Bracher (2006), through a compilation of past research, states in his book, Radical Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation, that, “…maintaining one’s identity is the most basic human need and thus the ultimate motive underlying all human behavior…” (p. 1).
The significance of this to learning is that if we are constantly trying to reaffirm the stories, images, and internal sense of what it feels to be oneself (linguistic, imagistic, and mood/affective registers respectively), then anything which is outside of that scope will feel threatening and be avoided, or dismissed Bracher (2006). Contrarily, any new opportunity for learning which relates directly to our identity will be embraced because of its’ fit within the structure of our personal dogma, or who we think ourselves to be.
It was not until we were asked to break into groups within class and identify elements within the linguistic, imagistic, and affective registers which would open or close opportunities to learning that this concept became clear to me. To begin, it explained away some of the most bizarre and terrifying behaviors I’ve been witness to over the course of my life.
As one example, I have many friends in the forty-plus range, who even though they can barely read due to developing farsightedness, absolutely refuse to don a pair of reading glasses! Their image of themselves is a person who is young and vital, who does not need glasses to read. Acquiescing, the simple act of putting on the glasses, means that they need to give up part of this imagistic identity. For them, needing reading glasses signifies that they are getting old. This does not fit with the image they have of themselves, therefore, they refuse, and as a result, it significantly impacts their ability to learn, indeed their ability to function within the world.
I have also been stymied with regard to the amount and severity of violence inflicted on women by men, especially when women make the decision that a relationship is over. Statistics show that, on average, one Canadian woman is murdered by her significant other every six days (Beattie and Carter, 2009, p. 14). Why can’t men just let go? Our in-class discussion made me start thinking about how the socially-constructed, patriachal words, man, husband, protector, owner, that a man may use to characterize himself in relation to their female partner, shapes their linguistic identity. If these words are interwoven into their very being, would these men philosophically cease to exist when the woman leaves the relationship? Is this why we see so many spousal murder suicides? Her leaving is a mortal threat to his identity as a man and a husband? He can’t “be” without her, so he kills her and himself instead? Often with the ring of gun fire, learning abruptly stops.
Please do not take these musings as me saying that because there may be a possible explanation for this gruesome behavior that the behavior is in any way just, or acceptable. I feel exactly the opposite. I watched a female friend be stalked for months by her former male partner. It was a helpless, distressing experience and one that I could not make sense of. What I am saying is that if there is a psychoanalytical cause to this abnormal behavior, let’s deal with it. How many women must die at the hands of their partners before we can find a fix to this mental issue? One must also ask, how much is society to blame in this? A person’s thoughts are shaped within the context of their culture. If we continue to raise men who are taught that vulnerability is a sign of weakness, of not being a man, can we expect them to handle emotionally difficult situations like a spousal separation well? Instead of showing emotions which do not fit with their identity, they instead look to eliminate the threat while gaining recognition for being “manly” through aggressive behavior.
Personally, I didn’t sleep much that night after class. I was kept awake by realizations of how the maintenance of my own identity has thrown up barriers to learning throughout my lifetime. I was confronted by how my identity was formed and how it has been buffeted via a couple of significant and fairly traumatic experiences. I questioned my own personal “truths” and asked why I continue to harbor particular images and words in my head to describe myself. It’s been an uncomfortable process. Questioning your identity quietly with only yourself inside your own mind is in itself threatening. In fact, it may be best done with a therapist. This truth-seeking has allowed me to come to a greater understanding of myself and past actions. I hope that it will make me more equipped to identify when my behavior is playing the puppet to self-affirmation. It has shown me that if we could just get over ourselves and let the lines of how we see ourselves blur, the world and its’ infinite opportunities for learning, would open itself up to us.
As educators, helping our students reach this place of self-awareness, comes back, as it usually does, to developing their critical thinking skills. Students must be able to view their own individual actions critically. In particular, this involves teaching students to recognize instances where they close themselves to learning because it diverges from what they believe to be true, or conversely readily accepting new knowledge without questioning it because the new information fits nicely within their lifeworld.
From 1441 Main Street 