Giroux’s fourth principle addresses the way in which language is used in the classroom. He attempts to establish a method of developing discourse through discussion that takes into account various world views and moves beyond the sacred terminology used to mystify the concepts of equality, because it is this archaic structure which is used to pacify the masses against insurrection. While a good idea in principle, Giroux’s concept of a transforming narrative lacks feasibility. In order to achieve understanding or even have an intelligible conversation, it is necessary for words to have an accepted meaning. Constant redefinition of terminology can only lead to further obfuscation of already indistinct concepts. It would be nearly impossible to implement this principle into the current education system, or any education system, without a complete deterioration of the learning process. Giroux’s ideas might hold true within his vision of the world, but lack credibility in the real world.
Within the classroom the teacher uses a system of nebulously ossified terms in order to establish their own authority over the pupils, and this gives rise to the reification of obsolete discursive formations, further entrenching cultural standards.(Foucault 39) Giroux’s fourth principle focuses on breaking down the discursive formation of equality, and its power relationship within the classroom. He wishes to usurp the static nature of the discursive formation, allowing for the transformation of discourse through discussion, and thus instigating societal change. However as formulation gives rise to reformulation this discontinuity retains a static power structure so that one authoritarian discourse formation is replaced by an equally detestable, but antithetical one.(Foucault 166) Giroux’s ideal fails to break free from the inherent nature of discursive power relationships of the classroom. Also Giroux’s narrow-minded focus the discursive formation of equality is frustrating. As he attempts to transform the discursive nature with which we address equality, he fails to deal with the structure that gives rise to discursive formation. And by failing to deal with all discursive formations, it is impossible to transform the way in which discursive power is derived.(Foucault 169)
Giroux’s principle is infeasible in its application to the classroom, because learning is derived from understanding. Understanding is based upon the ability to communicate meaning, but when meaning becomes dynamic, it is impossible to maintain understanding. The evolution of language takes place over centuries, and trying to compact it into a discussion or series of discussions causes the dissolution of intelligible definition. In a history class the constant redefinition of words such as “equality” and “oppression” deteriorate the students understanding of historical epochs. Historical periods such as the Dark Ages are defined in context to the application of the term oppression as it relates to serfdom, whereas the Roman Empire could not be properly understood without a specific relation of the word oppression to slavery. It becomes impossible to define oppression within a historical context, because its meaning flows with the conversation, making learning about these historical periods virtually impossible. Once the learning process has been destroyed, it is even more difficult to incite societal transformation, defeating the original purpose. As such it is nearly impossible to imagine any application to the real world.
While good in intention the possibility of allowing dynamic transformation of discursive formations is a self-defeating proposition. In addition it is completely detached from any vision of reality.
Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. Pantheon Books, New York. 1972.
Andrew Happel 1 Ewald 105H12