Ontological Violence in Pedagogical Encounters - Inherent or Avoidable?

During our Curriculum, Pedagogy and Learning in Early Childhood II class this week we discussed a reading by Sharon Todd (2001) titled Bringing more than I contain: Curriculum and the Pedagogical Demand for Altered Egos. She discusses the notion of ontological violence, wherein teacher pedagogies and the curriculum ask students to alter their egos in order to fit into a certain mold that society expects of us. Due to this, the student-teacher relationship is something that needs to be approached delicately. In this blog post I will be discussing my image of the educator and how Todd’s idea of ontological violence during pedagogical encounters challenges my image of the educator.

Although I have thought about my image of the child in previous Early Childhood classes, I’ve never given much thought to my image of the educator. I’ve thought about what kind of educator I would like to be though, which is kind, caring, helpful, supportive, fun, cheerful, respectful, flexible, inclusive, accepting, inquisitive, concerned, dedicated, determined, and constantly learning from both my students and my peers every single day. I believe that teachers have a duty to provide their students with as many opportunities to learn and as much support as possible in order to help them become successful. I want all of my students to have a fair chance at success and I follow the idea that equal means the same, and not all students are equal. Being fair means that I will do everything I possibly can to give each student the best chance at success. This means that I will always be fair, but it might not always feel equal. After some reflection, my belief of what kind of educator I should be aligns with my personal image of the educator as well.

Sharon Todd’s article discusses how pedagogical encounters are inherently violent acts and discusses this using the term ontological violence. This means that pedagogies and curriculums tend to only offer one version of the “truth” about knowledge, life and society to all students (Todd, 2001). This does not take into account just how unique each student is and how their unique lives and viewpoints could alter or challenge what they are taught in the curriculum. Each student interprets everything that they learn in a different manner, meaning that when we teach all of our students from one curriculum and use only one pedagogy, we are forcing them to change themselves to fit one universal truth, which is seen as a form of ontological violence (Todd, 2001). An example of ontological violence that many educators unknowingly practice is when we force students to sit cross-legged on the carpet every day, even though for some students this could be an uncomfortable way to sit. This form of sitting, which is a part of many of our pedagogies as teachers, demonstrates how we practice ontological violence by teaching students a method of sitting that may not be inherent to them. They have to consciously adjust their bodies and force themselves to sit that way in order to conform to this norm practiced in the classroom every day.

            After reading about the concept of ontological violence and comparing it to my image of the educator, I have concluded that the idea of ontological violence does not support my image of the educator. The idea that ontological violence stems from teaching using one curriculum and one pedagogy is understandable, but I believe that as educators we do not need to fully conform to one pedagogy and one curriculum. I think my image of the educator being flexible is key to avoiding large-scale ontological violence. I acknowledge that ontological violence is inherent in the classroom with routines, schedules and classroom management methods, but I believe that educators should teach using different pedagogies that align with many of the differences that our students experience such as language, culture, socio-economic status and personal interests. I believe that this method is more accepting, inclusive and respectful to all of the differences students have. I also believe that educators should follow the guidelines of the curriculum, but also expand upon it by using student voices, ideas and interests to guide the teaching, learning and understanding that happens in the classroom. As all students think and learn differently, I believe all teachers should question and teach differently by taking all student voices into account. Once a teacher creates a solid, trusting, respectful relationship with her students and learns more about them, she should take aspects of the children’s lives and integrate that into her teaching methods and curriculum material. I believe that these methods of teaching and approaching the curriculum will quell a lot of the ontological violence that happens in many classrooms every day.

            Although Todd (2001) makes some interesting and valid points about ontological violence being intertwined with pedagogies, the curriculum, and the overall management of the classroom, I believe that as an educator we can choose to either accept this ontological violence or acknowledge it. We can acknowledge it by consciously making an effort to integrate parts of our student’s personal knowledge and experiences into our pedagogies and curriculum. Each child is so unique and has so much to offer and contribute to our education. I believe we should take advantage of these unique personal experiences and blend them into our learning. This will provide students with an engaging, exciting learning environment that students can connect with and take pride in, knowing they contributed to creating a lively, unique classroom community that is considerate and flexible to each and every student in the class and the different life experiences that they have.

I hope you enjoyed learning about my viewpoint on ontological violence and my image of the educator, and I can't wait to tell you more about what I'm learning in our Early Childhood Education classroom!

Nicole Letto

References

Todd, S. (2001). Bringing more than I contain: Ethics, curriculum and the pedagogical demand for altered egos. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(4), 431-450.