Politics, Pedagogy,and a Modest Proposal

I remember quite well the “aha” moment when I realized the innate political nature of composition. It was just a few years ago, during a lively discussion of Jonathon Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” Inexperienced with Swift and his political leanings, I innocently approached this text. I was soon taken aback –appalled is more like it—as I couldn’t imagine ANYONE having the nerve to imagine such a tale much less write anything so barbaric. (seems to me that the instructor purposely led us on this naïve reading-ahhh, Brian McDonald, ever the radical). Of course, once we looked at Swift, his times and his beliefs, I understood the real message in the bottle. So while it should not come as such a surprise, I still find myself very much the Pollyanna with regard to the political nature of composition theories. Geez, all I want to do is get my kids to write coherent paragraphs…consistently. But then again, who is to say what is truly coherent OR a paragraph??

Critical pedagogy “engages students in analyses of the unequal power relations that produce and are produced by cultural practices and institutions (including schools), and it aims to help students develop the tools that will enable them to challenge this inequality dedicated to the emancipatory imperatives of self-empowerment and social transformation”(92). Very simply put: as educators we need to show our students how to think critically if they are to be “politicized citizens” and therefore agents for change.

One of the first things I tell freshman when they walk into my class each August is that we will talk a lot about critical thinking; that “thinking outside the box” mentality. This is immediately followed by the ever-present-and-often-annoying blank stare. Later, when I ask them to write their thoughts about critical thinking, most have absolutely nothing to say. They have never been taught to think critically about anything. Enter the GIRP assignment. The Guided Independent Reading Project involves each student choosing a novel at his or her own reading level of at least 200 pages in length. This novel is read independently over the next few weeks, and then followed by various writing assignments that focus on the beginnings of critical thinking. It’s been my experience that most kids at this stage are really only good at giving plot summary, not things like theme, author’s style, character development, or motifs. So we have this ongoing tug of war-- they keep writing plot summary, I keep pushing for critical analysis--until gradually, they begin to catch on—sort of—because then I throw a wrench into the works and ask them to support that thinking with examples from the text. (Groan)

I know this isn’t brain surgery, but it is the elemental groundwork for looking critically at other information, ideas, and belief systems found on websites, in newspapers and magazines, during political debates, news shows, and radio broadcasts. Information that will empower them to be those informed politicized citizens. It opens the door for later discussions about racism, identity, heroes, courage, and tolerance. After all, they will be LEADING us someday; they will be TEACHING our children and grandchildren; and they will be VOTING for those who will run the country (my first set of seniors-who I had as freshmen- will graduate this spring and many of them, will vote for this president…scary.)

Hairston argues that the writing teacher should “stay within their areas of expertise” (101) or we just might mess up the works. This is the kind of narrow thinking that disallows change; that gets us so bound up in our own content that we can’t see beyond it; that keeps us doing those same things year after year after year, because, by golly, if they worked 30 years ago, they can work today. As educators, shouldn’t we be on the cutting edge of what is new and innovative? Shouldn’t we be aware of the latest studies involving not only our content but how that content affects and connects to other content areas? We are now such a global society that we can’t afford to keep this head-in-the-sand philosophy. Hairston’s iron grip on her pedagological beliefs reminds me of my own department. Bound and gagged by old-school philosophy, no manner of teacher research or empirical data will convince them to step out of the old and moldy.

Giroux and McLaren claim that “schools can be public places…where students are given the opportunity to learn the discourse of public association and civic responsibility” (97). While I agree with the sentiment, I don’t see it as a reality. Students today seem less and less concerned about that civic responsibility. Community service is something that “someone else does.” In a world of privatization and personal ladder climbing, the idea of doing something for the greater good seems distant and unappealing. We might be able to get students to think critically, but where is the motivation for putting the ideas into action? At some point the thinkers have to become the doers, if we are to experience social change.

Just my random thoughts…