[Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1124 - 5 msgs

Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:50:39 -0400

------=_Part_164771_722026.1160178639920
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Bill, I can imagine we're talking past one another. My last email was a
response to your questions of whether particular positions are being
suppressed in favor of the status quo. With respect to the -isms you listed
(and others like them), in class, I favor neither status quo nor its
opponents. Regardless of which conclusions my students come to, I ask the
same questions, What evidence do you have for your position? What reasoning
did you use to come to this position? Do you think that this evidence and
reasoning would persuade someone who thinks differently from you? How can
you make your argument more persuasive to your audience?

Your point is well-taken on how much indoctrination can occur in light of
the amount of time in class vs. the dominant ideologies outside of class.
Let me try again. The objective of education is to enable students to be
able to think on their own, what some call critical thinking. Attempts to
manipulate the conclusions students come to, whether or not (in)effective,
are attempts at indoctrination. (There is no difference between someone who
indoctrinates for the status quo and between one who (attempts to)
indoctrinates against the status quo.) For me, that's the difference between
education and indoctrination--whether one attempts to enable students to
think independently and critically, or one tries to bring students to a
"change in [their] thoughts" that is aligned with one's own perspective,
whether status quo or not, whether "preaching" or not.

On "presenting a position to the students--one that is based in logic and
fact, one that understands the historical, cultural, contingent moment, one
that is steeped in sensitivity for the oppressed," I would say that if we
are to take seriously the notion that neutrality and objectivity do not
exist, then we should accept that, as Ludwig Fleck put it, our disciplinary
(and other) understanding is a "harmony of illusions."

Charles Nelson

Perhaps you could explain what the line is between education and =
> indoctrination?  In a 15 week course, where students will see an =
> instructor 2 /1 2 to 3 1/4 hours a week, I find it highly improbable =
> that any student could become indoctrinated.  It's much more likely that =
> in a media drenched society, one that blasts the messages of corporate =
> capitalism, racism, sexism, montheism, and heterosexism 24/7, a student =
> will capitulate at a subconscious level to the ideology being espoused.  =
> A voice resistant to this indoctrination--probably because the person =
> behind the voice realized that the dominant ideology does not work for =
> people like him or her or the vast majority of other people--is not the =
> perpetrator of indoctrination.  That voice is working toward =
> counter-hegemony, toward societal and individual liberty.  While =
> counter-hegemonic thought certainly has ideals and beliefs of its own, =
> it is incapable of indoctrinating because it does not have the power to =
> do so in the higher educational system because it lacks access and =
> capital.  Indoctrination against the status quo can only occur when an =
> individual is isolated from the larger society or is surrounded only by =
> followers who think the same as her or him.  The power comes in church =
> groups, for instance, or in counter-culture cults.  Barring this, a =
> change in someone's thoughts when it resists the status quo comes from =
> enlightenment due to education, not indoctrination.
> =20
> I have a feeling we're not hearing each other, Charles.  I have said, I =
> believe more than once, that I do not believe that instructors should =
> preach their convictions in class.  But there's a difference between =
> presenting a position to the students--one that is based in logic and =
> fact, one that understands the historical, cultural, contingent moment, =
> one that is steeped in sensitivity for the oppressed--and having =
> students wrangle with it in problems that are directly generated by them =
> or relevant to them, and having students repeat an instructor's position =
> in a paper without a chance to challenge it or limit it or extend it or =
> test it, at the risk a poor grade or other ostracization if they don't =
> do it.  To me, the former is ed.ucation.  That pedagogy is steeped in =
> political convictions, however.  It believes that the system as it is =
> currently run is not working for the benefit of the vast majority of =
> humans and virtually all other non-human life forms and locates the =
> source of the problem  Is not the pedagogy I hear from you also steeped =
> in political convictions?  For me, it is the pedagogy of the status quo, =
> one designed to ensure that counter-hegemonic thought cannot be taken =
> seriously by the vast majority of the students we educate.  Its silence =
> allows the propaganda of the status quo to drown out critiques from the =
> left.
> =20
> The arena of the classroom is not even when teaching starts.  We cannot =
> pretend it is.
> =20
> Bill
>
>

------=_Part_164771_722026.1160178639920
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Bill, I can imagine we're talking past one another. My last email was a response to your questions of whether particular positions are being suppressed in favor of the status quo. With respect to the -isms you listed (and others like them), in class, I favor neither status quo nor its opponents. Regardless of which conclusions my students come to, I ask the same questions, What evidence do you have for your position? What reasoning did you use to come to this position? Do you think that this evidence and reasoning would persuade someone who thinks differently from you? How can you make your argument more persuasive to your audience?
 Your point is well-taken on how much indoctrination can occur in light of the amount of time in class vs. the dominant ideologies outside of class. Let me try again. The objective of education is to enable students to be able to think on their own, what some call critical thinking. Attempts to manipulate the conclusions students come to, whether or not (in)effective, are attempts at indoctrination. (There is no difference between someone who indoctrinates for the status quo and between one who (attempts to) indoctrinates against the status quo.) For me, that's the difference between education and indoctrination--whether one attempts to enable students to think independently and critically, or one tries to bring students to a &quot;change in [their] thoughts&quot; that is aligned with one's own perspective, whether status quo or not, whether &quot;preaching&quot; or not.
 On &quot;presenting a position to the students--one that is based in logic and fact, one that understands the historical, cultural, contingent moment, one that is steeped in sensitivity for the oppressed,&quot; I would say that if we are to take seriously the notion that neutrality and objectivity do not exist, then we should accept that, as Ludwig Fleck put it, our disciplinary (and other) understanding is a &quot;harmony of illusions.&quot; 
 Charles Nelson <div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Perhaps you could explain what the line is between education and =
 indoctrination?&nbsp;&nbsp;In a 15 week course, where students will see an = instructor 2 /1 2 to 3 1/4 hours a week, I find it highly improbable = that any student could become indoctrinated.&nbsp;&nbsp;It's much more likely that =
 in a media drenched society, one that blasts the messages of corporate = capitalism, racism, sexism, montheism, and heterosexism 24/7, a student = will capitulate at a subconscious level to the ideology being espoused.&nbsp;&nbsp;=
 A voice resistant to this indoctrination--probably because the person = behind the voice realized that the dominant ideology does not work for = people like him or her or the vast majority of other people--is not the =
 perpetrator of indoctrination.&nbsp;&nbsp;That voice is working toward = counter-hegemony, toward societal and individual liberty.&nbsp;&nbsp;While = counter-hegemonic thought certainly has ideals and beliefs of its own, = it is incapable of indoctrinating because it does not have the power to =
 do so in the higher educational system because it lacks access and = capital.&nbsp;&nbsp;Indoctrination against the status quo can only occur when an = individual is isolated from the larger society or is surrounded only by =
 followers who think the same as her or him.&nbsp;&nbsp;The power comes in church = groups, for instance, or in counter-culture cults.&nbsp;&nbsp;Barring this, a = change in someone's thoughts when it resists the status quo comes from =
 enlightenment due to education, not indoctrination. =20 I have a feeling we're not hearing each other, Charles.&nbsp;&nbsp;I have said, I = believe more than once, that I do not believe that instructors should = preach their convictions in class.&nbsp;&nbsp;But there's a difference between =
 presenting a position to the students--one that is based in logic and = fact, one that understands the historical, cultural, contingent moment, = one that is steeped in sensitivity for the oppressed--and having =
 students wrangle with it in problems that are directly generated by them = or relevant to them, and having students repeat an instructor's position = in a paper without a chance to challenge it or limit it or extend it or =
 test it, at the risk a poor grade or other ostracization if they don't = do it.&nbsp;&nbsp;To me, the former is ed.ucation.&nbsp;&nbsp;That pedagogy is steeped in = political convictions, however.&nbsp;&nbsp;It believes that the system as it is =
 currently run is not working for the benefit of the vast majority of = humans and virtually all other non-human life forms and locates the = source of the problem&nbsp;&nbsp;Is not the pedagogy I hear from you also steeped =
 in political convictions?&nbsp;&nbsp;For me, it is the pedagogy of the status quo, = one designed to ensure that counter-hegemonic thought cannot be taken = seriously by the vast majority of the students we educate.&nbsp;&nbsp;Its silence =
 allows the propaganda of the status quo to drown out critiques from the = left. =20 The arena of the classroom is not even when teaching starts.&nbsp;&nbsp;We cannot = pretend it is. =20 Bill </blockquote>
</div>

------=_Part_164771_722026.1160178639920--