Get in the Zone, Contact Zone

Recently I have heard (and participated in) discussions in two of my graduate courses about critical pedagogy, liberation pedagogy (which some categorize within critical pedagogy), and some about contact zones (which probably also fits within the scheme of critical pedagogy and/or postmodern pedagogy).

In a discussion of critical pedagogy, the professor suggested that when applied in a writing classroom, the theory can be intrusive on students. He questioned what critical theorists, particularly Marxists, would think of an instructor coming in and putting equal emphasis on maintaining the status quo or on principles in direct contrast to those critical theorists believe to be true. Of course, a classmate responded that no instruction is neutral and that by not addressing the issues, we reinforce the status quo. The student then suggested that whether or not the "indoctrination" is intended does not matter, basically implying that critical theorists should have at it because influencing our students towards our own views is inevitable.

I can concur with my classmate that no language act is neutral; the very nature of communication is to convey meaning and all meaning is based--even if in an indirect way--on some ideology or worldview. We all inevitably interpret reality through the lens of our worldviews, and as teachers, we cannot accomplish complete neutrality in the classroom.

That said, I have to ask: Where do we draw the line? In my opinion, any intentional attempt made on the part of an instructor to bring the students around to his/her own point of view about an issue (not grammar, punctuation, etc.--I think there are correct and incorrect ways of writing insofar as basic rules are concerned) is an attempt to change the student's worldview. And, of course, this is fine as long as the issues are obvious: racial slurs and sexist attitudes, obviously unacceptable. But what happens when the lines are not so clearly drawn?

One classmate in a discussion of contact zones suggested that he challenges his students to support their points, but he makes sure their points have valid support and he doesn't have room for the student whose support is not valid (and this seems reasonable and worthwhile to me). Another classmate mumbled, "Like because my morals tell me so." So I would ask: what makes an argument valid? I know plenty of well educated, logical folks who believe that morality and faith are within the realms of reason and logic just as strongly as those who believe them to have no place in defending or asserting a position.

Based on my own experiences working in another institution, and in my experiences at MSU, the predominant view seems to be (though I admit that I may be wrong about this) that moral arguments hold no grounding and that faith and reason don't mix. Several instructors have reported making such statements to their students. I've concluded, then, that it is politically correct to try to persuade students (perhaps only if the topic comes up based on paper content, not as a direct aim of the class) to view moral and faith issues as subjective, constructed "truths," not academic, not logical. And such an approach is not looked down upon in academia.

But I would ask this question: Would it be looked down upon for instructors to try to persuade their students (even if only when the topic came up based on paper content) that moral issues and faith issues are not subjective, that these are not relative, constructed, "emotional," or "feeling" realms, but the realms of logic and reason and that it is necessary to address such issues if their points of view were to be adequately supported in a way deserving of a good grade? I think most would agree that such an attempt on the part of an instructor could be considered a violation of Church and State.

I guess I am just bothered by the fact that intentionally influencing students towards worldviews which directly undermine religious belief and religious reason (be the religion Christian or Bokononism or Buddhism or whatever) by promoting reasoning based on relativism or scientism is acceptable. It seems to me that postmodernism, scientism, scientific humanism, and the like are just as much totalizing systems of thought as are those worldviews more traditionally termed "religions." The only difference is that in the former worldvies, "God" is something besides the traditional universal spirit or Other.

To an extent, liberatory and critical pedagogy appeal to me. I like the idea of providing students readings to create contact zones in which they question the accepted norms of society or government--and perhaps even their worldviews--on issues that are more or less "black and white." And, of course, the grey areas are easy to steer clear of if we are careful to avoid them. But who defines black and white? My black may be your white, your white my black.

If our goal is to simply let the students question, let them come into contact with one another's cultures, and we are providing them equally persuasive arguments on both sides of a particular issue, I suppose cultural pedagogy and/or liberatory pedagogy can work. But if the true goal is to bring students around (be it through ever so overt or ever so discrete methods) to the instructor's point of view about fundamental worldview issues such as the nature of truth and reason, I'm not sure I can buy into this method. (In a way, I would love to, but I'm not sure it would be ethical.)

Just a Spoonful of Sugar

Sometimes I get the feeling that our students have come from a background in which teachers have been so eager to make classroom content relevant, interactional, and fun that they've forgotten to give their students any medicine with their spoonfuls of sugar. And so I've got these students sitting in my classroom, staring at me, expecting sugar. They want games. They want entertainment. They want candy coated writing lessons. Everything should be fun and entertaining.

All hyped up on sugar, they have no attention span. Once they recognize that any portion of the lesson is going to be sugar-free medicine, they're gone. Their eyes start to glaze over or close. Doodling ensues. Is it so much to ask that out of a 50 minute class period they willingly listen, take notes, and respond for 10-15 minutes of it? Are they so used to manipulatives and small group activities that they can't see they can't sit and listen for a few minutes?

I'm all for trying to incorporate creativity in the classroom. I'm all for collaboration and student input. I might even be able to see the value of using manipulatives now and again. But I do not think that our students are incapable of sitting and listening to a lecture and making an actual effort to pay attention. I know that "lectures" do not fit as well into a writing classroom as in, say, a literature classroom, but there are times when we need to take them through some basics of MLA or give them some content to work with before splitting them into groups or starting an activity.

Many of our students seem to be suffering from a media-induced, education-induced, sugar-induced unwillingness or inability to process information that doesn't involve fun and games. And I think our fear of lecturing and fear of boring our students and our constant need to keep them entertained feeds into their appetites. I don't think it harms our students any to have to set aside their sugar addictions for a few minutes and swallow a little medicine.