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.
Cheri, from reading your post it was extremely clear that you are invested in finding ways to make sure all of your students feel like they are being represented in the classroom. I tend to think of the discipline of communication studies socially and academically, and what I mean by this is it is important to bring up current issues to make specific points. Fish may argue that is it not our job to bring up topics and instances that are not academicized, but then how would we effectively communicate examples that pertain to teaching material effectively? If you're interested in hegemony I think it would be a challenge to teach it only in a way that is academic, especially if students ask for clarification by offering their own examples. I think this is the point that Fish misses throughout his pedagogy- you cannot teach without also influencing or else students will not engage in effective learning. I think by wanting to teach your student how to apply material to their personal lives you are allowing the curation of active learning!
ReplyDelete