Yesterday’s visit to the national archive was, in all of my
infinite academic goals and obsession with Bolivia, an actual dream come true –
I mean, I got to see a document signed by Simón Bolívar and not just any
signature but the signature of Liberador
Simón Bolívar (and he only signed his name in this fashion once…in the
document I got to see...WOW). I could barely breathe.
(BEAUTIFUL!)
After our tour given by one of the founders of the archive
(again, I could barely breathe), I got to work on our homework, picking a
newspaper from any date ten years past to analyze and then compare with
present-day Bolivia. I chose an issue of El
Diario, 6 de agosto, 1952 – four months after the April 1952 Bolivian
revolution. The article I ended up analyzing was called “Proceso de la
Educación Indígena,” or “The Process of Indigenous Education.”
The beginning excited me as I read –
una rupture del
eslabón colonial (a rupture of the colonial link)… un nuevo regimen politico (a new political regime)
Yes, social change! I love it!
And the article continued: education reform was happening
and happening fast. No longer would university and academia be limited to the
elites as a way of maintaining the status quo, but instead, there would be a
new school, one that would allow indigenous people access to learning.
Oh man, I was still so excited.
But then, I saw it –
These new schools would be strategically placed in three
locations that coincide with los tres
grupos tribus salvajes, the three savage tribes.
So, basically, education was being extended to non-white,
non-elite people for the first time, but it was largely rooted in the idea that
indios needed to be civilized and
brought into society as Bolivians.
Man, not so exciting anymore.
Education reform still is at the forefront of Bolivian
social progress; however, under the Morales administration, this reform looks a
loooot different than that under the MNR in the 1950s. Now, emphasis is placed
on indigenous identity, and instead of trying to erase ethnic origins to create
a national homogeneity, differences are celebrated. Additionally, the
Indigenous University of Bolivia (UNIBOL) has been brought to three different
regions – in Warisata (Aymara), the Chapare (Quechua), and in the Chaco
(Guarani) – under Morales.
As I thought about the differences between 1952 and present-day Bolivian education, I realized the two eras are more similar than I previously imagined, and their similarities extend from schooling being a primary place of socialization --
After the 1952 Revolution, the MNR wanted to create a homogeneous society, a nation of Bolivians. One of the best ways to do this was through education: limited teaching of indigenous languages, increased scholarships for indigenous peoples, and etcetera. Similarly, MAS and Morales's administration wants to, instead, create a plurinational state of Bolivia. For this, it is better to emphasize curriculum centered upon indigenous identity.
So, while educational curriculum looks different today, its mission is still the same: to create the Bolivia desired. Consequently, education is going to look different under different administrations, as goals and platforms vary.
School as socialization -- how conflicting, and is it possible to have education exist just to educate? If not, which creates better educated citizens: reaffirming indigenous identity or using school as a method of assimilation? Or, can the two coexist: indigenous universities or public schools that place emphasize on indigenous languages and cultural traditions, while simultaneously creating soon-to-be prepared citizens able to compete in a globalized world?
As I thought about the differences between 1952 and present-day Bolivian education, I realized the two eras are more similar than I previously imagined, and their similarities extend from schooling being a primary place of socialization --
After the 1952 Revolution, the MNR wanted to create a homogeneous society, a nation of Bolivians. One of the best ways to do this was through education: limited teaching of indigenous languages, increased scholarships for indigenous peoples, and etcetera. Similarly, MAS and Morales's administration wants to, instead, create a plurinational state of Bolivia. For this, it is better to emphasize curriculum centered upon indigenous identity.
So, while educational curriculum looks different today, its mission is still the same: to create the Bolivia desired. Consequently, education is going to look different under different administrations, as goals and platforms vary.
School as socialization -- how conflicting, and is it possible to have education exist just to educate? If not, which creates better educated citizens: reaffirming indigenous identity or using school as a method of assimilation? Or, can the two coexist: indigenous universities or public schools that place emphasize on indigenous languages and cultural traditions, while simultaneously creating soon-to-be prepared citizens able to compete in a globalized world?
Obviously, the MNR's efforts to get rid of indigenous identity failed; however, indigenous people did receive increased access to education. Even if intentions were muddy, can the 1952 educational reform still be seen as a good thing? And, today -- indigenous people are not expected to assimilate, but are indigenous groups being properly educated in order to prosper/flourish/excel in a world becoming increasingly globalized?
Great observations. Whenever I think about public schools as agents of socialization I think of this book about Bolivia: "The Citizen Factory." It's dated, but it analyzed the results of the educational system initiated by the 1952 Revolution. Here's a link to the publisher's site about the book:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sunypress.edu/p-2901-the-citizen-factory.aspx