Scary. At least true a lot of the time. Would seem to have important
implications for educational theory.
Of course it may not apply to people who have had no opportunity to
encounter knowledge, no access to it even if they wanted it, or to people
who may have not yet found themselves in situations in their lives where
the issue of seeking or denying has arisen. The ignorance of young children
is not the same as the ignorance of experienced adults; the ignorance of
those kept in ignorance is not the same as that of those who keep them safe
from dangerous ideas.
In English, unlike Latin, to ignore something is a deliberate act, distinct
from simply being ignorant of it.
Why do people ignore? one simple answer is to maintain an identity that
works, in the face of steep risk. What sets that level of risk? in part
perception, socially shaped, but in larger part social systems so pervasive
with the threat of pain that safety becomes a necessary obsession for us all.
Myths. That children are free to play with many identities, free to fail
and be comforted so they can try again. That in our student days we are
free to experiment outside the normal pressures of adult society. Myths.
Children are under intense pressure to erect and hide behind safe,
acceptable identities. Students are either preparing desperately for the
unforgiving competitive world that looms over their future or they are
equally desperately pretending denial of its reality for as long as their
bravado can hold out. They know. They cannot ignore the universal message
of our society: perform acceptable identities or be hurt.
Ignorance becomes an art. What can be safely ignored and what cannot? What
must be ignored to remain safe? Very little of this is about desire. It is
about necessity.
Within temporary safe spaces, there is resistance and there is play.
Resistance to all the schooling that does NOT increase real jeopardy; the
only safe resistance to vent anger at living in fear. Play to maintain our
sanity, some space for ourselves in the moments when we can afford to
forget the objective limits of our lives. But we never forget.
A teacher can try to create a safe illusion of freedom to play, moments
when we might pretend to briefly step outside the identities that demand we
ignore dangerous possible selves. Some students crave those moments, some
find courage to take occasional risks; most recognize the illusion for what
it is. All return to safer identities afterwards.
Yes, identities do change, there is always transformation. But mainly to
other safe identities, either safer and even less risk-taking, more
ignoring -- or to better rewarded identities, with subtler but just as
complete a set of demands for ignorance. Some struggle all our lives to
ignore less, to open ourselves to dangerous ideas ... but less often to
dangerous acts, or risky identities. Some of us find niches in which
critical perspectives are tolerated or even rewarded, but only still within
limits that we know very well and observe quite strictly. Our students can
see that in us. For every moment of admiring our intellectual daring, they
also appraise the ways we too cling to safety.
JAY.
---------------------------
JAY L. LEMKE
PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
<http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/index.htm>
---------------------------