"When I once asked a class whether they would be interested in a seminar called “Irritations,” which would present strong arguments for unpopular views by reading taboo texts, the interest was great. My general observation is that most students, often caricatured as passive, hypersensitive, or mindlessly activist, are very open to challenging content when you convincingly explain why engaging with it is worthwhile, especially if it helps them make sense of the complicated era they live in and address questions of orientation, meaning and purpose." True! In my English composition classes, I assign my students "Guts" by Chuck Palahniuk and "Tralala," by Hubert Selby Jr. I say to them, "You can stop reading if you're offended or disgusted, but then you have to mark exactly where you stopped reading and say presicely why." They love it. Many start reading the stories before they leave class. Nobody stops reading. We have fascinating discussions on why they are considered "dangerous" stories.
Why, though, must such encounters (with the themes, books, and blind spots that the humanities engage) take place in the context of a university? This is what concerns me for the long-term survival of liberal arts learning. Why experiment within an outmoded model? Won’t new modes of education emerge to better accommodate the new technological reality? I worry the transition will be too clunky for a staunch, established university. I’m of the opinion that new spaces will sprout out of the ideological breakdown. I greatly enjoyed your essay. Maybe a conversation that I had with my friend and fellow editor Elan Kluger on the same issues (from the perspective of two active humanities undergraduates) would interest you? We conducted it recently on our publication, The New Critic—the essays are titled “True Impressions of Our Education.” It will certainly require teachers like yourself—open to experimentation and innovation in the name of resilient and powerful learning—to rescue colleges from the brink. How many professors, though, are truly willing to take up that challenge?
Thank you for your well-considered comment. I genuinely welcome all initiatives that strive to nurture education, critical and creative thought, under the conditions of the early 21st century. For example, I'm watching Henry Oliver’s or Justin Smith-Ruiu’s attempts with favorable interest. But why not exhaust the full spectrum of possibilities? This includes the shrinking and often clunky university humanities departments. The cause of the humanities is too crucial to give up on the traditional arts & letters in preemptive submission to the technological condition.
I will read your conversation in The New Critic. Thanks for the heads-up.
If I understand your comment correctly, you read my article as naive wishful thinking. Well, I'm neither a techno-determinist nor do I believe that good things just fail for lack of goodwill. What I'm trying to say is: There is a variety of experiences, and there is leeway, even though we're in the midst of significant structural change.
Setting policy! I suppose I'm still thinking too much like a dean (as a former dean) wanting to provide clarity and support. Faculty are getting deluged with ed tech; policies are changing fast; students are ahead of everyone. Do we provide incentives? Carrots and sticks? That sort of thing.
Ah, I see. I think one reason the matter is so complicated lies in the many levels on which the change takes place: rapid technological development, economic and political constraints, administrative requirements, expectations of students, idiosyncrasies of professors... From my experience, those in teaching roles are often prone to sort things out on their own, which is, of course, not enough.
Forgive my terseness earlier! You are correct. The problem lately is faculty purchasing things on their own that don't integrate or cause security problems..
Thanks, Michelle, for your comment. I agree that the humanities' problems are often self-inflicted. What my article didn't sufficiently highlight are the many differences between departments. So much depends on a department having the right people aligned and capable of translating good ideas into action.
Students rightly reject intellectual condescension. More important than the choice of thinkers, in my view, is how they are read—using them as examples to understand challenging texts, discussing them with open-ended outcomes, and attempting to bring one’s blind spots into view during the exchange of arguments.
"When I once asked a class whether they would be interested in a seminar called “Irritations,” which would present strong arguments for unpopular views by reading taboo texts, the interest was great. My general observation is that most students, often caricatured as passive, hypersensitive, or mindlessly activist, are very open to challenging content when you convincingly explain why engaging with it is worthwhile, especially if it helps them make sense of the complicated era they live in and address questions of orientation, meaning and purpose." True! In my English composition classes, I assign my students "Guts" by Chuck Palahniuk and "Tralala," by Hubert Selby Jr. I say to them, "You can stop reading if you're offended or disgusted, but then you have to mark exactly where you stopped reading and say presicely why." They love it. Many start reading the stories before they leave class. Nobody stops reading. We have fascinating discussions on why they are considered "dangerous" stories.
Thanks for your piece.
Thanks for sharing. I'm glad to hear you had similar experiences. Stories like these are needed in the discussion about the „decline of education.“
Why, though, must such encounters (with the themes, books, and blind spots that the humanities engage) take place in the context of a university? This is what concerns me for the long-term survival of liberal arts learning. Why experiment within an outmoded model? Won’t new modes of education emerge to better accommodate the new technological reality? I worry the transition will be too clunky for a staunch, established university. I’m of the opinion that new spaces will sprout out of the ideological breakdown. I greatly enjoyed your essay. Maybe a conversation that I had with my friend and fellow editor Elan Kluger on the same issues (from the perspective of two active humanities undergraduates) would interest you? We conducted it recently on our publication, The New Critic—the essays are titled “True Impressions of Our Education.” It will certainly require teachers like yourself—open to experimentation and innovation in the name of resilient and powerful learning—to rescue colleges from the brink. How many professors, though, are truly willing to take up that challenge?
Thank you for your well-considered comment. I genuinely welcome all initiatives that strive to nurture education, critical and creative thought, under the conditions of the early 21st century. For example, I'm watching Henry Oliver’s or Justin Smith-Ruiu’s attempts with favorable interest. But why not exhaust the full spectrum of possibilities? This includes the shrinking and often clunky university humanities departments. The cause of the humanities is too crucial to give up on the traditional arts & letters in preemptive submission to the technological condition.
I will read your conversation in The New Critic. Thanks for the heads-up.
I see no argument beyond "should."
If I understand your comment correctly, you read my article as naive wishful thinking. Well, I'm neither a techno-determinist nor do I believe that good things just fail for lack of goodwill. What I'm trying to say is: There is a variety of experiences, and there is leeway, even though we're in the midst of significant structural change.
Not naive just not yet pulling the levers of change! Who does what first.
What do you mean by "Who does what first"?
Setting policy! I suppose I'm still thinking too much like a dean (as a former dean) wanting to provide clarity and support. Faculty are getting deluged with ed tech; policies are changing fast; students are ahead of everyone. Do we provide incentives? Carrots and sticks? That sort of thing.
Ah, I see. I think one reason the matter is so complicated lies in the many levels on which the change takes place: rapid technological development, economic and political constraints, administrative requirements, expectations of students, idiosyncrasies of professors... From my experience, those in teaching roles are often prone to sort things out on their own, which is, of course, not enough.
Forgive my terseness earlier! You are correct. The problem lately is faculty purchasing things on their own that don't integrate or cause security problems..
Thanks, Michelle, for your comment. I agree that the humanities' problems are often self-inflicted. What my article didn't sufficiently highlight are the many differences between departments. So much depends on a department having the right people aligned and capable of translating good ideas into action.
Students rightly reject intellectual condescension. More important than the choice of thinkers, in my view, is how they are read—using them as examples to understand challenging texts, discussing them with open-ended outcomes, and attempting to bring one’s blind spots into view during the exchange of arguments.
Thanks, that's very kind of you to say. I hope my students see it the same way. 😉