From Teaching to Transgress:"The unwillingness to approach teaching from a standpoint that includes awareness of race, sex, and class is often rooted in the fear that classrooms will be uncontrollable, that emotions and passions will not be contained. To some extent, we all know that whenever we address in the classroom subjects that students are passionate about there is always a possibility of confrontation, forceful expression of ideas, or even conflict. In much of my writing about pedagogy, particularly in classroom settings with great diversity, I have talked about the need to examine critically the way we as teachers conceptualize what the space for learning should be liked. Many professors have conveyed to me their feeling that the classroom should be a "safe" place; that usually translates to mean that the professor lectures to a group of quiet students who respond only when they are called on. The experience of professors who educate for critical consciousness indicates that many students, especially students of color, may not feel at all "safe" in what appears to be a neutral setting. It is the absence of a feeling of safety that often promotes prolonged silence or lack of student engagement." (pp 39, Teaching to Transgress).All through grade school, high school and college (at least while I was an undergrad), I loved the sort of 'safe' classrooms that hooks describes above. I loved lectures, I loved answering questions when called upon, and I would get frustrated when students would interrupt that by asking questions out of turn, or bringing up information I thought tangential to the conversation (and pretty much, anything the teacher thought was tangential, I thought was tangential). I tended to not like group work for various reasons, most of which revolved around the sort of psuedo-safety ideas hooks is talking about.
In college, my major was philosophy, and despite the preponderance of individualistic, opinionated people in that discipline, most classrooms were still 'safe' in the way hooks describes. From time to time, somebody would point out the lack of diversity in the discipline, but generally, arguments of that sort were seen as ignoring the 'universal' knowledge that philosophy often purported to reveal--"Yeah, yeah, yeah, women philosophers aren't talked about much, but that doesn't matter because 'critical thinking' is genderless," was the basic line of thought, which ignores the need to 'think critically' about, say, the fact that Socrates (and/or Plato, depending on your viewpoint) thought that women were not only inferior to men, but also sprung into being as former men who were cowards.
When people brought up such subjects, they were often quickly shut down. Of course, there are volumes to be said about the complexities of teaching and learning--'safety' is just one of many goals, for instance. But I think that hooks is right to point out that 'safety' isn't obviously safe for everybody, and is often masking something more like 'safe-for-some' through the shroud of 'normal'.
And this doesn't only apply to the classroom, of course. In fact, one runs into problems of deciding whether or not to rock the boat, which will be seen by some as violating the safety of others, on almost a daily basis. And it's often a fine line to walk, because one does want to limit the parameters of discussion to some degree--no forum is completely "open", and for good reasons. So it's a constant sort of decision-making process, where one is always having to choose in order to create a space where ideas can flourish (and compete?)--allowing in as many new ideas as possible without letting a few people (or ideas) distract from the overall conversation. Anybody who has taught in a classroom or tried to moderate blog comments knows that these decisions aren't always easy, but that they are pretty much constant.
Still, I like to err on the side of not promoting so much 'safety', a good deal of the time, both in classrooms I might find myself in and in conversations with people in general, while in a place like this blog, I find myself policing what I see as not apropos views (anti-feminist talking points, racism, and the like) more than I would in other public forums, partly because of the lack of social pressure to be kind to others, and respectful, on The Interweb. Luckily, there is not just one idea space which can be safe or unsafe--there are lots of communities where various opinions can be explored.
9 comments:
I'm many years from my undergraduate study, and I have more of an engineering background. But I think I'm more well-read than most in politics and history.
I think universities have made "safety" a fetish. I'm not talking about physical safety or issues of intimidation. I'm talking about the safety of (what looks to me like) a closed circle of MLA and post-modern leftist ideologues with respect to their settled conclusions about things. They rush to invoke hate speech codes when they get challenged, and at the same time they indoctronate incoming freshmen with simplistic drivel like this:
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8552.html
I did take lots of social science classes in my early college years. I always hated it when the professor tried to make it open and interactive, soliciting viewpoints from the students. I always saw it as a sign of lack of substance in the material, a lack of belief that they have any objective material to teach.
While I agree that gender biases are an important issue when considering social science and humanities teaching, I think it gets ludicrous when they try and play that game with math, physics and engineering, talking about "masculine/binary" logic.
Yes, I know this is a bit of a rant. But as a dad I'm funding some of this now, so it's a hot button issue for me. :)
I disagree with you, STF, about what you call 'simplistic drivel', but I don't have the time or inclination to do so here.
I will say that I think (as my post was meant to imply) that it's always a fine line one walks, when teaching and when learning, between allowing somebody to say their piece (which may be very important and somewhat overlooked) and allowing somebody to rant (heh). Solicitation of viewpoints is often useful, but (I think we might agree on this generally, if not on specific cases) always useful.
It is kind of funny, because at least the "simplistic drivel" I pointed to is presented with the authority I'd expect in a university. A belief that they house some knowledge that is expected to be understood and mastered. "You'll be tested on this." I don't like what I consider the drivel, but I have some respect for the attitude.
What I have a problem with is that the safety of the student or teacher in the classroom is a fine-line issue. That just indicates to me that this is about feelings, not study and learning. That there isn't an independent body of scholarship, history and knowledge to be learned and mastered.
To me, if I am teaching a subject, my safety is the demonstrable truth of what I've learned. It isn't about me - it's about the validity of what I am teaching. If I don't feel safe in that I shouldn't be teaching it. If my students feel unsafe, they can either work through it by paying their dues, or move on to a subject that's right for them.
I don't think this is a science vs. humanities perspective. If I'm teaching 19th century American history I don't expect to listen to my students much. Now if there are some Native Americans in my class I might feel a bit unsafe - but that would be primarily because there are holes in my knowledge. They might feel unsafe - but as a teacher I'd judge the significance of that against whether I've fully covered the material.
Similarly, I don't know if there are safety issues in music classes, art history classes. I can't even conceive of a safety issue in Math and Science. Your example was Philosophy, and I'll have to think more about it.
I teach english to freshmen college students. bell hooks rocks my socks. "Teaching to Transgress" is one of the best books on teaching I've ever read, save perhaps "Walking on Water," by Derrick jensen.
Anyway, I try to utilize difference of opinion/world view/ experience/ identity in my class as often as I can. I think it's a great thing to use and it makes each class different. Sure, while teaching grammar, there are right and wrong answers, but that is a very small part of what writing is all about.
I teach critical reading and thinking skills and especially when composing argument papers, it's crucial that students understand where other people are coming from in order to anticipate counter arguments...etc.
Further than any of this though, I think the most important question anyone can ask is, "What is it like to be you?"
Well, "Science" has the whole "conflicts with religious dogma" thing going... The content of math courses tends to be pretty safe, though.
You know what's a REALLY scary class, though? Economics 101. As a tool of indoctrination, all the world's religious and philosophical texts have nothing on your average Econ 101 textbook. ;)
In music classes, the safety issue with regard to gender is usually a problem of presenting a matter of taste as if it were an absolute fact. For example, I have had music teachers insist that male castrati are naturally superior to female treble voices (this was in 1995), that female composers cannot write serious music or cannot write music that is as difficult or advanced as that of male composers (in 1994), or that women were not allowed to sing in churches until the 20th century (provably false with half a minute of research; in 1999).
From a racial perspective, I have had teachers present opinions as fact, for example that there is no Asian classical music; that all Spanish- or Latin-American music is folk music; and that there is no such thing as African-American composers, only improvisation in jazz and unwritten tradition in Negro spirituals.
From a class perspective, popular music of any kind is pretty universally regarded as inferior. Progressive teachers and schools are including some classes in spirituals and jazz, but these are often electives. I have not yet seen a basic music history book cover spirituals or jazz as important to American music or influential to twentieth century composers. Marie Stolba's book comes closest.
Classical music, because of the subjective nature of music and because of the "snob appeal" of high art, attracts some of the most racist and sexist personalities of any discipline. I try to change things at the grassroots level by covering a little remedial music history with all of my piano students.
Kyle: Clearly English is one of those subjects where my "Mussolini on the balcony" approach to education would be a horror show for everybody.
Doug: I felt very safe in Eco 101 - it was one of those subjects I took to very readily - I guess it reinforced my basic libertarian attitude.
bach-us. I take your points, I guess just because someone is a teacher doesn't mean they have the complete picture. They should be challenged just like everyone else. I just have a reaction to seeing this as a safety issue.
I was mostly joking about Econ 101 being scary. It is the kind of class that can really change a world view, though. (My Econ 101 professor can best be described as an "charismatic bastard," like many characters Jack Nicholson plays in movies.)
Sweating Through Fog: There are ways English can be taught effectively via Lecture style, but I agree that it tends to be more effective in a round table open discussion with the teacher lightly guiding it by occassionally chiming in or asking further questions or offering some historical context to something that the students may be unaware of that helps them understand what is happening in a particular book.
The problem with lecture style is that most English Professors are boring as hell and tend to speak the way they write, which doesn't make for a very dynamic and interesting lecture.
I'd also point out that I get the impression Kyle teaches Comp and Rhet (i.e. Writing). So he may not be teaching any actual Literature courses or Literature in his courses. Though, he might be teaching a Lit class as well. Depends on the department.
(This is not in any way a disparagement of that discipline/sub-discipline by the way).
Theory classes which are a strange hybrid of philosophy, sociology, and literature tend to require a little more hands-on lecturing.
The irony Sweating through Fog is that English is one of those disciplines that needs to get back to that core set of knowledge more than a lot of other fields at least from my experience and perceptions of the field.
Post a Comment