My favorite article that we read for class today is the one by Bell and Golombisky about Voices & Silences. I particularly identified with the section on Good Girls. I really liked that the authors acknowledged that they understand where Good Girls are coming from because they used to be them. I'm sure it will surprise no one who reads this to know that I fall pretty neatly into the category of Good Girl. Thankfully, I have had eye-opening experiences that have helped me become aware of both the performance and its consequences. Something that I'm invested in now is mentoring other Good Girls as they start to make the difficult transition to being Smart Women. As I write that, I want to acknowledge that I still fall into the Good Girl mentality at times, even now that I'm more self aware. I believe that this is something I'll need to keep working at throughout my entire life, because the pressure to be the Good Girl at all times is so insidious and pervasive.
The anecdote that the authors recounted about not giving the student an answer of "okay" when she offered a superficial answer really hit home for me. Even after the two women had a conversation and got on the same page, "both women were bruised" (Bell and Golombsky, 2004, pg. 300). One of the characteristics of a Good Girl that comes naturally to me is the urge to protect others. I genuinely never want to cause harm to anyone else. However, this makes things difficult for me when it's a matter of short-term good/protection and long-term ignorance/harm, or vice-versa, as in the anecdote shared. By providing helpful feedback, the teacher was helping/protecting the student in the long run. However, in the short term, the exchange caused both participants a lot of hurt. I think it takes a lot of courage for someone who has been socialized as a Good Girl to be willing to cause short-term discomfort in order to help in the long-term.
As I reflect on the anecdote, my instinct is to try to think of alternate ways that the feedback could have been conveyed. My heart goes out to the student who was put on the spot and corrected in front of the entire class, especially within the context of this piece. What if that student often employed silences as a Good Girl and was pushing herself to participate in class in the example given? Being put in such an uncomfortable situation could have the effect of silencing her further. Certainly if I were put in a similar situation early in my undergraduate education, that would have been my response. I would have deliberately refrained from participating in class to protect myself from repeating such a demoralizing experience.
My point is, pushing the Good Girls too hard or in the wrong ways seems to me to have the potential to cause harm just as much as enabling the Good Girl behaviors. As I reflected in my previous post, forcing people to change before they're ready is a form of violence. I instinctively want to find a gentler, kinder way to help these Good Girls without causing harm to them. However, I also wonder if that's my own conditioning as a Good Girl raising its head, as I want to simultaneously protect these Good Girls and also help them learn and grow. But then I think about the literature we've read over the course of the semester about being an authentic teacher. To me, that instinct to protect and nurture is part of my authentic self, whether or not it came from my conditioning as a Good Girl. Palmer would say that I'm doing harm both to myself and to my students but not being authentic.
As I mull over these concepts, I find that I agree with Bell and Golombisky's conclusion to this section-- the best thing to do is to "make the dilemma explicit... thus re-skilling Good Girls to make informed choices" (Bell et. al., 2004, pg. 304). And as I offer feedback throughout the process of making the dilemma explicit, I will do my best to do so in a manner that is honest, straightforward, and also authentic to me.
Showing posts with label #expandingnewhorizons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #expandingnewhorizons. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
You can't force people to change
I did a presentation in my Performance History class last night about a scholar named Sarah Amira De la Garza. De la Garza is an ethnographer. She's very interested in embracing alternate methodologies and ontologies that challenge the hegemony that's rampant in academia currently (I know, it's a mouthful. Think hooks and Freire-- she's on board with their perspectives). As part of the assignment, I had the opportunity to speak to De la Garza on the phone and ask her about her work. One of the things that she said that really stood out to me was that forcing people to change before they're ready is a form of violence.
It's really easy for me to look at people around me who are not only content with, put actively participate in, perpetuating the current power imbalances in the world and want to persuade them to change their minds. Tying back into hooks and Freire, it's a form of violence to oppress people, and as such I want to convince people to do what they can to stop contributing to the oppression of others. However, De la Garza's point was a really good check for me. If I am trying to force others to adopt my beliefs, however right I believe that they are, I am oppressing and inflicting violence myself. Also, as a side note, it most likely won't even work, as it's impossible to force someone else to change. No human being has that power.
De la Garza's quote has led me to reflect back on many of the discussions that we've had in this class throughout the semester. And yes, this includes Fish. I think this is a scenario where his caution about not teaching from a soap box is very relevant. But I also believe, along with Freire, that continuing to maintain the status quo is unacceptable as it perpetuates a form of violence. So what's the solution? I believe that it all comes down to dialogue, just as we've discussed in class. The key is to expose students to new ideas and ways of thinking without trying to influence them to adopt them. It's essential that I do not try to prevent them from speaking, even if what they're saying is, in my opinion, inappropriate. Instead, I can use that as a teaching moment and have a discussion about some of these larger issues.
Thankfully, this is still pretty theoretical for me. I'm not aware of any instances where I've tried to force people to my way of thinking (this is something I actively try to avoid, whether as a teacher or in other areas of my life). Though I suppose that doesn't mean that I haven't done it unwittingly. However, I think that it's important for me to actively do all I can to help and teach people while consciously trying to avoid oppressing them in any way. My reflexivity is key as I try to make my actions match up with my beliefs-- especially as I interact with others.
I feel like I keep coming back to this theme, but I suppose that's because it resonates with me so deeply. My job is to teach students how to think critically for themselves, and then trust them to use what they've learned in ways that they choose. I suspect that this will be the main point of my teaching philosophy paper, as all the theories and tools that we discuss in class are ultimately, for me, ways to make this happen more effectively.
It's really easy for me to look at people around me who are not only content with, put actively participate in, perpetuating the current power imbalances in the world and want to persuade them to change their minds. Tying back into hooks and Freire, it's a form of violence to oppress people, and as such I want to convince people to do what they can to stop contributing to the oppression of others. However, De la Garza's point was a really good check for me. If I am trying to force others to adopt my beliefs, however right I believe that they are, I am oppressing and inflicting violence myself. Also, as a side note, it most likely won't even work, as it's impossible to force someone else to change. No human being has that power.
De la Garza's quote has led me to reflect back on many of the discussions that we've had in this class throughout the semester. And yes, this includes Fish. I think this is a scenario where his caution about not teaching from a soap box is very relevant. But I also believe, along with Freire, that continuing to maintain the status quo is unacceptable as it perpetuates a form of violence. So what's the solution? I believe that it all comes down to dialogue, just as we've discussed in class. The key is to expose students to new ideas and ways of thinking without trying to influence them to adopt them. It's essential that I do not try to prevent them from speaking, even if what they're saying is, in my opinion, inappropriate. Instead, I can use that as a teaching moment and have a discussion about some of these larger issues.
Thankfully, this is still pretty theoretical for me. I'm not aware of any instances where I've tried to force people to my way of thinking (this is something I actively try to avoid, whether as a teacher or in other areas of my life). Though I suppose that doesn't mean that I haven't done it unwittingly. However, I think that it's important for me to actively do all I can to help and teach people while consciously trying to avoid oppressing them in any way. My reflexivity is key as I try to make my actions match up with my beliefs-- especially as I interact with others.
I feel like I keep coming back to this theme, but I suppose that's because it resonates with me so deeply. My job is to teach students how to think critically for themselves, and then trust them to use what they've learned in ways that they choose. I suspect that this will be the main point of my teaching philosophy paper, as all the theories and tools that we discuss in class are ultimately, for me, ways to make this happen more effectively.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Let's talk about Palmer
Let's talk about Palmer. Palmer's book, The Courage to Teach, was another book that we've read this semester that I really identify with. The blue in me loves Palmer's attention to the importance of emotions and the overall well being of a teacher. I've got to admit that I also love how straightforward Palmer is. I don't have to do mental gymnastics to try to figure out what Palmer is trying to teach me. Instead, I can focus on the simple pearls of wisdom that he shares.
One of these pearls that Palmer offers is the idea of connectedness as one of the qualities that is important for teachers to have. He writes, "[teachers] are able to weave a complex web of connectedness among themselves, their subjects, and their students so that students can learn to weave a world for themselves" (Palmer, 1998, pg. 11). I really identify with this quote because this is my goal for my students as well. The hashtag I've chosen to focus on for my blog posts, #expandingnewhorizons, is all about students learning how to think more deeply about the world around them and their place in it. To me, a vital part of this process is helping students to see the connections between what they're learning in class, experiences they've had in their personal lives, and larger social events/issues. Hopefully, if I've done my job well over the course of the semester, this will enable students to make those connections for themselves.
I actually think that my class's discussion of rhetoric earlier this month is a good example of how they're learning to do this. We talked about rhetoric and what it was, and then we spent the majority of one class period looking up examples that the students provided of different rhetorical artifacts and then analyzing them together as a class. My students selected a variety of texts, most of which I had never seen before, from a TV segment about cat-callers to a commercial about school shootings. As we talked together about what message each artifact was conveying and how it was being conveyed, I could see them understanding how rhetoric applied to these larger-world examples. Additionally, the fact that my students were selecting the artifacts themselves allowed for the connection to their personal lives.
I feel the need to add a disclaimer saying that not all of my classes go so well. But this class was able to make connections between rhetoric, their personal experiences, and larger social issues. For me, my goal is to try to frame my other classes in such a way that my students can have similar experiences with other topics. In my opinion, Palmer is spot on. As my students learn to make connections for themselves, they are able to think in deeper ways about subjects that they may have taken for granted up to this point. And once they've learned that skill, they will be prepared to expand their horizons on their own after they've finished their formal education.
One of these pearls that Palmer offers is the idea of connectedness as one of the qualities that is important for teachers to have. He writes, "[teachers] are able to weave a complex web of connectedness among themselves, their subjects, and their students so that students can learn to weave a world for themselves" (Palmer, 1998, pg. 11). I really identify with this quote because this is my goal for my students as well. The hashtag I've chosen to focus on for my blog posts, #expandingnewhorizons, is all about students learning how to think more deeply about the world around them and their place in it. To me, a vital part of this process is helping students to see the connections between what they're learning in class, experiences they've had in their personal lives, and larger social events/issues. Hopefully, if I've done my job well over the course of the semester, this will enable students to make those connections for themselves.
I actually think that my class's discussion of rhetoric earlier this month is a good example of how they're learning to do this. We talked about rhetoric and what it was, and then we spent the majority of one class period looking up examples that the students provided of different rhetorical artifacts and then analyzing them together as a class. My students selected a variety of texts, most of which I had never seen before, from a TV segment about cat-callers to a commercial about school shootings. As we talked together about what message each artifact was conveying and how it was being conveyed, I could see them understanding how rhetoric applied to these larger-world examples. Additionally, the fact that my students were selecting the artifacts themselves allowed for the connection to their personal lives.
I feel the need to add a disclaimer saying that not all of my classes go so well. But this class was able to make connections between rhetoric, their personal experiences, and larger social issues. For me, my goal is to try to frame my other classes in such a way that my students can have similar experiences with other topics. In my opinion, Palmer is spot on. As my students learn to make connections for themselves, they are able to think in deeper ways about subjects that they may have taken for granted up to this point. And once they've learned that skill, they will be prepared to expand their horizons on their own after they've finished their formal education.
Another look at Freire
Hi friends! It's been a while since you've heard from me... sorry about that! Luckily for you (and me) you now get to read several of my blog posts in a row. Haha.
In this blog post I actually want to talk about Freire. I know, I know, we covered him a while ago in class. But I honestly think that his book is my favorite thing we've read in class this semester. Also, I love his work so much that I decided to use Freire as my external source for our final paper that's coming up. It turns out that he's written several books in addition to Pedagogy of the Oppressed, including one called A Pedagogy for Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming Education. As a side note, his other works that I found have similar titles: Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage and Pedagogy of the Heart. I actually really admire that about Freire-- his dedication to fully exploring pedagogy as a practice of freedom for the oppressed is inspiring to me. I think it would have been easy for him to write a book listing his ideas, then call it good and move on to a new topic. I love how he is willing to keep returning to the same topic to mine for new insights-- it really shows me how much this topic matters to him.
All right, on to the work. In A Pedagogy for Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming Education, Freire included a chapter called "Do first-world students need liberating?" I was intrigued by this chapter heading, and I thought that it was really relevant to my interests, especially my investment in helping students to expand their horizons and learn to think critically in ways that they hadn't before. Freire begins by talking about what he calls the "culture of silence," which he says is similar to yet also different from the silence we're familiar with from Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Essentially, there are two dimensions to the culture of silence in first-world countries: passiveness and aggression. Passiveness ties in really closely to what we've discussed throughout our class, especially the banking model of education. Essentially, students have learned to sit and wait to receive knowledge. As they wait, they can be dutiful, disengaged, or even angry. Aggression is more interesting. Freire describes, "in school, many students rebel against their structured descent into cheap labor, the low-wage, high-tech future waiting for them after the depressant effects of public education...many alienated students choose an aggressive response (Freire and Shor, 1987, pg. 125). Essentially, what these two instances of the culture of silence reveal that the answer to the chapter's question is yes. First-world students are still faced with symbolic violence in education, and thus they too have a need to be liberated.
This chapter is interesting because Freire points out the limits of trying to use formal education as a "lever" to transform society (Freire et. al., 1987, pg. 129). Believing that formal education is the only way to transform society, as a matter of fact, can lead to despair and cynicism. Therefore, it's important to be involved in social causes outside of education in addition to the work done within the classroom. Freire specifically cautions, however, that this does not mean that we should judge those who choose to be involved merely in the classroom.
All right, so what did I learn from this chapter to help in my own classroom? I actually think it's really reassuring to acknowledge that education is not the only way to transform society. I think being able to acknowledge that education is part of a larger societal whole can help combat burnout and disillusionment with higher education. I sometimes get overwhelmed thinking about all of the injustices in the world and trying to figure out what I can do to make a positive difference. I love the reminder that education is important and vital in the process of creating change, but that it is only one part of that larger whole. As I prepare to teach the unit on language, culture, and power next week, this is a point that I want to make sure my students understand as well. I think keeping the bigger picture in mind can help me and my students to view our efforts as what they are: part of a larger effort by many people to improve social conditions in the world around us.
In this blog post I actually want to talk about Freire. I know, I know, we covered him a while ago in class. But I honestly think that his book is my favorite thing we've read in class this semester. Also, I love his work so much that I decided to use Freire as my external source for our final paper that's coming up. It turns out that he's written several books in addition to Pedagogy of the Oppressed, including one called A Pedagogy for Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming Education. As a side note, his other works that I found have similar titles: Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage and Pedagogy of the Heart. I actually really admire that about Freire-- his dedication to fully exploring pedagogy as a practice of freedom for the oppressed is inspiring to me. I think it would have been easy for him to write a book listing his ideas, then call it good and move on to a new topic. I love how he is willing to keep returning to the same topic to mine for new insights-- it really shows me how much this topic matters to him.
All right, on to the work. In A Pedagogy for Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming Education, Freire included a chapter called "Do first-world students need liberating?" I was intrigued by this chapter heading, and I thought that it was really relevant to my interests, especially my investment in helping students to expand their horizons and learn to think critically in ways that they hadn't before. Freire begins by talking about what he calls the "culture of silence," which he says is similar to yet also different from the silence we're familiar with from Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Essentially, there are two dimensions to the culture of silence in first-world countries: passiveness and aggression. Passiveness ties in really closely to what we've discussed throughout our class, especially the banking model of education. Essentially, students have learned to sit and wait to receive knowledge. As they wait, they can be dutiful, disengaged, or even angry. Aggression is more interesting. Freire describes, "in school, many students rebel against their structured descent into cheap labor, the low-wage, high-tech future waiting for them after the depressant effects of public education...many alienated students choose an aggressive response (Freire and Shor, 1987, pg. 125). Essentially, what these two instances of the culture of silence reveal that the answer to the chapter's question is yes. First-world students are still faced with symbolic violence in education, and thus they too have a need to be liberated.
This chapter is interesting because Freire points out the limits of trying to use formal education as a "lever" to transform society (Freire et. al., 1987, pg. 129). Believing that formal education is the only way to transform society, as a matter of fact, can lead to despair and cynicism. Therefore, it's important to be involved in social causes outside of education in addition to the work done within the classroom. Freire specifically cautions, however, that this does not mean that we should judge those who choose to be involved merely in the classroom.
All right, so what did I learn from this chapter to help in my own classroom? I actually think it's really reassuring to acknowledge that education is not the only way to transform society. I think being able to acknowledge that education is part of a larger societal whole can help combat burnout and disillusionment with higher education. I sometimes get overwhelmed thinking about all of the injustices in the world and trying to figure out what I can do to make a positive difference. I love the reminder that education is important and vital in the process of creating change, but that it is only one part of that larger whole. As I prepare to teach the unit on language, culture, and power next week, this is a point that I want to make sure my students understand as well. I think keeping the bigger picture in mind can help me and my students to view our efforts as what they are: part of a larger effort by many people to improve social conditions in the world around us.
Monday, October 14, 2019
Expanding New Horizons
I chose the hashtag “expandingnewhorizons” for this class because I’m really interested in how teachers can help broaden the intellectual horizons of their students. I’m particularly interested in how teachers can help students who have grown up in racist homes come to a fuller understanding of topics such as racism and hegemony. I know many people, including several of my students and people in my personal life, who simply haven’t had the life experiences to help them understand that racism is still a relevant problem. I believe that teaching Communication Studies gives me an opportunity to reach those people and help them see past their narrow lived experiences. Given that context, Fish was a very interesting read for me.
Fish’s primary argument, which he repeats many times throughout his book, is that teachers should do their job: no more, no less. According to Fish, then, I should not even try to expand the intellectual horizons of students, as doing so is overstepping. My job is to “academize” the subject by removing all value judgments from the conversation and focusing only on the rhetoric-- how each side is making its point (Fish, 2008, pg. 27). If I bring topics of conversation up such as racism, sexism, etc. I am stepping outside the boundaries of my job, and should be brought back in line. From what I can tell, Fish would have me teach Communication Studies simply by focusing on how students can become better communicators-- that is, the steps which they should learn and be able to follow in order to “master” communication. We could analyze various arguments that others have made to see how effectively they are communicating their point. Any larger discussions about moral or ethical implications of communication, however, should be strictly avoided. I would be able to show my students different examples of communication in which racism is a topic. I should not, however, try in any way to persuade my students that racism is an immoral thing which should be avoided (though Fisher doesn’t care if that is my personal belief.) I could examine the rhetoric of conversations about race and the historical conversation about race, but asking my students to make their own value judgments regarding racism (or any other controversial topic) should be avoided. Any discussion of those topics without academizing them is doing someone else’s job. I should stick purely to academia and let politicians, religious leaders, lawyers, parents, etc. do their jobs-- which involve educating about moral or political dilemmas. Fish later explicitly cautions, “Remember always what a university is for--the transmission of knowledge and the conferring of analytical skills-- and resist the temptation to inflate the importance of what goes on in its precincts” (Fish, 2008, pg. 79).
Fish truly believes that teachers who discuss anything beyond their subject are in dereliction of their duty. I can sort of see where he’s coming from here. Certainly teachers shouldn’t teach other things at the expense of teaching what they’ve been hired to teach. They also shouldn’t use their course as a way to proselytize their own beliefs, whatever they may be. I believe, however, that it is possible to help students develop their critical thinking abilities for themselves without crossing the border into trying to dictate what they believe. In fact, if students are taught to dissect things but not how to apply the results in their lives, I think that the teacher has failed. It reminds me of story problems-- it’s one thing for students to memorize the times tables, but it’s another thing entirely for them to be able to apply the principle to real world situations. The public school curriculum in math is created to help students be able to use math in their day to day lives. I believe that each subject is capable of facilitating that extension in students’ lives. Communication Studies, however, has a unique opportunity to help people understand the world around them in a more complex and nuanced way. And, in contrast to Fish, I do believe that students should learn core principles in school-- from respect to how to not be racist.
So how do teachers walk the line between teaching students to think critically without imposing their own beliefs on their students? I believe that the most important thing here is representation. As I am from a white, middle class background, I need to be intentional about inviting other voices into the conversation. This can be done in several ways, from inviting my students to share their experiences to using scholarly sources and media centering people with a wide range of positionalities. Another thing I can do to help students gain a fuller picture of situations is to examine multiple dimensions of any issue. And, of course, it is important to remember that my job as a teacher isn’t to convert people’s ways of thinking into ones that I approve of. Instead, I hope to teach them to think and reason for themselves so they can apply what they learn not only from my class, but from any class they take, even if their application looks different than mine does.
Fish’s primary argument, which he repeats many times throughout his book, is that teachers should do their job: no more, no less. According to Fish, then, I should not even try to expand the intellectual horizons of students, as doing so is overstepping. My job is to “academize” the subject by removing all value judgments from the conversation and focusing only on the rhetoric-- how each side is making its point (Fish, 2008, pg. 27). If I bring topics of conversation up such as racism, sexism, etc. I am stepping outside the boundaries of my job, and should be brought back in line. From what I can tell, Fish would have me teach Communication Studies simply by focusing on how students can become better communicators-- that is, the steps which they should learn and be able to follow in order to “master” communication. We could analyze various arguments that others have made to see how effectively they are communicating their point. Any larger discussions about moral or ethical implications of communication, however, should be strictly avoided. I would be able to show my students different examples of communication in which racism is a topic. I should not, however, try in any way to persuade my students that racism is an immoral thing which should be avoided (though Fisher doesn’t care if that is my personal belief.) I could examine the rhetoric of conversations about race and the historical conversation about race, but asking my students to make their own value judgments regarding racism (or any other controversial topic) should be avoided. Any discussion of those topics without academizing them is doing someone else’s job. I should stick purely to academia and let politicians, religious leaders, lawyers, parents, etc. do their jobs-- which involve educating about moral or political dilemmas. Fish later explicitly cautions, “Remember always what a university is for--the transmission of knowledge and the conferring of analytical skills-- and resist the temptation to inflate the importance of what goes on in its precincts” (Fish, 2008, pg. 79).
Fish truly believes that teachers who discuss anything beyond their subject are in dereliction of their duty. I can sort of see where he’s coming from here. Certainly teachers shouldn’t teach other things at the expense of teaching what they’ve been hired to teach. They also shouldn’t use their course as a way to proselytize their own beliefs, whatever they may be. I believe, however, that it is possible to help students develop their critical thinking abilities for themselves without crossing the border into trying to dictate what they believe. In fact, if students are taught to dissect things but not how to apply the results in their lives, I think that the teacher has failed. It reminds me of story problems-- it’s one thing for students to memorize the times tables, but it’s another thing entirely for them to be able to apply the principle to real world situations. The public school curriculum in math is created to help students be able to use math in their day to day lives. I believe that each subject is capable of facilitating that extension in students’ lives. Communication Studies, however, has a unique opportunity to help people understand the world around them in a more complex and nuanced way. And, in contrast to Fish, I do believe that students should learn core principles in school-- from respect to how to not be racist.
So how do teachers walk the line between teaching students to think critically without imposing their own beliefs on their students? I believe that the most important thing here is representation. As I am from a white, middle class background, I need to be intentional about inviting other voices into the conversation. This can be done in several ways, from inviting my students to share their experiences to using scholarly sources and media centering people with a wide range of positionalities. Another thing I can do to help students gain a fuller picture of situations is to examine multiple dimensions of any issue. And, of course, it is important to remember that my job as a teacher isn’t to convert people’s ways of thinking into ones that I approve of. Instead, I hope to teach them to think and reason for themselves so they can apply what they learn not only from my class, but from any class they take, even if their application looks different than mine does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)