STANLEY FISH'S ADVICE TO PROFESSORS: Save the World on Your Own Time.
More on that here. "Whether anyone notices it or not or comments on it or not, the teaching of writing in universities is a disaster. [There is] the conviction on the part of many composition teachers that what they are really teaching is some form of social justice, and that the teaching of writing ... takes a back seat. And in fact in many classrooms the teaching of writing as a craft as something that has rules with appropriate decorums ... is in fact demonized as an indication of the hegemony of the powers that be. This happens over and over again in classrooms and it’s an absolute disaster."
Can I just say thank you?? I have been skeptical of professors' agendas since I was an undergrad, but since I was an undergrad when Clinton was pres. and at a university where no one really cared anymore, I was spared the more overtly political preaching. There was no Ph.D. program, either, so I didn't have activist grad student types (sorry, guys, you know they're out there) telling me what to think. And I've been the fly on the wall for too many "reprogram the Conservative Christian Students" conversations to dismiss the activism as myth. And I'm not just talking about the current generation of Ph.D.s in the department, most of whom I don't know. This stuff has been bantered about since I got here, and got worse when the fear of 9/11 wore off and after Bush won reelection. Perhaps the only thing that would come of a democratic victory would be that we could go back to teaching literature and composition and back off of the politics. (I don't believe this for one minute, btw.) Now, I do think that there can be a political dimension to literary criticism, but it's being hit a little hard, ya know?Now Stanley Fish has in the past drawn a skeptical response from me, as he seems, elsewhere, to advocate the "anything goes" method of teaching literature, and I have never seen the use for that. It seems to me that we must have the text as a common ground, and even if we can't refer back to the author, we should at least be able to refer back to the text and assume that multiple readers, while each bringing something else to the table, can still agree on the essential elements of that text. The text, for me, does not exist somewhere "out there"--discourse surrounding the text and about the text exists "out there," but that's different; rather, it exists in the book in front of us. However, Fish posited (a while ago, this is old news) that it is the reader's engagement with the text, including what the reader brings from his/her own background, that creates a separate thing, the "text" that is the result of a collaboration between the reader and the author. I don't buy it. And I'm not alone, but it was all the rage for a while--before my time. I think the idea was to liberate something from something--the text from critics, the author from biography, the students from professors.
So as a guy who wants to liberate, and transfers this to the classroom, the advice seems odd, no? Except that he remains the champion of the student, in a way. Why do we have to steamroll their opinions and values--all that they bring to the table? Why should we automatically assume that we are the enlightened ones in all matters--including individual values/beliefs? When we alter their ways of thinking, must we alter their consciences? At any rate, Fish has tapped into exactly why I don't want to go into Rhetoric/Comp, although I'm technically qualified and have been groomed for it, more or less. I don't want to hang around these guys and be subjected to the enlightened assumption that everyone does or should agree with their views of the world. And--by the way--teach from their textbooks. If the meaning of a literary text depends on the reader, and if the professor should keep that in mind, then how much more should we stay out of their responses to politics, since that's not what we're called upon to teach?
[Of course, I am coming at this from a very different perspective from Mr. Fish, who scorns neoconservative blah blah blah, etc. and really thinks this king of thing only happens a small percentage of the time. But if that's so, why can't I find a decent composition text?]
5 comments:
"Save the world on your own time." I love it!
Trying to find a decent composition textbook was always such a pain. I usually adopted something that we used very infrequently and supplemented with lots of other materials. I never felt like I finally put together a syllabus I loved, I did so much tweaking every semester and it still was an uphill battle.
The one nice thing about being an adjunct at a state school was that I did manage to dodge much of the politicking. Not that it wasn't there; but most of us adjuncts were odd ducks. I made a few friends who didn't fit the mold.
I never felt like I finally put together a syllabus I loved, I did so much tweaking every semester and it still was an uphill battle.
That's me, too. I make so much work for myself. The funny thing? I'm going to be revising the Composition curriculum for next year--under close supervision, of course. I'm teaching comp in the fall. I plan to follow the "standard syllabus" to the letter--even WITH the honor students. I just don't think I can wrestle with it with everything else I've got to do!!
You know if there had been a standard syllabus to follow, it would probably have been a relief. We had very few guidelines. Too much freedom can be a very bad thing.
I don't want to hang around these guys and be subjected to the enlightened assumption that everyone does or should agree with their views of the world.
Aren't all professors generalized this way? Not just the ones in rhetoric/comp. I've had history professors who have taught this way as well as political science professors who do the same...both, by the way, with opposing agendas. Even some literature professors claim to be experts in certain interpretations/readings and try to put those readings on their students. And, don't even get me started on the politics of selecting the works for a literature course. How can that not be political or at least...pedantic? The ethos of the professor is that their views are somehow "enlightened" because they have so much "education." They don't call them ivory towers for nothing.
I do agree with you, though, that there should be less emphasis on conversion and more emphasis on critical thinking. Let the students decide for themselves...or at least argue it out with their peers. But, again, all those years of studying can't help but fool some professors or grad students or whoever into believing that it's his/her way or the highway. The problem is when those professors, grad students, etc. hold the floor and the power over the students. Too many instructors see themselves as professors who profess the truth instead of leaders who lead students to whatever it is they need leading to.
-LilyBug
You know, though, I'm talking about casual in-the-hallway comments that imply political consensus--everyone must think this about this politician, and everyone must be voting for this guy. And, actually, no one really takes religion seriously (except the three eccentrics, but we forgive them because they have tenure). I resent the assumption that I view the world the way they do. It's not just about the students--I know how the students feel. Of course, I got started questioning feminist assumptions as an undergrad! ;) (An angry, man-hating undergrad, but that's another story...)
There is certainly a lot that's political in the selection of texts & presentation of material, but at least you can offer some justification for it, and as long as you're still teaching literature (or linguistics, or rhetoric, or whatever), at least there's THAT. And students can choose to drop the course or not take the ones that are distasteful to them. Now, some politically charged courses are packaged as something else--like the "Marxism vs. Fascism -or- Why Marxism is Better and Fascist-leaning Writers are Evil" course that I took that was packaged as "English and French Modernism Between the Wars." I felt kind of hoodwinked. By the way, Yeats flirted with fascism, but T. S. Eliot was NOT a fascist. Just for the record. But even teaching a course with your own political slant, as long as that slant is couched in terms of your specialty field, is, technically, acceptable. I may not like it; I may still call it indoctrination, but I can recognize it, and there are ways to fight it. Sneaking in "Bush is Stupid" quips, on the other hand, or "warmongering Republican" references during classtime or in the hallway (or on my office door, dammit!) is unacceptable and un-called-for. That's not ivory tower. That's just prejudice and elitism--the bad kind of elitism! ;) The "If you're intelligent and educated, then you must think/vote like me, and if you don't think like me, you can't really be intelligent or educated." Even the Republicans don't tend to allow for any CONSERVATIVE academics (in any sense of the word), so both sides are guilty of assuming that all academics think alike... It's frustrating, especially as I don't think either party really represents me. You hear that a lot these days...
Post a Comment