Contact Zones and the "Culture of Power"

Prompt: How can the metaphor of the “contact zone” as Mary Louise Pratt uses it apply to an educational setting(s) you’re familiar with? What are the power differentials at play, and how do these get reflected and contested in the literacy practices of those outside the ‘dominant discourse’?

Pratt defines the contact zone as "social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power" (114). Contact zones are certainly at work in the classroom. I recently read Laurie Delpit's "The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People's Children." Delpit argues that a "culture of power" exists in the classroom: "2. There are codes or rules for participating in power; that is, there is a 'culture of power.' The codes or rules I'm speaking of relate to linguistic forms, communicative strategies, and presentation of self; that is, ways of talking, ways of writing, ways of dressing, and ways of interacting. 3. The rules of the culture of power are a reflection of the rules of the culture of those who have power. This means that success in institutions- schools, work-places, and so on- is predicate upon acquisition of the culture of those who are in power. Children from middle-class homes tend to do better in school than those from non-middle class homes because the culture of the school is based on the culture of the upper and middle classes- of those in power. The upper and middle classes send their children to school with all the accoutrements of the culture of power; children from other kinds of families operate within perfectly wonderful and viable cultures but not cultures that carry the codes or rules of power" (Delpit 25).

Delpit then gives an example that I think reflects the power dynamics of the contact zone in the acquisition of literacy. She compares two literacy programs that were used for first grade students. One of the programs focused on "higher-level critical thinking skills." In one early lesson the children went through information that in the other program, Distar, they learned in about forty lessons. Of the first program, she says: "As an experienced first-grade teacher, I am convinced that a child needs to be familiar with a significant number of these concepts to be able to assimilate so much knowledge in one sitting" (Delpit 30). She then argues that because of this, the program gave an unfair advantage to children from (mostly white) middle-class homes who had been exposed to such concepts in their home life. Children who were receiving all of this information for the first time were left behind and immediately labeled as "remedial." On the other hand, "Distar was 'successful' because it actually taught new information to children who had not already acquired it at home" (Delpit 30). The reason I think Delpit, and this example, are so significant to the discussion of the contact zone is because of the differences this program created between children of different cultures. In the contact zone of the classroom, middle-class children carried more knowledge than children of working-class backgrounds. This immediately resulted in creating academic differences between the children. Those that had prior acquired knowledge were helped to become even more powerful. Those that had no such prior knowledge became even more powerless and were even labeled as academically remedial. Not only that, but teachers also belong to the "culture of power." Thus, through their labeling and their choice of programs, they are excercising power over all children. The difference is that middle-class children benefit from such power because they belong to the same culture (middle-class culture, not necessarily ethnic culture) while working-class children of color are placed in subordinate positions.