Whenever we talk about education, we always see modern system and our present social environment. But education is also about the past and the how this past can influence our future. Selecting and interpreting the factors that influence the development of an individual is the task that always shows personal perspective. Education by itself is a complex social element, when we analyze its current characteristic. But what if we look at education from historical view and the influence of culture on the formation of modern educational system? This integration of the subject inevitably results in a high degree of personal judgment. I noticed that often education is treated as the isolated discipline, concerning itself exclusively with what it can bring to the future. This view, however, is very isolated and incomplete. There is, in my opinion, huge historical background that determines education today. Do we forget about it? This work aims to bring to your attention the influence of the development – with all its tensions, conflicts and relativeness in politics, cultural clash and economic inequality – the historical aspect of individual formation.
I strongly believe that each of us is the product of our time and our social environment. The fact that people interest themselves in other cultures and even consider multiculturalism a part of their reality is new for our century. It is the evidence of the widening comfort zones of individuals in general. This multiculturalism is understood and valued by social institutions and individuals and, thus, its capacity to develop education today, as opposed to a century ago, is significantly higher. This causes the doubt about the way education should see the history; as something that determines it or something that shows possible directions of further development.
I remember discussions and debates that we often had among our colleagues about individuals that in one or another way stand out of the crowd. Classic argument is that family environment and social surrounding in which a child grows before entering educational system is the missing piece in building personality and self-perception. This, of course does not mean that once we grew in dysfunctional family, there is not a possibility to fit into the social context and adapt to it.
My problem with this view is the absolute blindness with which diversity and cultural context, determined by historical social and political factor is treated in the scope of this analysis of education. It seems to me that people think that if we put each and every one in exact same environment (family or social group), all the individuals across cultures and nations would be the same. Is this real? The answer is not. The capacity of historical contribution to educational system and learning that we can take from this historical concept is the topic that deserves a lot of attention.
I started my research with the general academic analysis of education from cultural perspective to shed some light on how modern society build education framework and what are the categories analyzed in this concept. My general view on education is that it is a mirror of human development and the result of the social evolution in general. With that, freedom and access to this education, shaped modern educational structure. Given my view on the situation, I found it very interesting to examine the view of several authors on dominant and submissive culture. This transculturation has a great contribution in the educational concept of separate cultures and groups.
Jane Tompkings (1989) essay on European-Indian relations from within its core supplies the answer for my problem as of why the study of educational context is limited by future perspectives and does not consider the lessons of the past. Tompkings managed to “dramatize and expose the troubles of antifoundationalizm”, where academic facts are substituted by the opinion of individuals that study the subject. Already in the preface of her work, the author outlines the problem, which is lack of evidence and abundance of relativity. It is important, therefore, to understand that any scientific or philosophical work along with empirical evidence will always include interpretation and personal perspective of its author.
Once I understood the complexity of the analysis of such subject as education, it is now interesting to look in more details on historiographical impact and the exact role that education plays in building this personality. Further step in my problem-solving exercise brought me to Marry Luiz Pratt work on “contact zone” and the concept of “safe house” (Pratt, 1995). In her work, Pratt introduces literacy and education through the perspective of contact zone. In her interpretation, contact zone is the “term to refer to social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power” (Pratt, 1995, p. 2). As I read it, Pratt is widening the boundaries of personal social environment to emotional level and interprets the literacy and quality of interaction by not only social discrepancies, but by the relationships between dominant and submissive culture. This can be seen in the example of recently discovered letter of Guaman Poma letter and its “absence” in the historical component of dominant communities in contrary to his counterpart, Inca Garcilaso, whose prominent work was accepted and “included” by Spanish society of the seventeenth century. Guaman steps in as “a product of the contact zone”, where language is an educational stumble block on a way to the progress.
I wonder what is the contribution of transculturation to the education system? Guaman Poma wrote The First New Chronicle and Good Government in a mixture of Andean dialect and Spanish, which was not possible to read for Spanish nobles and, thus, was forgotten in Spanish historical context. Educated in Spain Inca Garcilaso wrote Royal Commentaries of the Incas in clear Spanish language and this work was fast adopted in official circle of Spain. Pratt calls it a miracle and a tragedy of the history. On one side, contact zone is an inevitable occurrence in all times. On the other, it is an element that can create completely different products of their time, depending on how each of us perceives and interacts with it. Like Guaman Poma was a product of two cultures, educated with the values of Andean tradition and perspective of its dominant culture – Spain, Inca Garcilaso is a product of the same contact zone with completely different effect on his personality. The fact that the second was writing in Spanish, does not mean that this clash of culture made him choose. It serves, however, as an evidence of dominant position in education, opportunity perspective of Spanish society that in “arrogant” way imposed its educational standards onto submissive society.
The reason I am raising this topic here is to discuss the impact of culture on the educational structure. It is clear for me that cultural element on its deep level and historical concept can explain behavioral patterns as well as general capacity to learn. In the beginning of the essay, I questioned the influence of social context and family on the personality and the role of education as a whole (academic and social element). How does it influence the development of “self”?
The answer to my problem is right here, in the examples of Pratt. We all grow in a contact zone of our own. Let it be the conflict or interaction of different cultures, or minorities within the same society, or simply social classes. This contact zone, however, is just a trigger of the education that helps us to determine the direction of the development of “self”. Under no circumstances, however, it stipulates the personal identity. This conflict of internal and external factors as a whole is what fulfills the education.
Going further into the problem, it is interesting to look at the historical aspect on the educational structure. Pratt argues that all individuals subconsciously look for a “safe house”, which she understands as the social or intellectual groups. These groups are built on high level of trust and characterized by horizontal and homogeneous relationship structure. Her “safe house” is the argument in favor of ethnical and gender studies in educational system as opposed to the multicultural disciplines. I find this approach to persuasion interesting as it places each individual in the position of the product of this “safe house” concept. Education is, therefore, a product of the historiographical elements. Educational concepts, as well as individual, will continue to shift from one “safe house” to another, depending on what suits them in a given time and place.
I started with questioning the value of traditionalism in educational system and here I would like to conclude this discussion. Cultural differences shaped education and cultural portraits for centuries. History demonstrates that this process generally involved dominant and submissive cultures, where stronger culture generally wins.
Pratt´s Contact zones today are different, as the relation between the cultures changed. It is no longer dominant and submissive, but equal cultural contexts that communicate with each other. The reality shows that the multiculturalism itself became a “safe house” for some individuals. Absence of cultural boundaries, lack of language barriers and exposure to different cultures share individual character. Education that does not consider multicultural disciplines and insists on ethnical studies is a subject to regression. The role of history in the educational system is tremendous. But its contribution is not only to bring tradition and maintain strong cultural identity, but to demonstrate the importance of the transformation and integration. Modern people should not be afraid to look for new and unexperienced contact zone, because learning and adaptation is what makes us grow as humans and as nations.
Bibliography
Tompkins, Jane. “ ‘Indians’: Textualism, Morality, and the Problem of History.” Critical Inquiry, 13.1 (1986):101-119.
Ellis, Frederick E. “The Philosophical and Social Framework of Education.” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 25, No. 1. February, 1995.
Pratt, Mary Luis. “Art of Contact Zone.” Modern Language Association, Profession, 1995: 33-40.
