The "Other" White Meat

It's the evening that our last blog post is due and I have the privilege of writing about Whiteness as it applies to pedagogy. I must say it's about as delicious the Thanksgiving feast I took part in just the other day and I cannot think of a better way of ending the semester's blog than by reinforci...I mean critiquing Whiteness and its presence in the classroom.

Cooks and Simpson (2007) edited a collection of essays that discuss Whiteness in the classroom, emphasizing personal narratives about individual classroom experiences. Like my fellow TAs, I relate with many of the situations written about in the book due my roles as both a communication scholar and instructor.

One of the hardest lessons (I stress the plural due to the complexities of the subject matter) we, as instructors, have to navigate is the notion of Whiteness. In a predominately white setting, developing a sense of awareness in my students poses a very challenging task.

Cooks and Simpson (2007) address specific points that make discussing Whiteness and privilege a nightmare in our classrooms. One of them involves creating a safe space in which students do not feel attacked or cornered when the discussion happens. This is probably the most important thing we, as instructors, must do in order to start a dialogue. Otherwise, we might as well discuss white privilege and hegemony to the wall. At least then we might reach a student listening in from another class.

The second point I wanted to address is the issue of authority and authenticity regarding racism, Whiteness, and privilege. This particular conundrum deals with the challenges white instructors face in bringing up issues of race and authenticity, as well as the challenges instructors of color faces regarding authority when dealing with race in their efforts to not just be the "angry *insert non-white color here* person".

As for myself, I have yet to find a foolproof way to incorporate these lessons into my own classroom. I try and create an environment of self-discovery in which the students understand that the can "have a conflict with someone - with [me], really - and still be ok. We could disagree and [they] could still learn" (p. 264).

The other tactic I use is to use examples of class inequalities as a segue into gender and race so as to provide a framework that most (if not all) students relate to. I invite my fellow instructors to share their experiences in teaching Whiteness to their students and any techniques they might use to create a safe environment in which the majority of their students become aware of their own internalized sense of privilege.

Silencing the Angry Feminist.

I’ll take a page out of Johnson and Bhatt’s (2003) book article and call on my own experience this week.

In COMM 1010, we somewhere in the middle-to-end of our unit on rhetoric.  I typically enjoy this unit because it allows students to access concepts that we have learned throughout the semester and channel it into their final paper, a rhetorical media analysis.  We deal with fun concepts like co-constitution, resistance, and representation.  I was so excited when I realized that I could use a topic of discussion from one of my grad classes and bring this into an undergrad class.  To discuss representation, I called on the Bechdel test. 

[for more information, see www.bechdeltest.com]

I had some great discussion questions planned and intended to ask students how this representation of women reflects a certain reality to how women are perceived and how women perceive their own realities.  I had the option to bring in my own experience and micro-resistances to cultural scripts we are presented through media!  For someone who is hesitant to disclose my dining preferences, this was huge.  I whole-heartedly identify with Johnson’s (2003) desire to be a “talking, disembodied head” in the classroom, but I am taking baby steps to move past this desire (p. 235).  But then it happened. Before I could even get excited about the discussions, a student threw down this gem: “I don’t even see the point of why we’re talking about this.  I’m not a feminist because that sort of thing doesn’t matter.”

I stopped in my tracks and had to reevaluate where I wanted to move from there.  My first instinct was to PROVE to her that she needs feminism because I say so.  She’s clearly not seeing things how she’s supposed if she can’t UNDERSTAND my way of thinking.  Sit down, child.  Let me tell you the way things are.

I side-stepped the whole issue and did not talk about my experience or representation of gender or power or any of that.  I chickened out and reframed the argument in terms of representation of entertainment. I felt the pressure of being the sole representation of feminism in the classroom and I did not want to perpetuate the stereotype of the angry feminist. 

To me, this turned into an either/or choice. I did not acknowledge the options I had to use this to move forward.  Johnson and Bhatt (2003) discuss the opportunity of  “modeling a kind of vulnerability that, hopefully, provides them space to do what might feel like risky self-exploration” (p. 235).   Even within this alternative course of action, I feel almost fraudulent; I feel as if my voice is not marginalized enough to warrant exploration of my experience.  Yes, I am a woman, but I am also a white “middle class” female.  The game of “which voices are worthy of expression” is always a losing game and I know this. 

I appreciate Johnson and Bhatt (2003) acknowledging that I will not have a classroom full of engaged students who are happy about the course content, as well as framing  a way of disclosing  with purpose.  If I postpone teaching from experience until I have the perfect classroom and the perfect experience (what does that even mean?), then I feel that I am doing an injustice to my students.

-C.H.

You're published, so that justifies EVERYTHING

Honestly, where do I begin?

I'll just jump right in by discussing the Bell and Golombisky (2004) article, "Voices and Silences in Our Classrooms: Strategies for Mapping Trails Among Sex/Gender, Race, and Class". I will then discuss the article by Hendrix, Jackson, and Warren (2003), "Shifting Academic Landscapes: Exploring Co-Identity Negotiation, and Critical Progressive Pedagogy". Finally, I will discuss the article by Vargas (1999), "When the 'Other' Is the Teacher: Implications of Teacher Diversity in Higher Education".

************************************************************************
Dear Elizabeth Bell and Kim Golombisky,

After reading your article about the silencing of voices in classrooms, on behalf of black women in America, I would like to thank you for providing yet another analysis to the apprehensive relationships we form with our white female counterparts and NOT providing a solution to the issue. Heck, you don't even suggest a productive way to analyze the relationship and that's the best part of this article! We thank you because we forgot that the feminist movement did not include our voices. The feminist movement was about the struggles experienced between white women and white men and we certainly do not want to involve ourselves in family matters. We forgot that we are often uninvited to the conversation about the Civil Rights Movement, as black men are often the focal point of discussion. Thank you for recognizing that white individuals in academia must make "room" for us in the classroom as we can sometimes be ignored. Please do understand that we are not angry and nor do we want to take control over your classroom(s), we just do not like to be ignored... we love that you understand that about us. We also love that you understand that it is our job to help white people "get it", although sometimes we do not "get it" ourselves. Wait, what is "it" exactly? And last but certainly not least, we thank you because we do not want you to take the attention away from other students in the classroom. We feel that would be unfair and might cause some tension between us and our white female peers and we just simply cannot have that! There are some things you are missing from your arguments, but overall I think you did a pretty good job at leaving out other women from different races. Your coverage of Good Girls, black women, and privileged individuals pretty much sums up silencing voices in the classroom.

Thanks,
Unexposed to the Construction of Race

P.S. I am sending you a copy of "What the Black Woman Thinks about Women's Lib" by Toni Morrison (2008). This was written four years after your article, so I'm sure you did not have access to such an interesting critique to the relationships between black women and white women. I am also sending another copy of hooks' Teaching to Transgress (1994). You might have the wrong one.

P.S.S. I obviously do not represent an entire culture of black women. That would be wrong for me to do.

*************************************************************************
Dear Katherine Grace Hendrix, Ronald L. Jackson, II and Jennifer R. Warren,

Your critique of co-identities in academia is one that challenges and negates the very ideas and arguments that many journals publish year-round. I understand that your article was written in 2003, but for some reason I think people have yet to grasp the analysis that you present in your article about existing alongside individuals with multiple identities. Here specifically, I am referring to race. Particularly, what I really enjoy about your article is that you acknowledge that there is a sense of invisibility that marginalized individuals feel in the classroom. Not necessarily because the classroom environment is structured that way, but sometimes because a dominant expectation exists. However, you also provide a critique on how to approach the issue(s). Not only should individuals who have multiple identities be acknowledged, but they should be understood as a pivotal role when critiquing interactions and cultural worldviews. They should be understood and acknowledged to question the traditional approaches to pedagogy. So how does one approach differences in the classroom when they, according to the understanding of differences provided in your article, are not different? For example, how does a white male discuss issues of race with his student who is of color? Well here is where you provide your definition of critical progressive pedagogy, similar to Freire and hooks' approaches to pedagogy. Critical progressive pedagogy is best defined as a progressive challenge to traditional academia (the banking model) in order to emphasize the importance of critiquing oppressive structures. Some people like Stanley Fish would call your method a joke and a hindrance to academia entirely. But I must say I love that you acknowledge academia's role stating:

While some scholars argued that critical pedagogy has done something to make academia political, progressive critical pedagogy scholars maintain that academia is already inherently political, and critical pedagogy is only one tool for understanding the dynamics of this brand of politics, (2003, p.182)

Finally, I want to discuss your critique of the Cultural Contract Theory. This is the most interesting section in your article as you cover various levels of contracts made between individuals who seek to practice democratically in educational contexts. For example, your overview of the cocreated cultural contracts develops a deeper understanding of how teachers and students can create negotiated agreements that encourages an open and relational environment that implements dialogue between both parties. Allowing your reader to comprehend not only a theoretical understanding of critical pedagogy but also the praxis that is very important when discussing the nature of this pedagogy being progressive. One must do in order to understand the benefits. 

Thanks,

Shared Racial Identity

************************************************************************
Dear Lucila Vargas,

Allowing your reader to engage in a critique of understand the other as a teacher. Often times scholars are focused on how the classroom experience is for the students that they lose the importance of understanding the full experience in the classroom. And the experience occurs much more than in the classroom. Clearly you outline early on in your paper that you results and critique are not an argument based on "women of color" as a whole. You respectfully allow your reader to understand that you are not a voice for all women of color, but provide an analysis based off your own experience as well as those individuals you have interviewed. Honestly, I know your article was published in 1999, but there are still some scholars who provide critiques on the lives of others without providing a substantial amount of research to justify their findings. Odd, I know. Nevertheless, you do provide an interesting analysis to understanding the role of the other for individuals in academia in order for those individuals to understand their roles better for themselves or in relation to others. The second day of my class this semester, I introduced my students to the notion of Whiteness. To be clear, my purpose was to allow my students to understand a critical concept and try to help them understand that we would challenge dominant expectations throughout the semester. Providing them with a deeper example, I highlighted some of the differences they might experience with me as a woman of color versus if their instructor was a white male. One student responded, "oh there would be no difference at all. We would still respect you and be open to new ideas." We discussed this in further detail and then maybe five weeks later, I received anonymous critiques on how I approach topics of race "too much" and how I was making them feel "uncomfortable" in the classroom. Nope, they didn't notice the examples of gender that I provided. How could they when I was talking about race too much? But what's too much when we live in a world where people fail to realize that issues of race are always easier to discuss when we socially isolate them? Everyday I feel like I'm performing for a different audience but because I accept the fact that I will never perform the role of an instructor as I am socially expected to-- I am able to provide a space for my students draw a sense of reality in regards to their identity and experience as well as my own. However, how do you define such implications of politics in the classroom?

Thanks,
Understanding Ways to Encounter Other Teachers

P.S. Next time could you include a deeper analysis of more people who fall under the other category or suggest theorists that approach ways to analyze power structures? Have you read Freire? I'll send you a copy of his book! 

***********************************************************************************
Scholarship...

LOHRUH

I am “primary text” in the classroom: Reflections of an “Othered” TA

One of my students has recently asked me why many of my examples on stereotypes, power, and hegemony are about the Middle East. I answered him with a frustrated smile: “You need to understand that what happens in the Middle East does not remain in the Middle East. Can we examine terrorism and the War on Terror or gas prices without talking about Middle Eastern culture?” The rest of the students laughed, and one replied: “I think it is important to know about other cultures, and you are the perfect example that debunks many of the stereotypes we know about Arabs.”

Perhaps my experience as a teaching assistant/instructor is more challenging than that of my colleagues in terms of being one who belongs to a culture often thought of as “primitive,” “backward,” “exotic,” and one that “promotes violence” (Shaheen, 1985). Resisting dominant assumptions is not an easy task, but finding myself often frustrated with such perceptions was one reason I applied for a TA position. I still remember how anxious I was when I first entered the classroom and introduced myself to students. I walked in, smiling, and wrote my name in English, Arabic, and Russian. I explained to them where I came from, and then paused for some seconds before I told them: “You may have noticed that I have an accent, and I do not think it will cause any confusion. However, if you do not understand what I say, raise your hand and ask.” They all nodded, implying approval and excitement at my unexpected transparency.

Johnson and Bhatt’s (2003) essay, “Gendered and Racialized Identities and Alliances in the Classroom: Formations in/of Resistive Space” explains why it is important to examine “How do we dialogue with those who are not—not us, not me—particularly when this notness is contextualized within a construction of being that essentially and inherently marks us as superior or subordinate?” (p. 230). The authors assert that the classroom is one main space in which “social justice prevails” by creating an intercultural exchange through which we learn from each other, and resist prejudices.

So, how do I create such space? I bring my own experience to the classroom. I present myself as one example of that faraway culture that most students have learned about from the media and political rhetoric. Standing in front of them and telling them stories that debunk cultural myths of my culture is one experience that fills me with content, and helps them understand, for example, that not all Arabs are Muslim. There are Christian Arabs, Jewish Arabs, and even atheist Arabs. I log in to my Facebook account and show them pictures of my friends, some wear hijab, while others do not. I explain to them that we have the right to criticize, but we do not have the right to offend other cultures. I am, simply, the “primary text in the classroom” (p. 234). The benefits are numerous from analyzing my experience and sharing it with my students. 

Why Teach Communication?

As a student and teacher of communication studies, I am often asked, what exactly do you do? That is a great question. What do we do in communication studies? Communication… that’s like… talking and stuff, right? Communication studies has an extensive historical presence in academia, and Nainby claims that the subject matter has been anything but static. This is explicitly clear through his article, but there are certain elements from the ancient Greek studies of rhetoric that I personally find not only interesting, but also necessary to communication studies today.

In Keith Nainby’s article Philosophical and Methodological Foundations of Communication Education Nainby explores the evolution of Communication Education in an attempt to identify the foundations of the practice. Through his articulation of why we teach communication I found myself questioning my goal of becoming a communication professor.

Nainby explains that early studies of rhetoric were largely concerned with developing a healthy democracy. Better understandings of public speaking leads to increased ability to participate in the public sphere. This is built from two major philosophical assumptions of communication education: (1) that communication acts are responsive to other texts, and (2) communicative acts shape both people and the human world. This is the exact reason I was drawn to communication studies. I was frustrated with the political apathy that I saw in my generation, and wanted to develop methods to engage the public and actually accomplish something. I am fed up with hearing students trying to justify their apathy by saying that they’ve liked something on Facebook, or they bought Tom’s shoes. These hipsters do a great job explaining the problem with this:

When it comes to educating my students, I also want to ensure that while I do not force my personal ideologies on them, I can provide tools for them to think about these types of problems critically, and evaluate for themselves what to do. Nainby also claims that teaching communication studies is a method for developing basic principles to evaluate the ethicality of a speaker. He claims that this perspective is founded upon two methodological assumptions of communication education: (1) communicative acts are best understood as contextual, and (2) communicative acts are complicated and require multilevel analysis.

Nainby cites McGee, and identifies someone like me, when he says “Argumentation was taken up, not by scholars committed to ivory-tower research in to the writings of dead Greeks, but by teacher interested in… our political system in crisis.” He observes a contradiction of communication education where there is a divide between the desire to develop a competent public that is engaged in political issues, and the desire to approach communication as a scholar seeking to understand the mechanics and tactics of text formation.

Education is our passport to something or other...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/education-is-our-passport-to-the-something-or-othe,11089/?ref=auto

What I believe Mr. Rybak is trying to articulate here is that education is no good without a combination of theory and practice. As a teacher, I want to encourage my students to think beyond themselves. This means thinking outside of their culture, understanding how language affects their world, and how they can use language to shape society. So is the divide real? Or can we, as communication scholars and educators seek an understanding of text mechanics, and then utilize that information to develop a healthy democratic society? Isn’t that what communication studies all about? I know that’s why I came here. After all, education is our passport to… something.

HSJ

Make 'Em Laugh

 

Humor can go a long way in the classroom. However, it's not enough to just be funny, you have to be funny and something else. Humor is like a condiment. No one says, "Hey, let's got to Chili's and have all the honey mustard."

In this week's readings, I found a special connection with Booth & Wanzer's (2010) article concerning humor in the classroom. The authors broke down humor into multiple categories, reviewed the benefits involved with classroom humor, and explained the importance that nonverbal communication and behavioral skills play in bringing humor to the classroom. Seeing as how nonverbal communication (or for Karen, the attachment of verbal signifiers to physical actions) makes up between 75-91% of the message process, physical presence is essential in adding humor to the classroom.

That being said, I'm not implying that we as educators need to bring slapstick routines so our classes are entertained for the entirety of each class. However, nonverbal cues are an essential element when making attempts toward humor, as demonstrated by one of my favorite physical comedy actors:

This brings up the question, "How can I be funny in the classroom? I'm not a funny person." One of the wonderful things about the modern age has been the dawning of the internet, with access to the wonders of websites like YouTube! We have the ability to access gigabytes upon gigabytes of humorous material as a means to help make the material we teach relatable  to our students.

Moving beyond technology into humorous performances in the classroom, Booth & Wanzer (2010) stress the importance of kinesics and paralanguage when trying to be funny in front of a class. Elements of timing, voice inflection, intonation, facial expression, body presence, and volume play key roles in effective humor and what's more, these are skills that can be improved over time and practice.

It is important to note, however, that certain boundaries exist when dealing with humor in the classroom. I find it important to view humor from either a relief theory perspective (humor as a cathartic release of pent up emotions) or through incongruity theory (humor in the unexpected).

As such, sarcasm can be a hard cookie to bite through. Sarcasm relies heavily on subtle nonverbal cues to convey specific messages which can sometimes be interpreted as offensive rather than funny. This interpretation falls under superiority theory, a "premise that people laugh a others' shortcomings, failings, or inadequacies" (Gruner, 1978, 1997).

Booth & Wanzer (2010) mentioned sarcasm as a type of humor initially deemed negative, but later found to be appropriate for instructional humor. However, I stress the importance of not using sarcasm to marginalize students in the classroom.

Using humor in the classroom creates a positive environment for students, likeability of the instructor which leads to a more receptive student-teacher relationship. However, humor's effectiveness as an instructional tool requires that the humor relate to the subject matter, and that the nonverbal cues are appropriate to the type of humor.

I'm a big fan of humor in the classroom and even if you would deem yourself as "not funny", I would challenge my fellow instructors to take chances, incorporate more laughs in the classroom, and just see what happens. Just remember, our humor should never cross the line to marginalizing students or creating laughter at someone's expense. In the words of another physical actor I greatly admire:

B. L.

Spirituality in the Classroom

Many well respected pedagogy theorists speak of becoming immediate to students both intellectually and to some extent, even emotionally.  Teachers widely accept this to varying extents.  Some think that emotional vulnerability should be minimal in the classroom, or that it should always come from a place of authority.  At the very least, it is recognized that when vulnerability is introduced it should be with purpose. There is a very large argument that states that a teacher cannot be the best teacher he/she can be without becoming self aware and self reflective (Palmer, 2007, Freire, 2010, & hooks, 1994).   An emphasis on the reconciliation of all parts of the self is placed on the teacher in order to be immediate and present with her/his students. 

If, as Palmer, Freire, and hooks argue, it is so important for a teacher to be open (at least to an extent) with his/her students about her/himself, should not this include one’s spirituality? Hendrix pushes for spirituality to be presented in the classroom.  Hendrix gives 4 steps to take as a teacher to prepare the self to be able to bring spirituality into the classroom: “1) cultivating the whole person, 2) Sensing one’s connection to the universe, 3) Attending to our students minds, bodies, and spirits, 4) Inviting emotion and soul into our classrooms” (2010, p. 87).  To start with I think that we can all agree that it is important to know what one believes, what values one holds, and what one thinks (number 1), otherwise how can we teach? The idea of “sensing one’s connection to the universe” seems to be talking about knowing what place one holds and what they want to do with that.  It asks “what is the purpose?”

We can examine this third practice of “Attending to our students’ minds, bodies, and spirits” specifically as it pertains to teaching.  It is certainly the teacher’s duty to attend to the mind of his/her students, but is it really the responsibility of the teacher to attend to her/his pupils bodies and spirits?  Is not the job of attending to bodies the task of doctors, nurses, physical therapists and such? Is it not the spirit the territory of priests, pastors, shamans, and sensei? Those trained for those professions?  I cannot deny that there are aspects of teaching that overlap all of these categories; after all, you cannot separate the mind out of the soul and body of the student, but are these aspects really inside the realm of a teachers’ responsibility?

The final practice asks teachers to invite spirituality into the classroom.  All at once it is the function and intention of the classroom to look at things through a rational and logical perspective, using imperial evidence and analysis of all things.  At the same time, it is hard to argue that one’s spiritual beliefs do not filter this reasoning and analysis.  The question comes down to: Should spirituality be encourage and welcomed in the classroom? Should it be embraced, just talked about, or ignored completely?

It is hard for me to conceive that if I were to share my spiritual views in my classroom that it would not shut down other differing viewpoints.  For that matter, if I chose to encourage the discussion on spirituality in my classroom, would it not be more prudent to keep my own views silent? From the other side, does staying silent act as a way of ignoring that I have any bias and thus light is never shed that my teaching, perspective, and ideas are all colored by my beliefs? 

Should religious and spiritual views be encouraged as a source of knowledge in the classroom?  Is there a good way to use and talk about spirituality as a teacher?

~A.R.G.