lkj

Throughout history, societal norms have played an influential role in fostering the development of human knowledge. From the moment you are born, society begins its unending involvement in the formation of what you shall become. And it’s not just the norms of the day that will affect you. Frederick Douglass felt some of the same societal norms in the 1830’s that many children feel in today’s day and age, albeit in a more overt way. Malala Yousafzai experienced the ugliness such norms have when she was shot in 2012 over norms that were created over 1,000 years ago. These instances of people seeking, or not seeking, an education, are because societal norms have the ability to transcend time and permeate our modern culture to influence what is considered “normal”.

Let’s start with the oldest example this by delving into the society of Frederick Douglass. Douglass was born into time where the enslavement of African Americans was seen as a norm, and the education of anyone who wasn’t Caucasian was culturally uncommon. Luckily, Douglass’s case was one of eventual success. What started as a few reading lessons with his master’s wife, Mrs. Hugh, became a beacon a freedom for Douglass and spurred his desire to know more than just the alphabet. In this time, writing was a form of freedom, and freedom was a far off thought for Douglass who was a “slave for life” (Douglass, 50). His surroundings at the shipping yard helped him learn a few more letters, as well as his wit in challenging the white boys that he knew more letters than they did. By using his surroundings and wit, as well as a little help from his master’s son’s old books, Douglass learned more letters, and eventually gained the ability to read and write full sentences (Douglass, 52).

However, this new found skill made Douglass envious of his fellow-slave’s “stupidity”, for they could not see the pit they were trapped in. Douglass saw how the scared their masters were of a knowledgeable salve, and was rightfully scared of the proposition of running away to the “abolitionist” north. For it was well known that white people would suggest the idea, then hunt down the runaway slave for a monetary gain. Douglass knowledge left him seeing his masters as the wicked and treacherous men they are. Just as his master, Mr. Hugh had predicted, knowledge is power, and when you are left watching it leave you, but not having the ability to do anything about it, hope and freedom seems incredibly out of reach.

Jump forward 94 years and switch to the Middle East, and the same type of situation was occurring for Malala Yousafzai in Swat Valley, Pakistan. Malala is a young 18 year old woman who, in a similar sense as Douglas, seeks educational rights for all people, specifically women in the Middle East. Her interview with Jon Stewart put her on the world stage for many “tweens” who would have otherwise never heard of the Nobel Peace Prize nominated activist. Her story is important because it shows how a society can evolve peacefully and transition from one era to the next, and yet still be thrust backwards by a small and violent group who insist on upholding the norms of a bygone era.

Malala was in the process of getting an education, which is uncommon in a Middle Eastern country because of deep rooted Islamic traditions, when the Taleban took power in Swat valley. The Taleban, a small extremist organisation, choose to abuse Sharia law and impose their violent interpretation upon a peaceful people. Sharia law is peaceful way or structure of living that people in Islam can choose to follow. It is seen as flexible and can be adapted to the times, but not for the Taleban. When they imposed this law over Swat valley, Malala lost her education.

“…That we don’t learn the importance of anything until it is snatched from our hands.” is a quote pulled from the Jon Stewart interview of Malala that perfectly describes this sentiment. Malala lost her right to an education, and because of this she spoke out. One way she did was by writing a blog for BBC called “Diary of a Pakistani Schoolgirl”. In her blog entries, Malala depicts the scenes unfolding before her eyes and instils a sense of fear in the reader. “During the morning assemble we were told not to ward colourful clothes as the Taleban would object to it” (BBC, 1) is an entry that shows how even the simple decisions, like what to wear to school, were subject to the Taleban’s fear based power.

In a few of the following entries Malala describes the events that took place while the schools were on winter break. After the long break, full of shelling’s, the destruction of 5 schools, and failed promises, Malala was excited to go back to school. After some confusion as to whether girls were allowed to attend, Malala went back to school, but still lived in fear of the Taleban. Eventually, the Taleban and the government signed a peace deal, and it became safe for girls to attend school again, but they still had to abide by the strict Sharia laws (BBC, 7)

After some time, the Taleban discovered that Malala was speaking out against them and, for the simple act of speaking up for basic rights, the Taliban put out a hit on her. Many did not expect the Taleban to kill a young girl but on October 9, 2012, Malala was shot in the head while on her way home from school. This heinous act lead to multiple surgeries, three months in hospital, and intense media coverage that brought light to her story and the struggle the woman of Swat have in getting an education (Husain). However, her struggle with getting an education is not uncommon.

The acts of wanting, and getting, an education, are two completely different concepts. Malala and Frederick Douglass both wanted an education because it means freedom and holds hope of bright future. However, for children in today’s world, schools, which hold the promise of an education, are commonly compared to prisons and not many kids enjoy being there. There are stereotypes placed on them and their families the second they enter kindergarten, the most common being those easily interpreted by the teacher, i.e. socioeconomic status and in turn, race. This disappointing fact leads to different treatment not only by the teacher, but by the student as well.

In a book titled “Reaching and Teaching Students in Poverty” by Professor Paul Gorski, (used in this paper as an excerpt from the Washington Post) the concept of stereotypes in education are discussed. He specifically mentions five common stereotypes related to education and poor people. Those stereotypes are that poor people: do not value education, are lazy, are substance abusers, have a small vocabulary range and cannot communicate well, and that they are poor/ineffective parents. Although substantial evidence is provided to disprove these common stereotypes, this paper will focus on the first and last of those listed, because of their relevance.

Firstly, the idea that one must be rich to value education, is most commonly based on circumstantial evidence.

“The most popular measure of parental attitudes about education, particularly among teachers, is “family involvement,” Gorski says, “However, too often, our notions of family involvement are limited in scope, focused only on in-school involvement—the kind of involvement that requires parents and guardians to visit their children’s schools or classrooms” (Strauss).

Gorski goes on to provide facts that would disprove this sentiment, such as that because of low wage jobs, consistent classroom involvement, like donating goods or bringing class snacks, is not a possibility. Several studies are brought up to counter the additional idea that low income parents do not support or invest time in their children’s education. One study, which used data from more than 20,000 families, came to the simple conclusion that “poor parents reported engaging their children in home-learning activities as often as non-poor parents” (Strauss).

The last stereotype, and indeed the most troubling one, is that poor people make for bad parents. In the book, Gorski states that evidence has already been provided to disprove this stereotype, and it has. The last piece provided to disprove this theory is that although low income children participate in “mind numbing” activities, like television and video games, more often than their wealthier peers, the only reason is because the availability of more stimulating extracurricular is considerably less (Strauss). However, the most alarming information provided is not the stereotypes, but the threat they pose on the people they are about.

Stereotype threat theory, which is the idea that people who fall into a particular stereotype, may perform an activity below their true capacity, out of fear for confirming the stereotypes about them. For example, Gorski mentions a psychological study performed by Spencer and Castano in 2007, which perfectly orchestrates this theory. In the study, students are told to take a test, and before they start, the class is told one of two things: that low income statistically perform worse than their wealthier counterparts, or they are told nothing. The results showed that low income students did worse when the disparity was mentioned, than when no one suggested it (Strauss). This theory is where the cases of Malala and Douglass are related, or not related, to the modern, westernized student.

For Douglass, the hope for freedom made him strive towards knowledge and becoming literate. For Malala, education was a right, stripped away by a small group with terrifying power. In the cases of today’s western students, the small terrifying is nothing but the idea that we are who society deems us to be. Inner city dropout rates are much higher than their suburban counterparts, 53% compared to 71%, because the kids deem it appropriate to drop and join the “streets” (CBSNews). The stereotypes of being a “city mouse” or “country mouse” play a big role in how kids act and perform in school.

In each of the instances mentioned in this paper, the situation, time period, and norms, greatly impacted the outcome of literacy upon the individual involved. Douglas saw literacy as a form of freedom, and because of past societal norms and cultural restrictions, he has to resort to his wits to garner literacy and his eventual freedom. For Malala Yousafzai, the norms of an ancient way of life transcended time and came back in a harsh way to strip her of an education. In her case, she resorted to her ability to speak, and with the support of her, what western society would deem “poor”, parents she became one of the most influential voices for women’s rights in the Middle East. And lastly, in the case of that western society, educational stereotypes play a huge role in how a child performs in school. From assumptions made of low income parents to the stereotype threat many kids feel, children across western society feel the effect of cultural norms that have permeated our culture and influence not only how we view others, but how we view ourselves.

Works Cited

"Big Cities Battle Dismal Graduation Rates." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 1 Apr. 2008. Web.

8 Dec. 2015. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/big-cities-battle-dismal-graduation-

rates/>.

Douglass, Frederick. “Learning to Read and Write.” Readings for English 100: Writing

Seminar 1. University of Dayton. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014. 49-52. Print.

Husain, Mishal. "Malala: The Girl Who Was Shot for Going to School - BBC News."

BBC News. BBC News, 7 Oct. 2013. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.

<http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24379018>.

Stewart, Jon. "The Daily Show - Malala Yousafzai Extended Interview." YouTube.

YouTube, 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.

Strauss, Valerie. "Five Stereotypes about Poor Families and Education." Washington Post.

The Washington Post, 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 7 Dec. 2015. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/28/five-stereotypes-about-poor-families-and-education/>.

Yousafzai, Malala. "Diary of a Pakistani Schoolgirl." BBC News. BBC, 19 Jan. 2009. Web.