Cultural Studies

I took Intro to Cultural Studies last semester and managed to garnered myself a Distinction (D). I think what helped me to get that grade was the High Distinction that was awarded to my take home exam by Dr Tara Brabazon. I thought I'd share my masterpiece here with everybody but I'm definitely not showing off. Just sharing. =) Happy reading!

P/S: No plagiarism though, please!

“The role of the intellectual is not to tell others what they have to do. By what right would he do so? The work of an intellectual is not to shape others’ political will; it is…to question over and over again what is postulated as self-evident, to disturb people’s mental habits, the way they do and think things, to dissipate what is familiar and accepted, to reexamine rules and institutions.” (Michel Foucault)

Consider Foucault’s assessment of the intellectual’s role in society. To what extent does the cultural studies critic accomplish this goal? Use at least three examples to verify you case.

Education has always been considered very important in virtually around the whole world for without education, there would not be any intellectual present and without the presence of intellectuals, there would not be constant changes in the world today. Education is a part of life and no matter how old or young one might be, life is a constant roller coaster ride of learning and being educated. Thus, it is not surprising to think generally that education can act as a resort to overcome inequalities in society. Even though many believe that this is true, the honest truth is beyond its ideal.

With the existence of education, there will be the existence of educators. Educators are also known as intellectuals. At present, there is a large group of intellectuals in the world but according to Foucault’s statement above, the work of an intellectual is not to tell others what to think or do but rather to question and criticize what may seem ordinary to others. In other words, intellectuals have to possess the wisdom to recognize ignorance and the power of assumption to be able to criticize and doubt about the on goings in the world. All men and women can be considered as intellectuals but not all will function the way Foucault had stated.

Cultural studies is considered to be a new phenomenon in the world of education, thus it is always subjected to all kinds of criticism. Yet, those who have to bear the brunt of the worst criticism is not the subject itself but rather its own critics and experts which are also intellectuals. As intellectuals, cultural studies critics have to work very hard to show that they are able to accomplish the goal that was set by Foucault. Some may think that they do not fulfill the criterias set by Foucault but this can be proven wrong for there are critics out there who do not tell people what to think or do but rather to get people to think and question the familiarity around them especially when it comes to education.

Michael Apple’s writing is full of criticism and oozes loads of sarcasm which allows his readers to identify with what he wrote and later, question the full impact of his work. In Education, Identify and Cheap French Fries (1996), Apple wrote about issues that were faced by the country that he was visiting. The most important issue was about education. According to Apple, that particular country does not have any formal educational establishment, thus its people are not educated to fight for their rights. The military-dominated government suppresses its people from gaining education to avoid any uprising because they were deprived from facilities that many take for granted such as hospitals. Based on that story, Apple argued that education is relatively and fundamentally important in every sense to avoid supremacy and exploitation of a higher class society. Words and its meanings seem to leap out from Apple’s work to his readers because they may be tempted to start questioning what people usually take for granted – the right to free education or class relations that sometimes prevent people from lower class to gain knowledge – which may result in some readers to reexamine the familiarity of education around them.

In Henry Giroux’s piece on Literacy and the Pedagogy of Political Empowerment (1987), he clearly argued about the dysfunctional education system of America by bringing his own points with remarks from Antonio Gramsci to support his case. By giving an explanation of what he thinks Gramsci’s remarks are and a clear overview of his points, Giroux is actually inviting readers to make comparison between the two of them and think about what both of them had to say about education. Giroux brought up the pros and cons of the education system in America on minorities. His arguments clearly dissipate what people think of the system; that working-class’ and minorities’ children learn reading and writing skills to succeed in school and work when both skills are used only to instruct children on what they should or should not do. Giroux distinctly challenges his readers to think and ask.

In Education under Siege (1985), Giroux and Stanley Aronowitz question about the way teachers are treated due to the crisis of public education in America. Both wrote that due to the crisis, educational reformers offered all kinds of solutions they think best that would solved the crisis promptly ignoring the teachers who were at hand. The main purpose of the teachers were eroded and they exist only to serve and implement new rules and systems that were set by the upper level of those in the department of education. Giroux and Aronowitz explained in their own terms how the system had failed and how it does not benefit teachers in public school. They both shared the sentiment that the public failed to see the key roles of teachers and that the interests of the reformers are against the traditional purpose of public education. Instead of receiving only inputs, readers are forced to give outputs because education is important especially in America.

From the three examples that were given, it is quite clear that all three critics fulfilled Foucault’s statement of an intellectual. All three of them argued their way through their writings and indirectly assert for readers not to accept blindly what is given or written to them but instead to question all things familiar especially regarding education. The three writers also reexamine the rules and institutions that were set up on education and indirectly plead with readers to take a stand. While not all intellectuals function the same way, these three writers clearly show that they do in fact belong to Foucault’s interpretation of what makes an intellectual because like Socrates, they subtlely ask questions about things and ways that people take for granted with enough wisdom to criticize on things that are not right.