I didn't do anything to announce my personal views. I try to avoid the kinds of discussions that reveal how at odds I am with the presumed politics of my discipline--the kind that my students expect from English profs and (especially) grad students. But they know--perhaps because of my avoidance. I can talk the talk, I assure you. I took ALL of those graduate classes & played along. Truthfully, I used to be better at the playing along than I am now. I find myself giving lip service to the theories, while my attitude is subtly dismissive. I can't teach Herland anymore because there's too much that I find disturbing. I can't say, theoretically, "Well, under what circumstances MIGHT it be good for the babies to be raised by someone other than their mothers?" without betraying that I can't really entertain this as a valid possibility except in the most extreme of cases, which is not what Charlotte Perkins Gilman had in mind.
So the other day, one student told me about a news story in which a child was suspended from school for playing cowboys & Indians, or cops & robbers, or some equally politically incorrect game and making a handgun motion with his hand. I incredulously asked where this occurred, and she replied that it was in Texas. Then she asked, "You would have felt better if I had said California, wouldn't you?" Yes, yes I would. How did she know? Not that I think Texas wins any kind of prize for just discipline of children, or leads the nation in healthy attitudes toward violence, but I would have been comforted to know that the incident was further removed from where I am now. Of course, a harsh backlash is usually the strategy to correct something that's seen as an extreme problem, and some administrator probably meant to nip "Texas gun culture" in the bud. But that's not the point. How did she have me pegged??
I gave admirable lip service to the notion that the canon should be deconstructed. I mean, I put in some good words for the traditional canon. But for the most part, I think I gave a pretty convincing account of why the canon (or the notion of a canon) should be questioned, and I talked about representing a multiplicity of voices to more accurately represent who was, indeed, writing. I don't think they believed me. Truthfully, I like models that acknowledge the influence of certain writers on others, though this is admittedly uneven representation. I do not believe in including mediocre works just to add diversity, or because they represent marginal opinions. I am all for diversity when it is appropriate, and I do see value in exploring cross-cultural perspectives, but not simply for the sake of doing so. There are times when we are all talking about the same things, albeit from different perspectives, and it's good to compare, as long as you acknowledge a basis for comparison--typically, Western Culture, since that's the tradition our discipline grows out of. I don't see why ANYONE should have to read Gloria Anzaldua. Or Kate Chopin, for that matter.
I brought in very inclusive picture books! But only the best examples. Okay, some of the environmentalist titles were bad. Really bad. But I've published in ecocriticism and children's lit, so I'm entitled.
Today, we were talking about fairy tales. I encouraged them to retell a story with emphasis on some "-ism." I guess this was inviting mockery. So one group took a proto-feminist tale with some ambiguities and complexities and suggested removing the complexities to make it a more blatantly feminist text. The female character was more self-sufficient, did the accounting for her father, opened her own business after being rejected in marriage. When she admired her beloved, she noted that he had a nice butt. Nice. So I blurted out, "You're objectifying him!" Well, one of my group members, English major, the same one who made the California crack (above), BURST out laughing--and was joined by the rest of the class. Including myself.
I can't help thinking that I'm actively working against what others in my department--er, discipline--are trying to accomplish. Not sure what that is or how I'm undermining it, but you know. . .
Earlier in the class, I argued with a student that to use "proletariat" to mean "peasantry" or "lower class" or "working class" was inappropriate because it invoked a specific theoretical perspective or methodology. You can't talk like Marx without invoking Marx in my class, especially when discussing "Beauty and the Beast" (the 18th Century version). Umm, yeah. So he argued that he just thought that Marx was pretty accurately representing history (see Literacy-chic's head explode), at which point I corrected him and said that Marx was using the term to describe his perception of history, but when you say "proletariat" it is not a neutral term, and does not merely invoke Marx but all who come after Marx.
They have so totally got me pegged. I don't know how I'll ever find an academic job in my field.
5 comments:
You should be proud - they've obviously mastered reading *your* sub-texts, anyway. ;-)
You know, I rather feel like my attitude is liberating for them. I doubt if they have ever had the opportunity to laugh at feminism in an English class before! It's a fun class, really. :)
Pardon me for being completely honest in saying there is nothing--nothing--subtle about your worldview/attitude. And, unless you've actually taken the time to observe *widely* the happenings of other classes taught by your peers, you really can't presume to know, in fact, what other instructors teach or how they conduct their classrooms. To do so in the way you've just done simply comes off as condescending, inappropriate, and unnecessary, whether intentional or not.
Nothing subtle on my blog!! But let me also say that you are correct--I don't know what actually happens in the classroom. Except when my colleagues post, as I have done also, about what happens in their classrooms and what kind of assignments they give for outside credit with the intention of exposing their students to diverse lifestyles. But I have heard conversations about teaching. Many, many conversations about teaching. And I do know what assumptions are made about *all* intelligent, educated people and what their attitudes are towards this or that political issue, and I don't imagine for one minute that those things do not enter into the classroom, either in a deliberate, planned way or a casual way.
Also, I am (at least in part) talking about the assumptions of students. Many students expect to have feminism either drummed into them or have it assumed in some way. English classes are assumed to have a politically liberal slant to them, and having taken the number of classes I have, I know firsthand that to go against the grain of Marxism or Feminism in a grad course is not something that is undertaken lightly. I have been asked, well, wouldn't it be nice to achieve the kind of society advocated by Marxism? Marxism is assumed to be a good way of looking at the world. No, sorry, you're right; I'm not going to let that one go. Feminism is a little more difficult for me. I can represent it accurately, and agree with some of its tenets, and appreciate its gains, but I can no adopt it wholeheartedly as a worldview, as I've discussed.
But really, Academama, you've kind of proven my final point, no? I believe that there is a kind of "crisis of identity" in many liberal arts disciplines because we have so strongly challenged the notion that there are any human "universals" that transcend the specific cultural or historical moment. I resist the kind of "what's the point" conclusions that lead so many in the humanities to search for political relevance as an impetus for their personal research and even teaching. I can say it in a cocky way (when I choose), or in a theoretical way, but either way, I'm at odds with the politics of the discipline at large--I see it in conference topics & CFPs. I see it in textbook selections. But however I draw my characterizations, I never walk into a conversation assuming that every intelligent person agrees with my politics, worldview, whatever. In fact, I assume the opposite, since I've been on the receiving end of the "all intelligent people believe [something I don't believe]."
But for all of that, beyond getting upset by my reference to "the presumed politics of my discipline--the kind that my students expect from English profs and (especially) grad students," I'm not sure where else I was condescending. Maybe by my reference to "what others in my department--er, discipline--are trying to accomplish"? There is a kind of "save the world" and "bring enlightenment to the masses" discourse in teaching English sometimes. I'm not trying to save the world, though I do encourage students to consider others' perspectives on their own terms, but that's not quite enough, is it?
That is, I do encourage students to consider others' perspectives for what those perspectives represent (as separate from the reader's experiences, biases, etc.). That didn't come out right.
Post a Comment