#classroomactivism Final Thoughts

            So, I think it is only appropriate that I conclude my contributions to this blog with a summary of how I personally have navigated through this course with the idea of #classroomactivism on my mind, what scholars I believe have contributed significantly to helping me realize my pedagogical approach, and what universal strategies and approaches can be applied to #classroomactivism motivated by any social or cultural goals.

            First, Freire (1970) removed almost any doubt I had about discussion and dialogue. I used to struggle with the desire to facilitate conversation in the classroom and my fear of students espousing oppressive and discriminatory ideologies that I was not equipped to respond to effectively and within the realm of acceptability for an instructor. Freire taught me that it is ok to share some personal beliefs on occasion, but that my goal as a critical communication instructor is not necessarily to identify the best ways to preach acceptance and open-mindedness, but to make it as easy as possible for my students to do so with their own personal experiences and contributions. In this sense, my goals changed fundamentally. I try hard not to seek to indoctrinate my students into my belief systems. Instead, I try hard to make my students feel heard, acknowledged, and respected when they share anecdotes about discrimination and prejudice they have faced in the past. And, perhaps most importantly, I work to remind myself that positive change is possible with this approach. Sometimes I need to concede control and shake the arrogant and dangerous perspective that I should be the one responsible for change in the classroom.

            Second, Fish (2008) taught me not to let anyone do my job and not to try to do anyone else’s job. I suppose I fundamentally disagree with Fish’s concept of what my job actually entails, but I think this is solid advice nonetheless. My job, I recognize, is not to console depressed students about their afflictions or try to squash their anxieties with theory and critical study. My job is also not to ignore the needs of students who find that communication studies curriculum elicits emotionally significant responses from them. I need to understand my bounds, yes, but Fish seems to champion an electric fence of cold detachment instead of a fluctuating threshold of appropriateness and understanding. Perhaps Fish is a robot after all.

            Third, Palmer (1998) convinced me that I am the brave savior that Fish says I’m not, and I should be congratulated for my courage and dedication to (wo)mankind.

            Fourth, hooks (1994) pulled me back into reality and convinced me that I have to have some kind of faith in people or I will never make this work. It seems that understanding and kindness functions reciprocally in many situations, and it is my responsibility to create a classroom climate that allows for that. As much as I hate to admit it, I may have been performing a soulless and calculated approach to social justice that is troublingly reminiscent of the logo-centric and anti-emotional patriarchal approaches to solving problems. Although I believe I was legitimately searching for an approach that I thought would yield the best positive results, I see now how foolish an approach to #classroomactivism this is. The hooks hype was certainly warranted, and I would likely go so far as to say that this book had the greatest impact on me this semester. I think many of peers would say the same thing.

            Finally, Fassett and Warren (2007) took me through an earnest exploration on how difficult and demanding such an approach to communication pedagogy can be, and reminded me how important and worth it critical communication pedagogy is for our students and, hopefully, for the world. Fassett and Warren confirm the efficacy of some approaches to pedagogy that I have implemented myself (“partner”, androgyny, queer scholarship), and helped me understand the importance of such micro-strategies. Such insight is much appreciated, and I am not surprised that Karen chose to conclude our book reading list with this volume.

            So, back to #classroomactivism. Classroom activism is not teaching students how to be more socially progressive, it is not going out of one’s way to be more receptive to and respectful of diverse backgrounds, and it is not the practice of instructors literally performing activism in the classroom. Instead, it is a sort of appropriate next-step to critical communication pedagogy, an approach that builds upon the social and cultural implications of critical study to teach theory and practice by facilitating activism from one’s students. I have not had the opportunity to do this to any great extent, but I currently T.A. for COMM 2140, Advocating in the Public, which tasks students with creating YouTube speeches that critique and address New York Times’ editorials. Although students more or less have to take advantage of this opportunity to perform any kind of activism, I saw a few example of this kind of dedication from students, and it was inspiring to say the least. This distinction between critical communication pedagogy and classroom activism is perhaps one of the most important things I came to understand this semester, and I look forward to opportunities in the future when I can facilitate such opportunities on a larger scale.