I really enjoyed this weeks reading in that it challenged what I thought I knew and brought several things to my attention that had been neglected. The article by Greene really helped sharpen my historical knowledge of North America. Maybe I just forgot the history I had learned, but I was fascinated by how much Spanish writing was taking place in 17th century North America. It also made me realize how biased the European (English) perspective of literacy is. It seems that everyone knew there were literate people outside of North America and in North America, but, for some reason, they didn't count as much. I guess this explains why the man in which Greene wrote had such a difficult time finding certain ancestors.
This is a large problem I see, even with the current academy. It is a question of who counts and who doesn't? I find myself falling into this trap. If I know someone is an English professor at Harvard who has a Phd, I will approach the text assuming that the person is well informed and he/she is an authority on whatever issue they have chosen to expertly delineate. I guess a part of me knows the rigors of earning such a degree and the research that it entails that gives some credibility to the author, but someone who has no formal training can be just as informed on 19th century British literature as the Phd; It's just the Phd who took the time to prove to others he knew what he was talking about.
I also see a lack of diversity in the English department. If you look at all the graduate students in Auburn’s English Department, I'd say about 90 percent are of some Caucasian descent. There are people of different ethnic backgrounds, but as a general rule, English is associated with white people. It really bothers me, too. I feel like I don't even want to be part of academia anymore. I know it's not like we don't talk about other cultures and ethnic groups, but it's almost like we're patronizing them and turning them into a spectacle. I feel like the world is so much bigger than what I am told to study and sometimes what I study and write about is “not seeing the big picture.” By that, I mean the scope of which I use see the world and am told to see the world leaves out a lot of important things. I know we talk about the patriarchy, feminism, oppressed peoples and related subjects, but sitting around writing papers on obscure topics that not many people will understand even further separates people from the discipline of English. That's how I feel right now, anyway. I think scholarly writing in the English department is meant to only be understood by your peers and others in your discipline. The way in which I have written has put up walls not brought them down. A person would need at least an MA to understand some of the articles and books I have read in graduate school. There should be a disclaimer on some texts: “Non-English scholars need not apply.” This isn't always the case, but, as said before, this is the sort of stigma that is attached to the English department and leads to its alienation. Well, I kind of got on a rant there, but Greene's text made me think even more about the biases of the English department.
JP,
ReplyDeleteYou raise some very pressing issues here that seem fundamental to the work we are each doing as educators, writers, and "scholars," I hope you'll raise this issue in class tomorrow. I'm wondering if contemplation of some of these questions might be helpful for you at this point -
1) What constitutes our "content" or object of study in rhetoric and composition? What are we trying to examine or figure out? Why?
2) Who ARE the audiences we are trying to reach? Why? What is at stake?
3) And how might the study of "everyday practices" (as Cintron put it last week) play a role in the kind of inclusion you seem to be craving in your post?
4) What is the "academy" and who decides?
Don't throw in the towel just yet, JP! Mull things over and open discussion tomorrow in class.
TS
JP, I agree with a majority of what you've said here. It seems like certain areas such as African American, Feminist, Post-colonialism always come with a disclaimer in our classes (AKA: We are going to be reading "Feminist Critiques" in this class). However, you never hear/see disclaimers about reading the works of dead, white authors. There is never a point in which it is pointed out that the work of Plato, Emerson, Wordsworth is the world of white, male authors. It seems that this "pointing out" of the specific genre, and not just studing it as a whole, makes these certain areas more alienated and less accepted.
ReplyDeleteJ.P.,
ReplyDeleteIn a lot of ways, it sounds to me like your reading of these works has brought you to a crisis of disciplinary faith. Maybe the downside of what you’re discussing isn’t the only way to see it though. Consider how many international and minority students are part of the English Department (or the College of Liberal Arts). A good number of us are native speakers too and don’t necessarily connect language to whiteness; it could be that some people do, but I’m willing to bet that, with so many people speaking English in the world, something larger than race comes to mind when they think of language. On the other hand, I imagine that language/race does become a focus when language is being used as a way of determining citizen. In Edwidge Danticat’s The Farming of Bones, Danticat describes the Parsley Massacre that occurred in Haiti in the 30s. Trujillo, the Dominican president, had his soldiers identify potential victims by determining if they identified parsley with the preferred Spanish nomenclature and pronunciation rather than the Haitian Creole or French referent. In the killing of tens of thousands of people we see the extremes of language policy; however, I think the problems we see in our English department are more a matter of focus.
For instance, the academics who write about these problems are reaching someone. They are reaching you and me and the members of our class as well as a large readership outside our small group. And, more specifically, they are reaching teachers. The only way that what they have to say is insignificant is if we read those words and then put them down. Consider how Greene speaks directly to the implications of the lost literacy of Spanish-speaking students; when she directs her final words to educators, she demonstrates how we might approach these issues each time we interact with our students. And that is where the understanding of all the work we read comes into practice—in our teaching philosophies, our informing pedagogy, our subject matter. Do not give up hope! It is up to you how knowledgeable you become about these issues. And if you do teach, then you have choices in what sorts of material you present to your student.
I’m sorry I’ve gone on for so long, but what you said in your blog really resonates with me. When I was in college at FAMU, I had a professor once who said to us on the first day of class that it didn’t matter where she got her degree from, there was no rule that said she couldn’t teach us the same things students in Harvard learn; there was no reason we couldn’t be just as smart or learn just as much. Then she proceeded to give us the academic and mental equivalent of a sound butt-kicking. Every moment of her class was torture, but I realize that she was right and that I should have the same attitude about my own teaching practices. I think that your concerns about what you’re reading show that you are thinking of how to solve the problems you’ve identified. The most difficult part is putting it into practice.
N
J.P.,
ReplyDeleteI'm with you buddy. I get frustrated about school pretty much everyday. However, this is the time to ask for you to ask those tough questions. It does get frustrating though. When I tell people what I do, I *never* know how they'll react. An oral surgeon once made fun of me before pulling out my wisdom teeth...
Here's something else. Last week, I'm in GNC, and the clerk, who opened up to me like I was Barbara Walters, starts talking to me about how academics are alienated and alienating people from real-world knowledge. I just wanted some vitamins! But I got surprising existential slap in the face instead. I wasn't mad. I just started asking lots of questions.
Anyway, Dr. TS asks some great questions, and I really hope that we can address them in class today. It sounds like we already have a pretty full agenda with SD and N's presentation on archival research AND the readings!
Maribeth: I had a teacher one time start a class out saying: "The writers for our course only have three things in common. They are white, they are men, and they are dead." How's that for announcing the dead white guy course? By the way, I love the 19th American Renaissance, and it's like the old boys' club of literature. What can I say? It's good stuff.
N: Would you mind detailing the mental butt-kicking? I might need to use that while teaching next fall.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts J.P.
JP,
ReplyDeleteYou know I'm with you in a lot of this; we've talked about these issues. These are some of the reasons I have decided not to continue in academia post-graduation. However, I do think there is something to be said for this type of research and that not all English departments look like ours. We are asking these questions because we need to consider the mistakes those before us have made. The people in the ivory tower can make a difference as they bring the awareness we were missing-- at least I'd like to believe they can. I also hope we can discuss this in class today.
-SavoryScribble