Dialogue Across Social Class Status

Stéphanie Wahab, Associate Professor
College of Social Work
Portland State University
Portland, Oregon  97207

Lesson Summary          
The lesson introduces dialogue as a tool to work with and across differences, particularly those associated with socio-economic class status. Students are introduced to the difference between dialogue and discussion, view a compelling film on social class, and engage in small and large group dialogues concerning their thoughts, beliefs, and experiences with the film.

Background     
The development of racial and social identity has profound influences on one’s life (Van Soest and Garcia, 2003). Issues related to social identity such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, ability, gender, and socio-economic class are highly complex and controversial areas of study and exploration. Harro (2000a; 2000b) writes that we are socialized into both marginalization and liberation, and that each socialization process involves the learning and reinforcement of identities based on interactions with our environments. Given that these processes are developmental and nonlinear, instructors and students occupy varying stages of understanding and integration of multiple identities and social group memberships at any given time. Because different people have different levels of awareness and comfort around these issues, it is quite normal for tensions and conflict to be present in the classroom. In fact, many would argue that these tensions and conflicts are always present whether we recognize them or not.  The challenge for instructors is how to help students individually and collectively navigate both the tensions and opportunities for growth and learning that surface, without further perpetuating experiences of oppression and privilege in the classroom.  Alexander (2004) has stated that anti-racism/anti-oppression curricula may “format and foment particular social tensions and thereby sustain borders of difference, even as they purport to democratize” (p. 433).

This lesson is rooted in the premise that understanding and grappling with diversity and social identities begin with self-reflection and must include learning from one another as we each bring our experiences, knowledge, and analyses to mutual learning and reflection. Dialogue (Friere, 1971) constitutes the teaching tool and technique through which students and educators navigate difficult issues associated with socio-economic class (as well as gender, race, and ethnicity) as it relates to privilege and oppression. This lesson is part of the required Social Work course titled “Diversity and Social Justice” in the College of Social Work. I was responsible for introducing this course to the College, as well as preparing new instructors to teach the content.

Interest in dialogue crosses a number of disciplines and areas of inquiry. Paulo Friere (1971) has written about "dialogue as praxis" in the field of education. Mikahael Bakhtin (1981), also in the field of education, has written about "dialogue as existence." David Bohm (1996), a theoretical physicist, has written about dialogue as a process which explores a wide range of human experiences; our values; the nature and intensity of emotions; thought patterns and processes; the function of memory; cultural myths; and moment-to-moment experiences. Black feminists such Patricia Hill Collins (1990) and bell hooks (1989) have discussed dialogue as a method, with deep roots in an African-based tradition, used by Black women to assess knowledge claims. Dialogue is also a critical tool used by Palestinians and Jews to both engage and navigate differences, tensions, conflict, action, and knowledge creation (http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm). In this lesson, dialogue is conceptualized as a reciprocal and mutual process for understanding, personal and collective transformation, action, and knowledge creation.

The purpose of this lesson is to introduce dialogue as a tool or practice to work with and across differences, particularly differences that arise across social identity categories such as social class. In stressing tenets associated with dialogue (discussed below), students are provided with ideas and suggestions for remaining available to themselves and each other when conflict and tensions, in addition to excitement, surface around challenging subjects such as those associated with identity, politics, and power. Too often, individuals and groups attempt to silence themselves or each other when tension-filled issues and experiences arise. Rather than remain open to someone else’s experience, thoughts, beliefs, and interpretations—particularly when we feel offended—we often resort to challenging, denying, debating, shaming, and silencing. While these practices are certainly legitimate and sometimes necessary in certain situations, they are often unsupportive and detrimental to the project of understanding each other across social, political, and economic differences. One of the goals of dialogue is to better understand another, as well as one’s own self. In and through dialogue, students are encouraged to consistently ask themselves, “What can I/we create here?” “What can I learn?” The practice of dialogue demands that we move away from needing to be “right.” It supports us to listen, reflect, and create knowledge and action collaboratively.

The collaborative process invoked through dialogue is particularly important when we engage in dialogue across social identity memberships, such as social class, that are informed by power and powerlessness. Because one’s class status is informed by access (or lack thereof) to social, political, and economic resources (as is highlighted in the film), it is vital that individuals and groups be mindful of power differences when engaging one another. Dialogue can provide us with tools necessary to navigate such challenging terrain.

Broad Outline and Learning Objectives
The lesson begins with a brief lecture on the difference between dialogue and discussion (see Handout A) and holds that effective dialogue:

1. Is an exchange of ideas and experiences that is so active, effective, and highly charged that it leaves none of the participants unchanged.
2. Entails learning to suspend one's opinions and judgments in order to truly listen to one another.
3. Requires staying in the dialogue, even when one's closely held beliefs are challenged.
4. Requires all participants to contribute from where they are—even half-formed ideas.
5. Can result in divergent views converging, discovering a new social intelligence.

Following the lecture, students view the film People like us: social class in America. After viewing the film, students engage in small and large group dialogues to both process the film and to engage each other across their differing socio-economic class experiences, values, and beliefs.

Implementation
Begin the lesson with a brief lecture on the difference between dialogue and discussion, guided by Handout A. For additional resources on dialogue instructors can explore the following web sites. [15 minutes]

http://www.dialogueacrossthedivide.com/
http://www.thataway.org/
http://www.interplaytheatre.com/TheatreGameoftheWeek.html
http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm
http://depts.washington.edu/sswweb/idea/
http://www.igr.umich.edu/

Following this, ask the students to brainstorm as a class for a few minutes on the many definitions and interpretations of social class. [10 minutes]

Following the brainstorm, invite the students to watch the film (or a portion of it) People like us: social class in America (available at the PSU library, HN57 .P376 2001 VIDEO ). The video is 124 minutes long. It is useful to either break up the viewing into one, two, or three portions, or simply view the first half hour to forty-five minutes. A teacher’s guide is available with the film (in the library), and information about the film can be found at (http://www.pbs.org/peoplelikeus). [30, 40, or 124 minutes. For shorter classes, I recommend 40 minutes.]

Following the viewing of the film and depending on the class size, break the students into smaller groups and ask them to engage in a small group dialogue about the film. I suggest groups of 4-5 students to encourage engagement and participation. Suggested dialogue topics for the small groups include: [15 to 30 minutes]

1. How do the different characters in the film define social class?
2. How do these definitions compare to your definitions of class during the brainstorm prior to the film?
3. Do you believe that the United States is an egalitarian society? Why or why not?
4. Why do many people shy away from talking about social class?
5. How do you identify in terms of class status?
6. What are the consequences of class stratification?
7. What were your thoughts and feelings about the film?
8. Whom did you identify with most?

Ask students to be mindful of the dialogue lecture and accompanying Handout A during the small and large group dialogues.

Following the small group dialogues, invite the students to join a dialogue with the entire class (facilitated by the instructor). Suggestions to stimulate and facilitate the large group dialogue include:

1. What were some interesting dialogues that each group had?
2. Have your views about social class shifted? In what way?
3. Why do you think U.S. citizens tend to deny the existence of social class differences?
4. Can one change their class status? Why or why not? How?
5. How does social class intersect with other social identity groups?
6. What are the consequences of social class stratification in U.S. society?

To close the lesson, summarize the viewpoints, thoughts, and feelings that were shared. Then invite the students to reflect in writing in some capacity (in a journal, writing assignment, blog, email to the instructor, or other ways) on their experience of dialogue in the small and large groups. Encourage them to pay attention to what they learned about themselves and their classmates in the process, as well as incorporate language presented around social class concepts. These concepts are defined in Handout B, which may be shared before or after the small group dialogue or after the large group dialogue as students prepare to leave and think about their writing assignment. Alternatively, Handout B may be used as a follow-up and dialogue tool for a subsequent class.

Student Responses
Talking about our experiences, values, and beliefs around social group memberships,
such as socio-economic class, can and does facilitate strong reactions and feelings within individuals and groups. It is my opinion that there is nothing “wrong” about strong reactions and feelings, and that the classroom can be a powerful and useful venue for engaging such feelings and reactions. The danger or risks associated with difficult dialogues most often occur when there is a lack of a proper “container” for the dialogue to occur. One of the benefits of dialogue is that it can provide both a container (product) and guard-rails (process) to support individuals to hold their own and each other’s emotions and reactions, as well as navigate through/with them.

My experience over the past eight years has taught me that the more comfortable I become with engaging in dialogue myself, the more able I am to support students to do so in the classroom. In addition, a significant element of engaging in dialogue has meant that I’ve had to become more aware and comfortable with my own experiences of oppression and privilege. Specifically, I’ve been challenged to acknowledge the ways and places where I perpetuate and participate in oppression, as well as the places and moments where I’ve experienced oppression. As a bi-racial, bi-national, queer identified woman, I’m constantly navigating my own hybrid identities across privilege and oppression. While this type of navigation is both fluid and ongoing, I have found that the better able I am to engage these parts of my lived experience(s), the more able I am to support others in doing the same.

Follow-up
To follow this lesson, instructors may choose to engage students in a more critical and specific conversation about socio-economic class and oppression. I highly recommend the following articles and teacher’s guides for this project.

1. Adams, M., Bell, L.A., & Griffen, P. (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook. New York: Routledge.
2. Harro, B. (2000a). The cycle of socialization. In Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Castaneda, R., Hackman, H. W., Peters, M. L., & Zuniga, X. (Eds.). Readings for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge.
3. Harro, B. (2000b). The cycle of liberation. In Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Castaneda, R., Hackman, H. W., Peters, M. L., & Zuniga, X. (Eds.). Readings for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge.
4. Van Soest, D. & Garcia, B. (2003) Diversity education for social justice. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
5. *** Western State Center. Dismantling Racism Resource Book. http://www.westernstatescenter.org/resources/index.html

http://www.dialogueacrossthedivide.com/
http://www.thataway.org/
http://www.interplaytheatre.com/TheatreGameoftheWeek.html
http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm
http://depts.washington.edu/sswweb/idea/
http://www.igr.umich.edu/
           

Materials/Resources

1. Film: People like us: social class in America (available at the PSU library, HN57 .P376 2001 VIDEO ).

(http://www.pbs.org/peoplelikeus).

1. Handout A (attached)

1. Handout B (attached)

Adaptability
This lesson has been utilized as part of the required Masters in Social Work course titled “Diversity and Social Justice” (SW 539). The class was offered for the first time at Portland State in the fall of 2006. While the film has been utilized by at least four of the ten instructors for this course, I may be the only instructor who has utilized the lesson in its entirety as specifically detailed here.

I believe that this lesson could be adapted to numerous settings and disciplines. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a context or learning environment where it could not be used. Access to viewing the video is important since the film serves as a touchstone for the practice of dialogue. I do believe that dialogue is more easily facilitated in smaller rather than larger groups, particularly since some people feel more comfortable sharing in small group settings. I do not recommend attempting to facilitate dialogue, particularly if it is your first time, with a group larger than 25 students. For classes of more than 25 students, the lesson could be adapted by having students participate in small groups (4-5 students) first and then engaging larger groups of 12-15 (instead of one large group including all the students in the class). In such a context, the instructor could still engage in an entire-class debrief and closing summary after the small and large groups have occurred.

Author’s Reflections
 My experience with this lesson in particular and my experiences with using the combination of film, lectures, and class dialogue to address issues of privilege and oppression have been powerful, exciting, challenging, disruptive, creative, empowering, and transformative. Because every classroom contains its own particular dynamics and representations of social group memberships, it is difficult to guess with any accuracy how “successful” one will be with this lesson. Because the instructor uses him/herself as a primary teaching tool in this lesson, how adaptable this lesson is to other instructors and settings depends a lot on the instructor and his/her comfort and experiences with navigating conflict, power differences, and his/her own identity in diverse settings.

When we engaged this lesson in my Social Work 539 class last fall, students felt both challenged and encouraged to rethink their previous notions of socio-economic class. Many students had never thought about social class in terms of culture, but rather were focused on class as defined almost uniquely by income and wealth. Using what we eat, how we talk, where we shop, where we live, and the professions we choose as reference points or markers for socio-economic class was a new project for many. Perhaps the most stimulating dialogue we experienced circled around the question, “Can individuals change their socio-economic class?”

Whether the dialogue concerns social class or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation, it is important for instructors to pay attention to who speaks up and who is more silent in the dialogue, noting the silences and voices being expressed (as well as their relationships to cultural identity) as dialogues unfold. It is not uncommon to need to remind folks with privilege to be aware of how much space they take up in the classroom, while simultaneously creating a safe environment to support members of oppressed groups to speak up. Navigating these kinds of tensions and dynamics can prove to be very powerful teachable moments for students, as the instructor has numerous opportunities to interrupt cycles of oppression in the classroom, as well as model what it looks like to be an ally, and work towards transformation and change.

Citations/Bibliography 

Adams, M., Bell, L.A., & Griffen, P. (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook. New York: Routledge.

Alexander, B. K. (2004). Black skin/White masks: The performative sustainability of Whiteness. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(5), 647-672.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. (Caryl Emerson & Micheal Holquist, Trans.) Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. London: Routledge.

Collins, P. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics            of empowerment. London: Harper Collins.

Friere, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.

Harro, B. (2000a). The cycle of socialization. In Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Castaneda, R., Hackman, H. W., Peters, M. L., & Zuniga, X. (Eds.). Readings for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge.

Harro, B. (2000b). The cycle of liberation. In Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Castaneda, R., Hackman, H. W., Peters, M. L., & Zuniga, X. (Eds.). Readings for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge.

hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston: South End Press.
 
People like us : social class in America. Produced and directed by Louis Alvarez and Andrew Kolker. Publication: New York : Center for New American Media ; Hohokus, NJ : CNAM Film Library, c2001.

Van Soest, D. & Garcia, B. (2003) Diversity education for social justice. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Western State Center. Dismantling Racism Resource Book. Available at http://www.westernstatescenter.org/resources/index.html