In Defense of Men (but not Man)

“Psychologists must tell us: why are boys and young men not as focused on education or performance [other than on the football field]? Are they more easily distracted? If that is so what remedial measures should we put in place in primary or pre-schools to correct this?...The question for determination at the end of the day is not so much where are the men—but why are the men becoming dropouts in society.” [Dana Seetahal, Express, Oct 02, 2010]

I want to respond to two recent provocations, one alluded to above and the second the theme of a panel at this year’s National Parents & Teachers Association conference, High Performing Boys: Finding the Formula. My defense of men is not intended as a condemnation of women. Nor am I attempting or seeking to defend or excuse indefensible behavior by any person. This defense is a focused critique and invitation to a fuller more participatory dialogue on education. My intent is to attempt to interrupt some of our unexamined beliefs and habits of thinking that underlie the powerful, diffuse and debilitating, national narratives about Caribbean male (under) performance.
Let me begin with one that is implied in the excerpt and the NPTA panel theme, namely that there exists ‘a formula’ or ‘remedy’ for what has come to be constructed and accepted as a crisis and somehow naturalized deficiency in young men and boy’s upbringing. That Seetahal seems to be advocating a ‘correctional’ stance beginning in pre-school is understandable given that the 20th century has contributed to the almost complete medicalisation, psychologisation, and carceralisation of mental, physical, and everyday life in ‘Schooled’ societies. Unstated but nevertheless implied in the seemingly neutral call for ‘remedial’ measures to the ‘boy problem’ is the unquestioned validity of privileging ‘focus’ over ‘distraction’ as if physical and mental ‘tinkering’ and ‘messing-around’ had little or no value or relation to innovation, creativity, performance, and human well-being and the belief that dropping out of school to pursue ‘a distraction’ is the worst thing that a person could do. Perhaps many students would benefit from adults taking their ‘distractions’ more seriously as opportunities from which to begin learning rather than starting with a desire to see them disciplined and cured of it?
Many students are distracted in school because in most instances the game of school is just not one that they find very interesting or relevant, they soon figure out that it has few real winners, winning does not make or guarantee happiness or satisfaction, and the game has been set up to find and reward a few, or those with the right ‘connections’ or ‘capitals.’ If one is seeking enlightenment, development or intellectual stimulation, or merely entertainment, one will not find it very frequently in the majority of schools. If you’re seeking power, prestige, and social promotion that comes from following orders and certification then succeeding in school is a better, though not necessarily the most successful strategy.

Alternative educational sites like the football field are also valuable spaces to learn about the fundamentals of high performance. More school is probably not the answer to the problems of schooling and we ought to be constructing a new mindset: a vision for education ‘After-School’ (and I don’t mean ‘extra’-lessons which is sometimes More-School just not in School).

Seetahal’s premise that “boys and young men are not focused on education or performance” is flawed. It begins in the wrong place neglecting to interrogate a more fundamental possibility that what many students are actively resisting is the strictures of schooling, meaningless certification and a meager anesthetizing curriculum – education and performance are not necessarily best served by schools as currently enacted in this historical moment. From my observations in several schools during my time as a teacher and lecturer at UWI, boys in schools of all types from Cedros to Port-of-Spain seemed less willing to ‘go along’, to ‘play nice’ or tolerate the farce that was and is being passed off as ‘teaching’ than their female counterparts. Many students are not prepared to tolerate a precarious educational existence of ‘doing without understanding.’ For them doing and earning are the first movers of learning. This of course is upsetting to the entrenched narrative of the ascendant, educationally progressive and active female – that gets ahead by activity and effort but unacknowledged as a cost is a degree of passivity, acceptance, playing along and playing well with others. The institutionalized consumptive party line that “you can have it all” – fashion, family, financial independence, freedom to fete and…is a dangerous and damaging lie. Only a few women and men can have it all and that usually comes from huge personal sacrifices or seeking dangerous or illegal shortcuts in other areas.

Let me turn now to the 2010 NPTA panel theme, “High Performing Boys: Finding the Formula”. At first I was amused then I became annoyed and finally concerned enough to write about it. It is however the likely difficulty that the members of the NPTA and others have in recognizing that their theme is problematic and the dangers of not addressing these respectfully that is my concern. Indeed they perceive a serious issue and are desirous of talking about it. Professionally I have a responsibility to take their concerns seriously but at the same time to honour the pedagogical moment and work to trouble too simple understandings of the issue. Personally, I have a stake in not allowing the no-more-or-less fairer sex to continue to dominate and dictate the pace, content and direction of a suffocating discourse on the past, present and future education of men and masculinity at home and regionally as if there were a deficit of competent and able men capable of responding.

If I were invited to address this theme my goal would be to argue that the valuing and pursuit of high performance as an educational end for boys and girls in T&T, in and of itself is problematic, perhaps dangerous and part of the very problem that we are seeking to address and perhaps needs to be rethought. Because my hosts requested a ‘formula’ I would provide them with one drawn from the research on high performance/performers across many fields including education. The ‘formula’ simply stated is that high performance is dependent upon (but not determined by – this is an important distinction) deliberate practice, a growth mindset, competent, knowledgeable, effective, resourceful and mindful teachers providing useful and timely feedback, supportive social and personal environments and dogged persistence over a significant period of time. I would also point out the fact that while the literature on high performance describes a particular ethic or attitude towards improvement and growth in a deliberately chosen field, it is exceedingly difficult to achieve high performance in a discipline in which one has not made a commitment to improvement or mastery, and this literature says very little about individual or personal ethics – something that we might also find to be a valuable characteristic in high performing men and women who work their ways up corporate and political ladders.

Having hopefully satisfied my hosts’ desire for a formula, perhaps a lingering legacy of the obsessions of an older educational system, I would turn to the costs and rewards of high performance. Some of the costs of high performance, apart from the obvious ones of time and money include reduced creativity, depression, damage to personal relationships, damage to self, unsustainability, cheating, and illegal or unethical behavior. There are many routes to high performance, not all of them honest, safe or socially sanctioned. Indeed it is the promised rewards of high performance, money, power, prestige, status, comfort, personal satisfaction, and various freedoms that are sometimes part of the motivation to become a high performer. Rarely is ‘utility to others’ a motive. Indeed, in many fields, but not all, to actually become a high performer one has to consciously and deliberately make the decision that it's not first and foremost about helping people, but it’s about personal improvement – ultimately it's a selfish or individualistic pursuit though one that can sometimes also be socially useful.

Part 2
Having begun to trouble the audience a bit I would move to discuss some examples of high performers to illustrate some of these ideas. I’d talk about high-performing celebrity boys and men like Tiger Woods, Dwight Yorke, Russell Latapy, Brian Lara, Lawrence Duprey and VS Naipaul – all exemplars of high performing boys/men and all very, very human. This move would be to emphasize that high performance as an end in itself is neither a guarantee nor predictor of success in other areas of life outside of the domain(s) of high performance and to unlock the door to the question of whether or not high performance is really the main or only thing to which we should be aspiring. My own answer to this is that high performance must seen as being part of a larger, more coherent, sustainable and healthy educational outcome for all students. [I would leave my discussion of exactly what I see this as being for the Q&A session to follow.]

I'd talk about the young man at a good school in the US who committed suicide because he had his sexual orientation ‘outed’ online by a thoughtless series of actions by another young man. I'd talk about boys I see drinking copious amounts of red bull and other stimulants or using steroids in the pursuit of high performance and make the connection explicit that high performance is an addictive behavior and one which, without control and appropriate supervision can be destructive. I'd re-emphasise the HIGH in high performance both the positive and negative dimensions and discuss all the people, including some of those likely in the audience who have come to achieve happiness, peace of mind, and financial security - not by pursuing high performance as an end but by finding and nurturing their passions, positive addictions, and finding the right people, places or opportunities to help them do so.
Next I would raise the issue that in order to become a high performer one must be able to work very closely in a community with other high performers and receive useful, constructive and timely feedback leading to the problem of finding, creating or sustaining such communities locally. A large part of the very definition and central to any value to being a high performer is the premise of there being few or very few who are at that standard. In the case of our two small islands, we simply do not have the carrying capacity, markets or communities to support and reward large numbers of high performing people across every sphere of endeavor. Thus pursuing high performance as an educational end might seem to be setting up the inevitable but understandable conflict with other educational concerns namely national development and the perennial concern with ‘brain drain’ which perhaps is a narrow and misplaced patriotism.

Depending on the mood and composition of the audience I might take a risk towards other more germane understandings of ‘male performance’. Talk of male performance and education seldom goes in the direction of the literal. I would wonder out loud, “How many teachers/principals take time to talk with boys about their sexual futures and how to manage relationships and their developing erotic selves responsibly and maturely without moralizing or imposing a heteronormative and monogamous ideology?” I would probably see certain audience members likely becoming visibly uncomfortable. Male performance cannot be restricted only to academic matters – men have bodies too that matter a great deal to them. Perhaps that is part of why they are on the football field?

IF I were talking to an audience of men I'd also say, hey, let the women continue to pursue this obsession with high performance, in the meantime let us men start to take better care of ourselves so that we will be prepared to take care of our spouses, partners, children and wards, when they break down from this dangerously obsessive, anxiety inducing and ultimately wasteful pursuit of high performance at any cost. If it’s one positive thing 'bro' culture might teach it’s the importance and necessity of certain kinds of social networks for men's survival and sanity. I would recommend to them taking a cue from the disability rights and other recent movements for social justice that a reinvigorated men’s movement ought to proclaim loudly, unapologetically and proudly, “nothing about us without us.” Men cannot continue to be silent as women talk about and disparage us publicly, through media and through research – it does none of us any good. But we men also have to get involved. We also have to listen very closely and hear what women are saying – clearly women want to help though they need to be reminded at times, and become mindful, that well-intentioned and oppressive maternalism can have as disastrous consequences as well-intentioned and oppressive paternalism. Patriarchy and privilege are not naturalized or encoded in the male body or communities but are one form of expression of a particularly pervasive and damaging ideology – what Caribbean philosopher and writer Sylvia Wynter has called Man.

“Man” Wynter writes “is not the human, although it represents itself as if it were. It is a specific, local-cultural conception of the human…Its “Other” is therefore not woman…Rather because Man conceives of itself through its Origin narrative…of Evolution…its “Other” and “Others” are necessarily those categories of human who are projected…as having been bio-evolutionary dysselected – i.e…[all] who are negatively marked as defective humans within the terms of Man’s self-conception and its related understanding of what it is to be human.” It is perhaps ironic (and ultimately tragic) that the memythic ideology of Man has been turned, in the present moment upon the members of the entire class from whom it emerged and who sustained it for centuries while benefiting most directly. It is men everywhere and of every hue who are now suspect and being constructed as the new (educationally) evolutionarily dys-selected class. A ‘distracted’ or ‘disobedient’ boy is broken and a danger, a societal dagger, that needs to be quickly re-sheathed through a formula. I suspect that the ideology of Man has found new millennial hosts – though I would stress that these are not solely female or feminised bodies. Most frightening is the possibility that it might verily turn against life-itself if indeed it is not already doing so.

I’d end by re-stating the formula and reminding them that the pursuit of high performance as an educational end comes with no guarantees about other valuable educational outcomes and requires a price which for some might already be too high.

If I were more entrepreneurial and less concerned about the truth and consequences of my speaking or writing I’d market a programme called “The formula” for academic success. It’s what the target demographic of the NPTA appear to want and is primed to buy. The parent market is largely uncertain, fearful, yet desirous of success for their children and simultaneously trusting and mistrusting of experts and soothsayers – in short they are excellent consumers prone to suasion by the latest fad and lapped up rhetoric. Educators, including myself, have much responsibility and blame to shoulder here – we have not always treated or trusted parents and interested others as competent and intellectual equals. Nor have we always taken the time or care, as I am seeking to do here, to articulate clearly where and how we come to see certain forms of thinking and consequent actions as being too limited or too narrow or incompatible with other commitments to social justice that we might hope to make.

Our semi-literate and barely functional news-media, another group whose under-performance and less than critical literacies educators have yet to answer for, catering to the lowest common reader also does more than its fair share as well to keep conversations within certain tolerable and comprehensible limits. Caribbean educational discourses and especially ones concerning male marginalization or performance suffer simultaneously from a poverty and abundance of words, ideas, and concepts… without connection – the true crises are ones of meaning and of our own making (double entendre intended). In seeking to answer if and why men might be dropping out of society, it might be fruitful to characterize the ways in which the society that they are supposed to be dropping out from has constructed and constrained the range of their performative identities and possible identifications.

We need to look closely and critically at the way our Caribbean media and culture have commodified and corralled male, female and other performative embodiments through its limiting representations of masculinity and femininity and by reinforcing certain unproductive (but economically profitable) habits of thinking (being and doing) and our gender theorists have contributed much there already. There are fewer ways in TT to do male/female that are capable of being scribed outside of received scripts. For example, Seetahal’s suggestion that “…the number of eligible men is dwindling. Soon they will become an endangered specie at the tertiary level, in the professions and in the job market” restates as implied fact rather than open question, a trope introduced into the discourse by Keisha Lindsay’s 1997/2002 paper with the similarly sounding title “Is the Caribbean Male an Endangered Species.” Even the headline, “Where are the Men?” has been uttered before, for example in Carl Wint’s Gleaner article of 1989 which went under the banner, “Where have all the Men gone?” and which has popped up from time to time. Having found a meme to mine, it is not (often) in (most) media’s interest to explore other, perhaps more productive sites of and for the construction of alternative meanings and educational ‘realities’. Seldom called upon are much more nuanced and generative formulations such as the question posed (and answered) by educators Jerome DeLisle, Peter Smith and Vena Jules in their 2005 paper, “Which males or females are most at risk and on what?” which recognizes that factors influencing performance and success affect males and females differentially across the entire educational spectrum. Well intentioned slogans while making for good headlines often do very little to unsettle dominant cultural educational mythologies and at worst naturalize these to the detriment of those who do not fit within the ‘normal’ bounds.

The situation we are witnessing and the difficulties men are having has a long history. One part of it stems from outdated but entrenched and reinforced conceptions of ‘masculine virtue.’ Moral and political philosopher Alasdair Macintyre in Dependent Rational Animals: Why human beings need the virtues (1999) draws attention to the fact that the relationship between our (human) biological constitution, our vulnerability and consequent dependency on others, has been neglected as an object of study. This inattention, he suggests, arose out of interpretations of Aristotle’s conceptions of rationality, experience and masculine virtue. Aristotelian rationality, has been interpreted as something that distinguishes us from other animals while his account of the value of experience excludes that of those most likely to experience vulnerability, affliction and dependence, viz. women, slaves, servants, laborers and manufacturers – Man’s dys-selected. Together, they sever and obscure our familial relationships with our animal natures, from which emerges our capacity to be wounded, i.e. our vulnerability. Macintyre alludes to Aristotle’s elevation of an outward practice of a perception of ‘invulnerability’ that emerges from his (Aristotle’s) description of masculine virtue as one which does not burden others in times of need, sadness or loss, but seeks a detached rational independence. Aristotle’s virtuous man does not reveal how, where or when he is vulnerable. Indeed, he denies the existence of his vulnerable self as dependence on others is seen as a sign of weakness. It is this question of masculine virtue and how it needs to be re-defined, enacted and embodied in a Caribbean context not only for boys/men, but for all human beings that is part of the missing thread in visible public anxieties so far.

Reading within and across the genres of this generalized albeit gendered socio-cultural anxiety about (male) performance I see at work a cultural unconscious working through the implications of the sacrifices, losses, transitions, and traumas of the ‘progress’ made in the name of ‘development’ over the last Quincentenary and especially the last century by women and others together with the insecurities and uncertainties of individual, human and global survival in this one. It is perhaps a necessary work of mourning. The last 30 years have seen a celebration of the ‘diversity of women’s different ways of knowing.’ These were necessary and important critiques of those ways of knowing, doing and being that up until that time were posited as being ‘human universals’ but which for centuries had served as mask, proxy, and inappropriate standard for classifying and justifying the exploitation and exclusion of any abject ‘othered’ or ‘bio-evolutionarily dysseleted’ human beings (mainly indigenous populations, women, and others that deviated from the dominant European male ableist norms) but which turned out to represent mainly the values, concerns and ways of knowing of primarily white, European, college educated, often socially privileged heterosexual men. Since that time however I have found great difficulty in locating or recognizing sustained cultural narratives that do not take this pathological intellectual tradition as the de facto crystallized starting point for imagining some assumed homogeneity among the as diverse fraternity and faculties of men.

I am very concerned as a scholar, (and in this case as a man also), when any social group is consistently constructed, identified and repeatedly represented as being ‘deficient’, ‘defective’, ‘derelict’, ‘deviant’ or at a ‘disadvantage’ primarily or solely by members who (must) locate themselves outside of that group and who happen to be enjoying privileged or elevated status in the dominant cultural mythological narratives of the moment. I am also concerned when a member of a group tries to appropriate a discourse as if seeking to represent the entire spectrum of interests, concerns and values of a group. That is to say, I am cognizant and thus need to explicitly state that my opinion presented here in no way is meant to speak for all or even the majority of ‘men’ in T&T or elsewhere for that matter. Though I do hope that some parts resonate with them.

I wonder, are men finding ways outside of the formal education and certification systems to live productively, sustainably, well and mindfully in Trinidad and Tobago at present? If they are then how are they doing this and who are these men? I can think of a few and don’t think they will be found in what are traditionally perceived to be the highest echelons or with hands on the levers of power, but they are more than likely above average performers, known and highly respected in their sub-fields and more importantly productive citizens. These are the questions I am interested in both as a Caribbean man and as an education researcher. To answer questions about high performing boys, if we still wanted to I’d go talk to the families of high performing boys who seem to have managed to be academically successful and leading successful adult lives. Several families come immediately to mind from my time teaching.

To answer Dana Seetahal’s question directly, I checked Facebook to see “Where my boys at?” The short answer is scattered all over the world including Trinidad and Tobago doing what they have to do – working, hustling, living, loving, learning and liming – to survive. Not all have gone on to pursue higher education. The majority appear (and some are) wise and happy and appear to be ‘living a sustainable reality’ rather than mindlessly chasing after ‘the dream’ of having it all. Some are indeed struggling to realize a place in the world, to leave stifling occupations and to find happiness, contentment and meaning at home or abroad. They (and I) would not, and this is critical, characterize themselves as high performers, but perhaps as disciplined, hard-working, entrepreneurial, and mindful workers and caring citizens. But then again, my social network is probably not very typical for Trinidad and Tobago and Facebook is probably not a class-neutral platform.
Indeed, we ought to be concerned about why some students, especially boys are not doing as well in school. But we ought not pathologize them but also ask whether or not there isn’t something terribly wrong with our plantation educational system, its premises and commitments. I’m going to leave this now and invite other men (and women) to continue this complicated converstion.

Secret Criteria and the Medal

Offered in response to this article in the Guardian.

The recent concerns expressed about the criteria for being awarded the President’s Medal and that of CXC’s Dennis Irvine Award provide further justification of the need for more transparent selection processes everywhere in education and in political life, as well as the need for a more critical, reflective and informed public. I mean to take nothing away from the remarkable performance under trying circumstances by Nicholas Sammy, especially when so few men are being held up as academic role models, but quite simply the two awards are from two different organizations with differing philosophies and stakeholders and designed for entirely different purposes each with its own selection criteria. In both cases it is likely that the award is based on a sum and not an average score.

In the case of the President’s Medal it is likely a total score based on performance in eight (8) Units, including Caribbean Studies and Communication Studies, over two consecutive years, i.e. three (3) Unit1 and three (3) Unit2. This makes the Medal open to ALL students from T&T completing the minimum requirements for a full CAPE certificate in the required time period. Where a student does additional Units one would hope that their best six Units in three subjects (in addition to the Communication and Caribbean Studies) would be considered. By pursuing additional Units he likely did not maximise his scores on those Units that would eventually be considered in awarding the Medal. This will likely be the eventual explanation for the government’s “failure to award” Nicholas the Medal. Simple economics (not one of the Units he studied).

Now on to CXC’s Dennis Irvine Award. CXC, as I have argued before, is a for-profit business. It is in their interest to promote their testing products and to elect, brand, and promote admirable spokespersons such as Mr. Sammy, who have used their product in excess to success as exemplifying, ‘The Most Outstanding CAPE Candidate Overall.’ Here the award is not based on pursuing and succeeding in a minimum number of Units but rather the maximum utilization and ‘enjoyment’ of their product/brand – this year 14 Units. A similar award is made at CSEC Level and the winner likely also has something like 12-16 distinctions at CSEC.

The President’s Medal and CXC’s Awards are based on two different standards and criteria and serve two different purposes and constituencies. Despite the media`s mamaguay it is no real mystery as to why one could be awarded one and not the other. One reason we and Nicholas have heard relatively little of CXC’s Award is that the payoff in the short-term for individuals is negligible as compared to that of the Medal which, encouraged by uncritical journalistic practices, has achieved its own mythic status in our academic culture. The annual return on investment for CXC though is increased and unquestioned brand loyalty from regional governments and perhaps more students across the Caribbean being encouraged (by parents, teachers, competitiveness and media attention) to pursue more Units. ‘Ka-ching’!

The sense of outrage and injustice, both real and media manufactured, done to Mr. Sammy and Mr. Jaikaransingh, the Principal of Presentation College, San Fernando, soon to be branded ‘CXC School of the Year’, speaks to an as yet unsatisfied desire in our society for increased transparency, accountability and oversight in managing selection processes at ALL levels and in ALL spheres where valuable social goods involving the public purse are at stake such as the award of (secret) scholarships, contracts, or privileged entry into secondary schools. The promise of ‘New Politics’ demands nothing less. Indeed, while we are hurt by this perceived injustice done to a single ‘son-of-the-soil’ we are not so moved, and there is nary a peep from any Principal of any prestige school, when he/she legally disenfranchises a significant number of other people’s children, our sons and daughters, who have legitimately and legally earned places at mainly tax-payer financed schools under the anachronism that continues to be allowed by the Concordat. Our government assisted schools too perhaps have ‘secret’ criteria for admissions that go beyond simply ‘belonging’ to the right religious denominations.
Imagine what would happen if in addition to the names of students and the schools passed for the newspapers published students’ scores on SEA. The whole of Trinidad and Tobago would be in an uproar when they saw the same questionable selective principles operating as students with lower percentages were admitted to a prestige school ahead of other students with higher scores. There is an obvious reason this is not done – it would upset the way things are. Questions must also be raised and answers sought to the `uncertainties` surrounding selection criteria as to how individual students are admitted into 6th form and how some transfers are effected when others are denied. If some Principals of prestige schools are feeling a little uncomfortable, then I’ve done my job.

As a friend of mine related to me, we cannot only demand the truth and selection criteria when it is favourable to us. That we see no problem with agitating for transparency in one situation but keeping a studied silence in another analogous situation is telling. We cannot have one set of standards for some and another set for others if the game and its outcomes are to be claimed to be fair and just for all. We cannot demand full disclosure only for those powerfully placed and their agents. We must ask after that which continues to take place behind closed doors with and without our continued legal blessings and who benefits and who is disadvantaged and how. We are all complicit in the annual injustices meted out by successive and successful educational establishments. If our selection processes do not pass ethical scrutiny they must be abandoned and rethought. The door has been unlocked for students who have superior marks and who are not selected for the school of their choice to likewise demand a public justification from the Principals of Prestige Schools as to why they ‘failed to be awarded’ a place.

In closing I offer some final, more personal, messages. To Nicholas, Naipaul’s description is apt, “the world is what it is” and by and large it is not fair. If an injustice has been done to you I hope it will come to light and be corrected. Congratulations and I hope you commit yourself to fighting with the same spirit against those more common injustices inflicted upon and which manifest themselves day-to-day and year-to-year upon those who have not been as privileged as you and I. To the Principals of the Prestige schools I ask that they with one voice and in a singular act of altruism end the continued violence and injustice done to the nation’s children via the 20% selection mechanism. Note this does not mean abandoning the Concordat only this unjust element. To the Ministry of Education, don’t get played by the media or the Prestige schools. Don’t pander to public pressure and rush in to redress this perceived injustice without serious consideration and deliberation. Please do it right and make it fair the first time!