Silencing, by Michelle Fine’s definition, “signifies a terror of words, a fear of talk” (Fine, 1992, p. 14); in other words, it is enacted by those in power to quiet any voices of dissent, in order to control and maintain the status quo. Upon first reading Fine’s article, I immediately thought of The Invisible Man and Vygotsky’s Theory. Both help forward Fine’s point in proving how detrimental silencing is to the learning process, while simultaneously demonstrating the significance of interweaving students’ community and culture into the classroom to improve provide a superior learning experience for students.

First, let us consider Vygotsky’s Theory (social constructivism); to neatly sum up this multi-faceted theory, a student does his /her best learning while collaborating within a classroom community. Vygotsky’s theory of social constructivism, as incorporated in many classrooms, is antithetical to silencing in that it requires a classroom social culture and interactions of discourse to effectively construct learning (“active learning,” as Fine would say); silencing is clearly ineffective in that it is teacher-centric and does not call for students to utilize their peers as tools to fabricate their own education.

Next, as a future English teacher, I think of one of my favorite books: The Invisible Man. In this novel, the protagonist himself faces many instances of educational silencing (i.e. the scene with Dr. Bledsoe); this novel is perfect for students because not only is it deemed acceptable literary canon, but it also contains countless examples of scenes that could be used to inspire discussion and critical analysis for students, particularly in low income urban contexts, because of their abilities to relate to the Man’s struggles. I know that in my classroom, I would want to incorporate literary works tailored toward the cultures, communities, histories, and adversities of my students in order to provoke productive interest and engagement (while also discouraging silencing).

I consider the low-income urban adolescents whom Fine writes of, all of the risks that they face both at home and individually (Murray & Naranjo, 2008, p.14), and I can genuinely understand how an educator’s act of undermining and alienation via silencing can engender disturbing results of ambivalence or resentment toward education. With so much adversity already obstructing the educational journey toward knowledge, I wonder, “how could any authentic educator legitimately consider silencing?” With the consequences at stake (dropout), silencing should never be an option.