Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education, v. 5. Dordrecht; New York: Springer, 2013. xxii, 182 pp. (Figures, maps.) US$129.00, paper. ISBN 978-94-007-9573-0.
Kupferman’s book is an impassioned and theoretically rigorous deconstruction of schooling in Micronesia, specifically as a colonial vestige of the former American administration introduced in the 1960s. As a primarily philosophical investigation, it is an incisive analysis of the normalization of an American-derived educational model that has been imposed upon and is usually adopted and embraced unquestioningly by different Micronesian island nations, including the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. Kupferman challenges the construct of the “school” at an ontological level and argues that regional efforts to localize foreign-inspired curricula to be more culturally appropriate, what he calls “cultural window-dressing” (7), are an inadequate measure to realize ontologically grounded indigenous pedagogies. In this regard, his approach aligns well with the views expressed by Isebong Maura Asang in Epistemological Articulations: Blebaol, Klomengelungel, ma Tekoi er a Belau(unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, 2004), who advocates a distinctly Palauan epistemology in direct opposition to Western discourse. Taking recourse to Foucauldian and postcolonial theories, Kupferman opens up a much-needed discursive space to interrogate the simultaneous construction of the student, teacher, and family within a colonially-based paradigm of schooling.
In an effort to position himself and his “locus of enunciation” (14), that is, the place from where he speaks, Kupferman wishes to transcend the static parametres of the Islander/non-Islander dichotomy. Such “insider-outsider” binaries (19) are considered restrictive since they do not encompass interstitial positions, such as the one he occupies of being a privileged, American-born, white male, married to a Kosraean, with children of mixed descent. Neither do such definitions allow for temporal dynamism and shifting positions. The complexity of establishing positionality is therefore the central focus of his first chapter.
The second chapter lays out his analytic apparatus, namely, poststructuralism, postcolonial discourse, and a Foucauldian conceptualization of power and knowledge production. These theoretical approaches inform his critique of agencies such as Pacific Resources for Education and Learning (PREL) that discursively normalize a particular “regime of truth” with regard to “at-risk” students (37), and legitimize the application of American policies such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to the Micronesian context. Such initiatives further consolidate the power of the school as an instrument of governmentality. In the following chapter, Kupferman situates the practice of schooling as a product of Micronesian colonial history, specifically that of the American administration.
Through sharp semiotic analyses of various kinds of textual materials—public banners, historical records, personal accounts, websites, cartoons, and a statue, among others—Kupferman foregrounds the subtle and overt indices of a persisting colonial influence in the normalized construction of the student and teacher. The fourth chapter spotlights the Palauan figure of Lee Boo as the “originary student” (75) who set the precedent for a foreign-educated Micronesian scholar as early as 1783. A statue in his honour that stands on the premises of Palau Community College in full public view in the commercial centre indexes its significance as a construct of an ideal type of student in search of Western Enlightenment, implicitly conveyed in the plaque inscription. Kupferman presents an intriguing postcolonial interpretation of this monument, which resonates with Homi Bhabha’s idea of colonial mimicry in his article, “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse”(Discipleship: A Special Issue on Psychoanalysis, vol. 28 [2004]: 125–133). Stark white and dressed in Western attire, the figure of Lee Boo normalizes an essentialized image of a white, privileged male scholar who has “an air of cosmopolitanism” and is worthy of emulation. This “global citizen” promotes a particular racialized and gendered subjectivity. In effect, it “leaves us with an imputation of the Palauan native as somehow provincial and unsophisticated” (77).
While Lee Boo’s statue is the embodiment of the model student, American volunteers from WorldTeach and the Peace Corps are described as typecasting the teacher in the following chapter. Kupferman presents a scathing review of former WorldTeach volunteer Peter Rudiak-Gould’s personal account of his year spent on a Micronesian island, underlining his patronizing attitude towards Islanders and the reification of “otherness between cultures” (103). He is equally critical of the paternalistic benevolence that characterizes the image of the Peace Corps volunteer teacher and argues that such stereotypes represent the white teacher as “both knowledge expert and agent of western schooling” (111). This results in the erasure of the local Islander as teacher who is regarded as a deviant from the standard American construction. Thus, the Micronesian teacher is rendered “incapable of ‘real’ teaching” and must compensate for his/her inadequacies by earning certifications and qualifications (124). Moreover, the involvement of Peace Corps volunteers is sanctioned by a development discourse that relegates Micronesian entities to a considerably lower rung on the developmental ladder. With regard to curriculum development in different regional colleges, Kupferman problematizes the primacy of English and the “disciplining of knowledges” (118), yet acknowledges his own complicity in the production of such curricula.
In addition to the student-teacher binary, the schooling system also presupposes a nuclear model of the family as evident in events such as parent-teacher conferences. Indeed, the main goal of initiatives such as the Parental Information and Resource Center (PIRC) is the construction of parenthood. In the sixth chapter, Kupferman underscores the delegitimization of the Island parent by agencies such as the PIRC that intend to educate parents on how to play their role appropriately in the schooling process. In closing, Kupferman calls for a counter-discourse to destabilize such colonial constructions embedded in the schooling system. He emphatically states that the school precludes the realization of other avenues of self-determination.
Kupferman’s book is a trenchant and thought-provoking critique of schooling in Micronesia that strongly contests its widely accepted role as the primary axis of development. It invites continued dialogue about the purpose and effects of schooling in the region. It would be a stimulating read for educators, anthropologists of education, postcolonial theorists, and scholars of Micronesia and the Pacific at large.
Rachana Agarwal
Independent scholar, Cambridge, USA
pp. 502-504