STUDENT REBELLION? (Part I)
- Shaina Thomas
- Dec 28, 2020
- 7 min read
Updated: Apr 10, 2021
STUDENT PROTEST: Social Labeling, Self-Identification & Massive Rejection of Schooling
Educational institutions are made up of individuals who occupy various social identities within a given society. These individuals find themselves linked to larger groups and/or communities based upon various shared (or unshared) factors such as geographical location, socioeconomic status and cultural identities. As an individual self-actualizes, or how one begins to view oneself, he or she also includes others (Cooley, 1902). This process of self-actualization can also apply to students within the American public educational system. Scholars such as Dr. Charles Horton Cooley (1902), Dr. William Edward Burghardt (W.E.B.) Du Bois (1903), Dr. Beverly Tatum (1997) and many others have each examined the development of self-identity as the process relates to viewing oneself through the lens of others. Cooley (1902) focused on how identity is built in social settings and Du Bois (1903) furthered the discussion through an early Critical Race Theory lens where he introduced the experience of “double-consciousness” (Du Bois, 1903, p. 2) experienced by Black/African American people within the United States and within world (race) politics. Dr. Beverly Tatum, psychologist and former president of Spelman College, later joined the conversation to discuss modern segregation, racial grouping and Black/African American student-identity development in her publication entitled, Why Are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria: And other Conversations About Race (1997). Each of these examinations of self-identification offer a lens to investigating post-modern American educational experiences within public schools. Specifically, in the context of a culturally irresponsible educational institution that does not critically examine its use of labeling, it is possible that students’ self-identification is directly tied to how school leaders perceive, label and treat them. Beyond influences of peers (or happening simultaneously), social labeling within schools can have a direct impact on students. First, leaders engaged in labeling students can lead to perceiving and interacting with students based upon biased or limited interpretations of a given label such as overachiever, lazy, underachiever, difficult and those of the likes. Consequently, labeling can also put limitations on discovering appropriate ways to support students in their learning process. For example, a potentially biased and limited interpretation of labels applied to students are evident in some professional development tools such as Focus On produced by Educational Research Services that published the article entitled, “Identifying and Motivating Underachievers,” (2010). It is important to note that when approaching students through labels, educators must be aware of the limits or biases attached to such labeling. An awareness of limits and biases tied to labeling of students is important because educators’ level of expectations and treatment of students can possibly be influenced by their interpretations of a student’s social identities (i.e. socioeconomic status, racial identity and others). When these influenced decisions begin to become symbolic violence (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002) or begin to impose upon how students self-identify, this can possibly lead to student protest in the form of levels of disengagement ranging from passive learning to disruptive behaviors. Or, symbolic violence, defined as a type of non-physical violence manifested in the power differential between social groups (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2020), can lead to students’ conscious “not-learning” (Kohl, 1997) from schooling or specific educators who impose upon students’ freedom of choice, sense of belonging and self-identification. To provide students with feelings of inclusion, safety and freedom to develop, school leaders in American public educational institutions should examine and analyze how labeling of students impacts school and teachers’ institutional choices and level of student expectations. Then, these leaders should evaluate how (if at all) these decisions and treatment impact students’ self-identification as well as how these decisions may be linked to students’ personal, social and educational outcomes. If a link exists, meaning student outcomes are impacted by labeling in school settings, why and in what ways do students begin to protest. For the sake of meeting the needs of students, it is important that school leaders think critically about how educational institutions influence and possibly shape students’ self-identification. Most importantly, this critical examination of educational institutions’ role in students’ identity development can reveal the existence of symbolic violence (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002) that some students began to arm themselves against in the only ways that they know how.
Social labeling can lead school leaders and educators to misinterpret student behaviors. For example, there are many educators within schools across the nation that have heard colleagues label students as lazy, difficult, aloof or passively engaged in one’s learning. For example, early studies, such as one developed by Mandel and Marcus (1995) and introduced in Michelle Layer Rahal’s 2010 article entitled, Identifying and Motivating Underachievers, have gone as far as to suggest “underachieving” profiles to identify and categorize students. These underachieving profiles are outlined as: Underachieving Coaster, Anxious Underachiever, Identity-Searching Underachiever, Defiant Underachiever and the Wheeler-Dealer Underachiever (Rahal, 2010, p. 7-9). Each of these profiles are defined exclusively. Neither of the “underachieving” profiles are considered from the possibility that so-called underachieving students could be actively participating in a form of student protest against schooling and/or an individual(s) within the school setting that may be imposing upon the development of their self-identification and freedoms of expression. In fact, the Identity-searching Underachiever is seemingly reduced to a self-centered, confused adolescent. In her article, Michelle Layer Rahal (2010) discussed:
[From mid to late adolescence] identity-searching underachievers may appear to be lazy when in fact they are drained by the energy it takes to search for their purpose. This type of underachiever is intensely self-absorbed and passionate about many causes. They have big dreams and grandiose plans; they may agonize over the environment and politics; and they experiment with opinions, beliefs and values. But for all their talk, they rarely resolve anything. (p. 8)
This definition of an identity-searching underachiever does not recognize the nuances of searching for one’s identity such as a sense of belonging, safety and freedom of expression. It undermines the importance of a student’s self-identification process as it is potentially linked to the possible existence of symbolic violence (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002) within the school setting. Such a definition also frames the student as an experimental adolescent who rarely resolves anything. These conclusions could be directly linked to an assumption that adolescents do not have a level of consciousness about their own identity development. Seemingly continuing with this assumption, it is later suggested that a teacher’s role should be, “to help this type of student realize that every subject is relevant to navigating in the real world. The problem is, the identity-searching underachiever doesn’t really want anyone’s advice or help.” (Rahal, 2010, p. 9). While the continued suggestions highlight the importance of helping these students through nonjudgmental, noncontrolling and empathetic listening, more support can be discovered if this conceptualization of identity-searching students included a dual-lens approach that engaged both the Critical Race Theory and Social Labeling Theory. From this kind of vantage point, important questions regarding students’ awareness of their social identities in relation to the perception of others (i.e. school leaders, teachers and peers) can be interrogated. Learning outcomes from such an approach could inform school leaders as they further investigate students’ level or engagement and outcomes.
As discussed in Herbert Kohl’s article entitled, I Won’t Learn from You (1997), students’ not-learning is defined as willed not-learning from schools or persons within schools who do not acknowledge students’ self-identification. As an educator, Kohl examined his experience with students who participate in not-learning as a form of student protest against symbolic violence. Kohl believed students engage in not-learning because “to agree to learn from a stranger who does not respect your integrity causes a major loss of self,” (Kohl, 1997, p. 2). In his article, Kohl (1997) concludes that:
[Acknowledging a student’s choice to not-learn] was a very important lesson to me. It helped me understand the essential role will and free choice play in learning and taught me the importance of considering people’s stance towards learning in the larger context of the choices they make as they create lives and identities for themselves. (p. 3)
Herbert Kohl’s reflection is an important step towards protecting students’ cultural identities, personal autonomy and sense of dignity. When engaging students who are falling behind, this step can reveal other causes of students’ so-called failure to learn. When examining or presenting demographic data tied to students’ racial identities or socioeconomic status, it can be detrimental when there is an absence of understanding how school culture and/or labeling may impact students’ self-identification. Meaning, when a school leader(s) hosts a school-wide presentation of demographic data without acknowledging the potential of student protests in the form of not-learning due to symbolic violence, this can limit opportunities for school leaders to improve or develop practices to support students. This can also lead to establishing or perpetuating biases toward students based on their social identities (i.e. racial identity, socioeconomic statuses and others). These biases may enter into classrooms camouflaged as “data-supported” practices that can shape students’ educational, personal and social outcomes as presented in relation to Rahal’s (2010) discussion about student underachieving profiles. When students become aware of conditions that impose upon how they self-identify, students can participate in conscious forms of protests as discussed in Kohl’s (1997) study of not-learners.
School leaders within American public educational systems should discover ways to protect students’ cultural identities, personal autonomy and sense of dignity. First, on the road to discovery, leaders would have to begin by examining and analyzing how social labeling shapes their perception and treatment of respective students. Then, these leaders would have to evaluate how (if at all) these perceptions and treatment negatively target students through forms of symbolic violence such as lowering expectations based on a student’s gender identity, racial identity or socioeconomic status. Finally, once leaders acknowledge that there is a link between social labeling and student self-identification within educational institutions, then these leaders can critically analyze demographic data, student behavior and levels of engagement through an informed lens—a lens informed by both Critical Race Theory and Labeling Theory. Through such a human resource and sociological approach, biased or limited interpretations of students’ levels of engagement, behaviors and performances can be examined. This examination can lead to developing a wider scope of the nuanced causes for student underachievement and/or disengagement. A broadened scope of reasons students become disengaged or begin to fail can uncover new ways to engage and support students. For example, when acknowledging students’ needs as it relates to identity development within the school setting, new insights can help schools determine best culturally responsive practices, professional learning opportunities and equity work that can protect and support students’ personal development. Most importantly, when acknowledging that some students may be rejecting schooling due to threats against their identity development, crucial distinctions can be drawn between students who are failing because of gaps in their learning or students who are actively engaged in protest and/or massive rejection of schooling. This knowledge will transform how data is presented and interpreted. It can also change how students are labeled and supported within school settings.
References
Du Bois, W. E. B. (William Edward Burghardt), 1868-1963. (1968). The souls of black folk;
essays and sketches. Chicago, A. G. McClurg, 1903. New York: Johnson Reprint Corp.
Kohl, H. R. (1997). "I won't learn from you": And other thoughts on creative
maladjustment. New York, New Press.
Rahal, M. L. (2010). “Identifying and Motivating Underachievers.” Website:
Tatum, B. D. (1997). "Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?" and other
conversations about race. New York: BasicBooks.
Comments