I am intrigued by Berlin's statement that, "A rhetoric can never be innocent, can never be a disinterested arbiter of the ideological claims of others because it is always already serving certain ideological claims." There has been some discussion in both of my classes regarding our social responsibility as teachers of composition, and just how far should we go in trying to inspire our students' social consciousness. According to Berlin, there is no way to escape the ideological nature of rhetoric, and I agree with him to a certain extent. Anytime anyone attempts to communicate with someone else, either through speaking or writing, they are inevitably communicating from the perspective of their own ideology.
Even though rhetoric may automatically be considered ideological, I do not feel a responsibility to use my classroom as a platform from which to inspire my students to activism. I do feel, however, that through the composition and discussion experience of the English classroom students' minds, perspective, and world view will be broadened. I expect to fully participate in this process with, "Think about it this way..." prompts, and by creating a classroom environment that facilitates the sharing of thoughts and ideas. That is as far as I plan to go, however, and I am okay with that. I think that each teacher has to decide for themselves to what extent they want to use their classroom socially or culturally.
I think all students would rebel if a teacher tried to really, truly use his or her classroom as a platform for social activism! I guess I read Berlin in a more conservative way. I didn't think he was encouraging teachers to make social activists out of their students-- I saw him more as trying to work out a pedagogy that would strongly encourage the students' critical awareness of the ideologies that falsely limit the way they think about so many things.
ReplyDeleteHowever, like you, I also don't necessarily entirely agree with Berlin's ideas. For instance, I'm unsure about the "democratic model of social relations" Berlin talks about (681). The idea that teachers and students could be "equals engaged in a joint practice" doesn't work in my mind. A measure of authority has to be retained by the instructor to prevent chaos. But how much authority is too much authority for a liberatory pedagogy to work?
I also do no think that bringing a "liberal pedagogy" into the classroom means that we need to bring up a hot topic in every class period, or see the podium as a soap box. That being said, I think you have it right that we can bring up alternative ways of thinking to get these kids thinking in different ways than they ever have before in a classroom. While that might be a simplistic version of a piece of what Berlin was saying, I think that bringing kids into communication in a multiple array of topics will get their juices flowing because it will be new and unusual for them. I think Berlin goes a little too far in many aspects, but he does have it right that a particular teachers rhetoric originates from somewhere specific, and that influence cannot help but come out through their teaching.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's necessary for us to inspire them in some form or fashion. We need to provide students with an atmosphere that is accepting and that allows failure. The only way for them to learn is from trying. If we can inspire them to connect with the material or become invested in it in some way, then I think we have made a difference. I think that Berlin's way of looking at things is a bit too cut-and-dry. I felt as though he discredited the hybridization of some of the schools of ideology. Often, students are most successful when they can use one or more sets of skills to really express themselves. I'm not saying that expressionist writing is the best, but it's at least a start. It can help us find a way to keep students engaged, which is a major necessity in our line of work.
ReplyDelete