooks, D. (2007, February 27). En pobreza extrema, cerca de 16 millones de


Estadounidenses. La Jornada en línea. (http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/02/27/index.php?section=mundo&article=023n1mun)

Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the Mountain: An Ecology of Indigenous Education. Skyland,

SC: Kivaki Press. Casas, Fray Bartolomé de las. (1992). Doctrina. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico. Child, J. B. (2000). Boarding school seasons: American Indian Families, 1900-1940. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000. Cleary, L. M. & Peacock, T. D. (1998). Collected Wisdom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Daniels, J. (1997). White Lies: Race, class, gender, and sexuality in white supremacist discourse. New York: Routledge. Durkheim, E. (1956) Education: Its Nature and its Role. In E. Durkheim. (1956). Education and

Sociology. New York: Free Press. Durkheim, E. (1973) Moral Education: A study in the theory and application of the sociology of

education. New York: The Free Press. Feinberg, W., & Soltis, J. (1989). The functionalist perspective of schooling. In W. Feinberg & J.

Soltis (Eds.), School and Society (p. 15-28). New York: Teachers College Press. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company Freud, S. (1939). Moses and monotheism. NY: Vintage Books Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences: New horizons. New York: BasicBook Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A

critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257-293. Graziano, W. (2004). Hitler ganó la guerra (2nd ed.). Buenos Aires: Sudamericana. Gutiérrez, A. M. (1997). Tezcatlipoca: Nuestro Ser Interno. Mexico: UNAM. Hankel, L. (1937). Pope Paul III and the American Indians. The Harvard Theological Review,

30 (2), 65-102. Hernández, F. (n.d.). Antigüedades de la Nueva España. Edición de Ascensión Hernández. España: Promo Libro. Kozol, J. (1992). Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York: HarperCollins.


Laree, A. (2000) Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary

Education. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, Inc. León, M. P. (1961). Los antiguos mexicanos a través de sus crónicas y cantares. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica Maiz, A. (2004). Looking 4 Aztlan: Birthright or Right 4 Birth. Michigan: Sun Dog Press Márquez, I. R. (1990). Formas de la educación precolombina. Puebla: Universidad de las Americas-Puebla Marx, K. (1956). Selected Writing in Sociology and Social Philosophy. London: Watts and Co Ltd. McLeod, Jay. (1995). Ain’t No Making It: Aspirations & Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood. Boulder: Westwiew, Press, Inc. Miller, Amy. (2007, March 3). School System Scrapes Bottom: Nationwide Study Gives New Mexico F’s. Albuquerque Journal, p. A1 Mills, C. (1997). The Racial Contract. Ithaca. NY: Cornell University Press. Namier, L. (1964). 1848: The revolution of the intellectuals. NY: Anchor Book Nieto, S. (2002). Language, Culture, and Teaching: Critical Perspectives for a New Century. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Equality. New York: Vail-Ballou Press Omi, M. & Howard W. (1994). Racial Formation in the United States: From 1960s to

1990s. New York: Routledge. Parsons, T. (1959). The school class as a social system. Harvard Educational Review, 29(4), 297-318. Perfectionism. (1998).Gale Encyclopedia of Childhood and Adolescence. Retrieved on March 15,

2007, from http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/perfectionism?utm_term=perfect Pizarro, M. (1999). Racial Formation and Chicana/o Identity: Lesson from the Rasquache. In P. Wong (Ed.), Race, Ethnicity, and Nationality in the U.S. New York: Westview Press. Portilla-Leon, M. (1961). Los antiguos Mexicanos a través de sus crónicas y cantares.

México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Rodiles, I. M. (1989). Formas de la educación precolombina. Puebla: Secretaria de Educación Publica del Estado de Puebla.


Rossides, D. W. (1997). Social Stratification: The Interplay of Class, Race, and Gender. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Shagún, Fr. Bernandino de. (1999). Historia general de las cosas de la Nueva España. México:

Editorial Porrúa.

Smith, L. T. (2002). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. New Zealand: Universtiy of Otago Press.

Tezozomoc, H. A. (1987). Crónica Mexicana. México: Editorial Porrúa Zinn, H. (1980). People’s History of the United States: 1942 – Present. New York: Harper and

Row

education for whom?

Documents