Robert Bulman’s (2005) Hollywood Goes to High School
What is Bulman’s problem with the “autonomous utilitarian individual” as a mark of success in films? Why is it a problem to him? Do you think this is a problem?
What do you think about Bulman’s response to the concept of inner city poor minority students having a “choice” in their schooling?
What do you think filmmakers are trying to portray through their depictions of urban high schools: a sense of whiteness (like Giroux talks about) or a standard of middle class values (like Bulman promotes in his book)?
Let’s start by answering the first question and then we can move into the next two as the conversation goes along.
What Bulman seems to pose in his argument is a contradiction of individualism - that is, instead of students gaining independence from their cowboy-vigilante teachers, they in fact need them to survive, to be reformed and be saved. A rather symbiotic relationship akin to a parent and child - or what some scholars have dubbed as rational/irrational, oppressor/oppressed, the former doing the controlling and the latter being controlled - an old notion that seems to keep surfacing in these films. Would you agree? [It would be interesting to see what others think about this, perhaps even tied to the second question on "choice."]
Bulman’s theme of the “autonomous utilitarian individualism” mirrors the problematic idea of American meritocracy: that an individual can achieve “success” merely by working hard, and in due time, can move up the social, economic, or political ladder. Bulman, and I myself agree, finds this myth of the “American dream” misleading and problematic not only because it attributes individual responsibility and hard work as the only factor in determining one’ success or failure in society (clearly a gross oversimplification), but also ignores the powerful role of one’s existing societal, economic, and political context and the institutions that reinforce barriers to equitable access and opportunity (i.e. poverty, lack of affordable housing, struggling families, and neighborhood violence). Though I also acknowledge and recognize the importance of personal responsibility, this type of mentality is often translated into blaming the individual for his/her inability to succeed financially, academically, socially, etc. Because this type of “individualism” is the dominant theme of urban high school films, these films send inaccurate messages to the public about the realities of race and social class issues and how to address them. Historically and even so today, this idea of “utilitarian individualism” becomes a continued justification for (worsening) institutional inequalities, political and economic negligence, and more conservative policies.
As expressed last week in our discussion of Dangerous Minds, the idea of the “autonomous utilitarian individual” is problematic in that it ignores the institutional problems that underserved youth face. The blame for failure is placed on the individual, not on the school system, the neighborhood or job opportunities. The students are unable to achieve social mobility because they are not motivated and lazy. All they need to do is try hard and they can move up in the world. Their success or failure is all up to them, and the “choice” they make. As stated by Bulman, this is just a Hollywood fantasy that ignores the reality of the world.
The real problem of this perspective is not so much on the youth that it depicts, but on the audience that it is targeted towards. Bulman explicitly points out how the urban school genre is aimed towards the suburban middle class, going after their fears and stereotypes of urban youth. The films reinforce those perceptions and create a certain disdain for urban youth. The emphasis on the individual removes any sympathy that the audience may have for the youth who are unable to “reform.” A tangible and physical target is presented that is easy for the audience focus and judge on. Films, as forms of entertainment, immediately appeal to our jerk reactions, which is much easier to do with a person versus an institution or system. I mean, if I wasn’t watching Blackboard Jungle or Dangerous Minds critically, my gut reaction is to have anger toward the students, the teachers or the parents, not at the school system.
The biggest problem, however, is when the suburban middle class sees the urban youth as hopeless. This group has the privilege and power to be able to work towards changing the system. With the class and race discrimination, the urban youth do not have the same opportunities as the audience to change their situation. Some are able to raise themselves out of their situation, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. True change has to come from the higher systemic level, which the suburban middle class has greater access to. However, if the focus is on the individual’s character and not on the broken system that they live in, it becomes difficult.
I think that when we are considering what Bulman’s response would be to the concept of inner city poor minority students having a “choice” in their schooling it is essential that we look at what Noguera called “social capital.” I agree with Michael that in these films the focus is placed on the children and the teacher rather than the school district itself and the lack of resources available to the teacher and children. It is true that many of these children have the choice to attend the schools they are attending however, due to the lack of social capital of the students and their parents, carrying out the actual logistics of switching schools is extremely complex. Many students in these schools are the first of their family to attend school and therefore are not aware of the opportunities that they could take advantage of to change schools or advocate for more resources. Noguera makes a very important point that “the public institutions, in this case schools reflect and respond to the characteristics- cultural, demographic, and socioeconomic- of the constituencies they serve. To a large degree, differences in quality can be explained by sheer political clout, or by what social scientists refer to as social capital.” These films do not show the consequences of some schools having “political clout” and others not having it. Rather, as Bulman points out, it puts all of the pressure on the children to work hard to better their circumstances when in many cases they do not have the power to change their position. Their success is dependent of the resources the school is able to provide them with and in many cases these resources are little to none.
I think that it is good that Jessie brought up the idea of school resources that are available for the students to use and how they are sometimes not taken into account as people push individuals toward success.
How do you feel about the portrayal of the school’s resources and the student’s ability to use it in “Blackboard Jungle?” Do you feel that the school in the film was able to serve the needs of the type of students that went there? Was this acknowledged enough over other facets of the school such as teachers?
A question that needs to be asked is why do filmmakers perpetually make this type of movies with this problematic “American dream” myth intrinsically weaved into the fabric of every movie? Bulman addresses this when he looks at the political intentions of this movie. Not only does the avoidance of all the social and economical issues that affect a students education help perpetuate the myth of the American dream, but it keeps people believing that additional funding for education is not necessary. As long as we continue to see visual proof that personal will, a caring teacher, and whole chickens from fancy restaurants are all a student in public education needs to succeed, the government is freed from the responsibility of providing extra resources to these institutions.
I also agree with the way Bulman problematizes the concept of the “autonomous utilitarian individual” that is devoid of appropriate socio-historical context. By telling those who are suffering to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, those in positions of privilege can wipe their hands clean of personal responsibility. For the (white) students who seem to be doing well at the more prestigious schools in Blackboard Jungle, making the students responsible for their education also gives the privileged students all the credit, as if they were not benefitted by their backgrounds. A particularly telling example can be seen in Blackboard Jungle when Dadier tells Miller that being black is not a good excuse,“in these days.” From a 21st century perspective, a white man telling a black student in 1955 that his race has nothing to do with his lack of faith in a government institution seems utterly ridiculous. However, Dangerous Minds shows that this type of thinking has not changed: underserved students choose not to succeed.
The goals of the film are clear from the very first moments in which the filmmakers spell out that they will depict the state of the American youth in opposition to how the American (middle class?) children should act. However, the filmmakers do not just criticize the poor like West. They also depict the well-off student as a delinquent, although he ultimately decides to “do good” in the movie.
Bulman’s problem with the concept of the autonomous utilitarian individual is that it is reductionist. It fails to acknowledge societal issues as barriers to educational achievement and instead insists upon a culture of poverty: that the poor have the wrong attitudes about school and work. This is very evident in the films we have seen thus far where on-screen teachers emphasize that students can pull themselves out of their messy/dangerous lives through hard work and dedication.
This is definitely a comment on middle class values and the Protestant work ethic that America was supposedly built on. In these films, if impoverished students can learn to reject their culture and life experiences and trade these in for a middle class lifestyle and middle class aspirations, then they can be successful. Bulman also accurately notes that we, as a society, do not have the tools or the vocabulary to assess or discuss class/socioeconomic status as a barrier to achievement and this is why the discussion is often framed solely in terms of race.
His writing is a general comment on center and periphery. These films are largely designed to prevent the middle class from having to take responsibility for the conditions in urban schools. The problem is cast as individual rather than societal with the poor, urban, minority youth (periphery) disowning their dysfunctional attitudes and assimilating into the white, middle class (center). In the films, the middle class is merely there to model perfection and serve as a desired goal- they are not asked to share school funds, donate their time to tutor/mentor, or be concerned with the urban youth in any way, shape or form.
Reading Bulman’s opinion on utilitarian individualism I have to say that I agreed with his ideas. I mean, it seems that in all the movies (the ones we have seen and other “high school” Hollywood movies), it’s all a matter of self-will. In fact, at some points, the student is at blame for their lack of interest in academics, not their lack of resources, the pressures of their family, the need to get a job because of the poverty levels. It’s all a “choice” for them, like in Dangerous Minds. But, in reality, sometimes it’s not a choice. As much as people want to believe that with hard work, determination, and a little push, one can get out of the “hood” there are sometimes outside circumstances that inhibit our success. In most of the urban school movies, success is achieved by gaining an interest in education, not like Bulman points out “expressive individualism.” In Blackboard Jungle, the teachers are apathetic to the circumstances of their studens, and although the movie seems to go beyond race (problem kids are white, hispanic and black), it focuses on the class of the students. A lot of these kids have to work jobs (like Miller), have to deal with the war, etc. and it seems that the teachers can’t go beyond the classroom and deal with the reality of these situations.
In terms of utilitarian individualism, I would have to say that it is not a matter of self-will. I feel that in terms of getting out of the detrimental environment that surrounds the students depicted in the movies, it is not solely based on the hard-work that is put into school, or into their studies. A lot of the time, people feel like if they push a little harder, or work a little harder, they will be able to succeed and become successful individuals, when that is most of the time not the case. sometimes it is the external circumstances that are not mentioned, or seen through the movies, that would lead to a better understanding of the person/movie/individual as a whole.
I think it would be interesting to see a movie that showed teachers who don’t come in and change the world (i.e. a teacher who doesn’t make a difference and doesn’t put in much work because they can’t handle the environment). I’m interested in how a movie like that would be received by the general public and by people in education. Personally, I’ve had numerous teachers who didn’t care whether or not the students learned. for this reason I’d love to see a movie from the perspective of the students. Occasionally, this does happen (think Clueless), but when it does, the students come from privilege.
I would like to see such a film because I thought about how much different Blackboard Jungle could be from Miller’s perspective, or Sister Act 2 from the perspective of just about any of the students. When you are put in those classes with all of the other students that no one cares about, you are lucky to get a new teacher who is will to put in the extra effort. But how often does the “savior” or even Bulman’s “autonomous utilitarian individual” actually come along?
As Jessie points out, Noguera mentions that the schools respond to the characteristics of the constituencies that they serve, but that statement means something different in each school and under each new set of circumstances. Students who watch these movies and see the real stories would only dream of having Michelle Phifer come in and take them to a fancy restaurant where they can wear their “real leather” jacket. There’s an interesting comparison to be made between actual urban school politics and the politics of creating a movie depicting urban schools.
Yes, that would be interesting to see. I wonder, how valuable would that type of movie be to Hollywood? Who would or could write such a script? And who would be willing to produce it? It seems that there are movies like Clueless and Ferris Bueller’s (just off the top of my head) with such points of view, but what do they entail and what kinds of messages do they project? How do they complicate Bulman’s arguments? And, what would you categorize them as (i.e., utilitarian, expressive, both, or something else)?
I’m not sure how films like Clueless and Ferris Bueller complicate Bulman’s argument. Aren’t they just telling examples of Bulman’s idea of middle class/suburban high school film and upper class/elite film?
I think one really great film that takes a critical look at the teacher/hero archetype of the urban education genre is Half Nelson (2006). Ryan Gosling portrays a young white teacher at a under privileged middle school. He has moderate sucess inspiring his students, but he has an addiction to crack. I find the movie interesting because it challenges some of the assumptions of the educated white middle class when approaching problems of urban education. However, like Blackboard Jungle and Dangerous Mind, it is still mainly addressed to the white middle class, albeit a more self-critical one. Regardless, I think it’s a film worthy of our attention.
I think movies will always have trouble being true to reality because of the nature of the business and producing what sells, which in the case of urban school politics is most likely not the hard truth. But as far as scripting reality, I would think that a professional who had come from that background or someone who took the time to work with the youth they would be representing would be necessary to minimize bias or stereotypes. I think this type of movie might function best as a documentary, which could maximize student input and participation. The example of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off further supports Bulman’s argument I think, because this is a suburban school with middle-class families, and the entire movie supports expressive individualism through Ferris’ adventures. Working hard at school in order to succeed is not a theme of the movie, instead it’s like Bulman said that his class and family background are his safety net and the movie can focus instead on his exploration of identity and self-expression. But this discussion did remind me of another movie, Half Nelson, that is about an inner-city teacher who has a drug problem. From what I can remember, he uses unconventional teaching methods to engage his students, but the movie is really about his dependence on drugs and a budding relationship with one student in particular. While there’s not exactly a resolution at the end, the student ultimately comes to his aid and because of this side of him they actually have more in common than any “cowboy vigilante” teacher could ever achieve. It would be interesting to re-watch this movie because I can’t remember specifics about the depiction of urban school politics, but at the very least the brokenness of the teacher himself puts him at more-even playing field with those of his students, and the movie does capitalize on a student helping him. At least this reorients the audience to be aware of the potential and power of urban youth, beyond a mere emphasis on utilitarian individualism and their need to change.
hahaha, i swear i hadn’t seen Dan’s comment before writing mine
With respect to Jay B.’s comments, I think that movies that depict a stereotypical urban school setting from a student’s point of view (one also in which there is no “savior” teacher as Jay describes) would have great impacts if they are written and/or produced by someone who experienced this as a student. And it could be a public awareness message or even more dramatically, a public outcry that lets the audience know inner-city kids cannot always be saved so easily. It isn’t guaranteed that they will have a caring teacher who sweeps into their classroom and is willing to use unconventional methods to help the students learn the importance of an education. Furthermore, the students don’t have the resources to enjoy academic materials and tools which the stereotypical non-urban public schools have.
If these movies’ plots take the route of portraying this kind of school setting and having one particular student ignore the chaos around him and manage to pass his classes, graduate, and obtain a decent job, then the movie can be characterized as utilitarian individualistic. If the movie’s plot takes the route of the students and their families fighting for better academic resources, less racial/class discrimination in their schools, more effective educators, etc., then the movie can be characterized as expressive individualistic because the students learn their rights to individual self-expression.
Such movies might not be well-received immediately by the general middle and upper class, but they have the potential to attract the attention of individuals who would be stimulated to take action to improve the obstacles in these students’ path of success. Maybe they’ll even start a new sub-class of the high school film genre.
Clearly, the “American Dream” meritocracy paradigm that places the atomized individual as the primary agent of responsibility is intensely problematic. Bulman does a good job at drawing out the ideas and using the films as a kind of representative example of that which is culturally problematic in our society at large. The distinction between utilitarian and expressive individualism is also extremely useful in examining the ways in which a kind of Maslow hierarchy manifests itself in deciding which narratives are more useful to address with which demographics.
For all of Bulman’s strengths, however, I believe that I personally err more on the side of a race-based argument rather than a class-based one. For that reason, I’m actually fairly forgiving of Blackboard Jungle compared to Dangerous Minds. While Bulman is right to lump the two movies together in terms of basic plot and moral, I think that the nuanced differences between the two is worth noting, but only visible if viewed within the racial politics lens. Particularly, while I agree with Bulman’s explanation of the post-Brown v Board “boostraps” rhetoric in the scene between the teacher and Portier, I do think it is worth noting that the teacher has a moment of racial vulnerability. Dadier nearly calls Portier “Why you black—- …I’m sorry.” The deep-seated prejudice just seething beneath the surface of Dadier, despite his liberal intentions, I think portrays a more realistic portrait of the white-liberal-dogooding teacher, and exposes the audience to some of the potential racial problematics of the job. Of course, fundamentally, the film operates in a Aristotelian fashion, purging the society of its errant elements in a cathartic sense, reaffirming a middle-class ethos, but in the context of the 1950’s, this was a fairly progressive movie in regards to race. I think Bulman skimmed over these positive points due to a certain amount of class essentialism, which has unfortunately been the byproduct of logcentric Marxian critical analysis over the last century.
I think that in some ways, the stakes are higher in racial representation than in class representation in the mainstream media. There is a fair amount of exposure of whites from all socioeconomic backgrounds in the media; as a result, if we don’t look at the person’s clothes, the audience can understand that a white person is a human being. A person of color (who is visibly so) does not have this luxury; a black face is immediately criminalizing in a way that a white face is not. I don’t disagree that the utilitarian individualist narrative is a way of cathartically reinforcing middle class values, but there is always a racial subtext whenever the American Dream ethic is invoked in this way. The mainstream views Blacks and Latinos as demographic groups who, due to whatever culture of poverty, do not “take initiative” to “solve their own problems.” Class and race intertwine here. And I do not think that there was enough emphasis on race in this argument, aside from a mention of Claude Steele’s stereotype threat.
But I don’t know… Maybe I’m just splitting hairs.
I think the Hollywood production of a film from the prospective of an underprivileged minority student would be fascinating. However, I doubt Hollywood would be willing to make this kind of public statement. Portraying the lives of underprivileged teens is not glamorous, it is not funny, and it certainly will not make the audience feel warm and fuzzy inside. In fact, this kind of film would do the exact opposite. This film would force the American public to acknowledge the truth. As American’s we adhere to the American dream, you can achieve anything with a little hard work. However, a film of this nature would say, no, sometime people are placed in situations and environments that severely limit their potential to achieve. No one goes to a night at the movies; to feel bad about themselves, or to feel guilty about they way they live. The vast majority of moviegoers want to laugh and be entertained by a story. They do not want to be saddened by the truth of our societal flaws. A movie of this nature would have to be a documentary or a film not geared towards a small and specific portion of the public.
According to Bulman, the dominant theme in Hollywood urban school films is “utilitarian individualism,” a theme that celebrates hard work, materialism, and individual self-sufficiency as the most appropriate way to successfully achieve an “American Dream” kind of lifestyle. In Hollywood films about urban schools, there is usually the impoverished students and the middle-class “teacher-heroes” that want their students to become utilitarian individuals. What Bulman finds wrong with this theme is that these teacher-heroes or characters that want these impoverished students to work hard to achieve success are often overlooking the greater socioeconomic problems facing these youths. These teachers, not coming from their students’ neighborhoods, do not understand the poverty, crime, and violence surrounding these teens. In Dangerous Minds, Johnson says “there are no victims in this classroom” and in Blackboard Jungle, Dadier mentions that most teachers are in the classrooms mainly concerned with keeping their jobs and not with the well-being of their students. This goes in accordance with what Noguera referred to as “burned-out and ineffective teachers, who care more about protecting their jobs than helping students” as one of the main failings of urban public school education.
Like Jay B, I would also like to see how a movie would play out if the teachers didn’t change the world and gave up easily after being tormented by misbehaving urban public school students. This definitely would be really interesting to see.
I agree with Takeo about how “Blackboard Jungle” seemed to convey a different type of savior teacher than “Dangerous Minds.” Within “Dangerous Minds” the teacher never expressed any negative racial sentiments towards her students. Instead, they were the ones being racist towards her. In “Dangerous Minds” she was the victim of racial injustice, not the students. Audiences knew that the students were suffering from poverty, lack of guidance, and ever evident street violence. However, within the moments of their lives that we see, they are the ones who turn the white woman into the victim. It is her that the audience sympathizes towards.
In “Blackboard Jungle,” the audience still feels for the teacher, especially since his wife is pregnant and has already experienced one miscarriage to date. However, you also see the intensity of the old-school teaching methods that the other instructors tend to favor when it comes to discipline. The principle comes off as a tough enforcer, however all of his staff talk negatively about his discipline techniques behind his back. Viewers see that he is a more progressive man than some of the others when he confronts Dadier about his controversial race speech. We also get a glimpse of what must be going on outside the school walls if this hard character is so adamant about the equal treatment of his students, saying that they experience enough injustice in the real world.
I also found it interesting that while Dadier experiences the leadership abilities of both Miller and West and choses to reach out to Miller. I felt that the way in which he singled out Miller as the boy with the most potential almost provoked West into his actions and blatant law breaking even in the direct presence of his teacher. I almost felt as though Miller became the token black student even though he was the one chosen to lead the classroom, since there weren’t any other African American students in the classroom, only in the “choir.”
As other people have responded, the problem with the “autonomous utilitarian individual” as a mark of success in films is the perpetuation of a unrealistic means of gaining success. Placing the responsibility on the individual without considering the historical and social contexts of their environment spreads the idea the the individual is to blame for their own failure. The portrayal of characters in urban schools as only finding success by their own means and also, their dependence on middle class teachers. feeds the average viewer these ideas as the main reason for the individual not succeeding. If such widespread media continues perpetuating these ideas it will continue to be a challenge to change perceptions of the “crisis” of urban education.
I agree with Bulman that the problem with “autonomous utilitarian individualism” is that it completely disregards the societal conditions and obstacles that prevent troubled urban students from attaining academic success. Issues as proximal as school funding and curricula and as distal as work and transportation are the apparent causes of failure in urban schools today (just as it was fifty years ago), not just a loss of motivation by students. In fact, much of this apathy towards education can be attributed to a pervasive loss of hope brought on by a lack of adequate resources that are imperative to students’ learning and in climbing up the social ladder. In addressing Stany’s questions earlier about Blackboard Jungle, conditions as fundamental as a quiet learning environment is being denied from these students due to the loud vibrations from the shop class down the hall. This, in combination with the principal’s attitude described by Bulman as “offended by the suggestion that there are discipline problems in his school,” illustrates how easily urban school systems give up on its students. Hollywood often implements the “culture of poverty” thesis in their films, demonstrating a lack of will by students in suburban school; in turn, suburban middle-class viewers are falsely inclined fear rather than help students from the inner-city.
I found Bulman’s comparison of urban and suburban schools to be very interesting. He states that urban schools have a theme of “utilitarian individualism” which promotes independence and self-sufficiency; teachers in these schools encourage that students to make an effort to escape their current situation and to take accountability for their actions. Bullman then uses an example from the movie Dangerous Minds to further illustrate this notion by showing how Mrs Johnson inspires her students to use better judgement and interests the class with poetry. Contrastingly, the suburban schools have the theme of “expressive individualism” which places greater value on an individual’s identity and expression. Students in these schools are expected to express their passions without the influence and pressures of their peers; accepting people for their intrinsic qualities is crucial. I found these themes in the suburban and urban schools to be interesting and noticed the “utilitarian individualism” theme in the movie.