Hey Peggy. This is the kind of thing I would normally write on random legal pads. I'm realizing that if this ever were something to publish, this is the rudimentary, first draft, brainstorming stage, where we (I) get to just slog through various ideas. This is the kind of thing I would normally write to myself on random legal pads, but the fact that it is 'out there' makes me feel accountable to something. I feel like this has a lot of material that could be turned into either good academic papers, or just good introspection for my life. I think this has the potential to be a good thing for me...and I thank you once again for the idea to do it in the first place.
Disclaimer to any future employers, or other people who might read this and disagree with my perspectives: I stress the exploratory nature of these musings. This is an opportunity for me to begin delving into what I consider very tough issues. Don't take this as my final convictions. This fact should be pretty clear if you actually read the next 50 paragraphs, but I thought I shouldn't take the chance.
I am taking a class about teaching social studies. We seem to be building around the question, "How do I as a teacher create the environment where we have these magical discussions wherein my students have epiphanies?" We take up questions like, What does the research have to say about the value of discussion (it supports it--cognitive abilities go up, etc.), How often should you have discussion, How do you make it happen, How much student work should go into it, Should it be spontaneous (maybe, but the teacher has to have a pretty good plan), What kind of work do you have to put into the classroom in order to allow these discussion to take place, where people can feel comfortable sharing their views that may be controversial? How much practice do you put into it?
Peggy, I feel like your classrooms pretty much just did this a lot. Big, open ended discussion, no real direction (that's what it felt like to me the student, but maybe you had an idea), but eye-opening revelations all over the place. And your classes were probably my favorites, so good job there.
So that's the background. Here's where I want to go with it.
What is the goal of classroom discussions? There are many. Perhaps the main one is to give each student the opportunity to evaluate his or her positions on various topics, with the goal of deciding what point of view is their point of view...and why. Perhaps this goal is too weak. Is the ability to defend and express their point of view an inherent part of this objective? Not necessarily, but perhaps it should be.
I stress the distinction between being able to defend one's position to someone else to the point that the other person no longer argues, and being able to thoroughly examine a personal point of view. I advocate a self-applied Socratic analysis: a relentless questioning of principles until core convictions are revealed.
At this point, we can draw a distinction between issues: one is learning how to examine the validity of various perspectives on a controversial topic. The other is learning how to examine the reasons that a person gravitates toward one or another perspective. Let it be noted that at this point, we can abandon the issue and say "The first is appropriate in the classroom. The second is not." Of course, that's just asserting an opinion without supporting it. Plus, that's not the point of this blog. It's for me to examine whatever I want to examine. So let's continue.
Why do I advocate this Socratic analysis? Is this appropriate in the classroom? Is this necessary in life? How does this model look and work?
First, why do I advocate this model of Socratic analysis? I am not entirely convinced that this method needs to be applied to everyone's life. I am not entirely convinced that I am any happier for having tried to apply it to mine. I will grant that perhaps my resentment toward this style of life stems from a failure to adequately apply it to my life...there are plenty of stones I have left unturned, mainly out of laziness and procrastination...so perhaps I simply resent myself for what I perceive to be my own failure.
But what proof do I have that I would be any happier, any better, for abiding by it? What models, what exemplars do I have, who live by the belief that "The unexamined life is not worth living?" As Tom Robbins put it, "Plato said the unexamined life is not worth living. Oedipus Rex was not so sure." Who is out there whose convictions are planted firmly in a rigorous self-analysis, and a rigorous analysis of all possible perspectives, and meta-analyses of the validity of those perspectives, etc. etc.? Maybe no one. Maybe the future me. How do I know it's worth it?
Can I move on without addressing this question?
Of course not.
1) It would be useful to go back and look at why Socrates says the unexamined life is not worth living. I will do this.
2) Perhaps if I experienced the "examined" life, I would realize that it is, in fact, the best way to live. Then I would have utter justification for wanting my students to experience the same. But what's the difference between this and religious fanaticism? Reason?
3) A new track. I am not opposed to violence necessarily. But I am opposed to senseless violence. The ability to disinterestedly examine one's "conceptual framework" (the collection of values and beliefs one uses to decide his position on an issue) would, I imagine, find whatever common ground might exist between disagreeing parties. Should there be irreconcilable differences, at least the parties involved have done the work they could in order to try to find agreement. At least they agree that there is no more room for agreement. Then they can either decide to shake hands and walk away, or sadly decide that they must fight it out instead.
(topic for another day...maybe.
When do people reach irreconcilable differences? Why does this happen? Does this only happen when people get tired of talking about something? When they realize the implications of their arguments and don't want to enact them? Why would someone not want to abide by the principles that their analysis forces them to abide by? Dammit. Did I really mean to go here? possible answers: 1) Reason is not the only thing that determines your actions. This is a no-brainer. But shouldn't we base our actions on our reason and logic? Doubt it. You need compassion and empathy as well. I need to abandon this line of thought.)
p.s. how can you be sure you are disinterested?
Putting aside for a moment the question, "How quickly would my ass get canned," I want to ask,
Do I want to apply the Socratic method to my students' beleifs? Do I want them to apply it to their own lives? Why?
And briefly touching on the "How quickly would my ass get canned" question, a teacher gave me a fantastic piece of advice. He said, "If you believe that something is good for your students, fight for it. Make it happen. Find out why you can't do it, and then change it." You could add on to that the idea of making it happen to the extent that you can make it happen, and also, if you can't make it happen where you are, go somewhere that you can make it happen.
Answers to the bold questions:
Hell yes. Because that's what will make them happy. I don't know. Is there psychological research that examines this issue? There has to be.
Because it makes for better democratic citizens. Transfer. The ability to apply the same rigorous questioning to another person's positions--such as a politician.
I do not want it to lead to inconclusiveness as it does for me. Part of the system has to be to write it down, because frankly, you forget the reasons you hold convictions. You forget your epiphanies. You lose your idealism, day by day. It's not that it conflicts with reality. Everything we do is reality. Its just that it's easier to do what everyone else does.
Many questions left unanswered. All of them, perhaps. But I feel like I'm at least getting started.
Questions not yet mentioned, issues to examine in subsequent posts:
What is this model of introspection?
My classroom discussions are about examining positions. Where does bias enter into this? Where is the boundary between having students examine personal positions and influencing students' positions? It exists at the point that the teacher does not allow students to examine all positions equally.
This means creating a set of analytical tools that must be applied evenly to all positions.
1) Resources
2) Analysis of the resources
3)
Why do I believe it is important for people to be able to find common ground? Is it because I want to belive that all rational people ought to be able to find common ground? Why can't we all just get along? Dammit, didn't I take like 3 classes on this in college? To bad Habermas is inscrutible.
Is there value in having people believe that it's OK to disagree? This is a dichotomy to be resolved (note--maybe this doesn't mean coming down on one side or the other, but finding middle ground).
Defense for this Socratic Method from the accusation that I am discussing inappropraite topics: (Where can I find the list of these?) I am not influencing my students' opinions. I am not indoctrinating my students. I am forcing them to examine their perspectives. Forcing someone to examine their perspective makes them realize that perhaps it's not their perspective after all...that perhaps they disagree with it. It's a process of chiseling away what they do not truly believe, and entrenching what they truly do belive.
--Note: I'm not sure I agree with this. I think the Socrates figure has a set of beliefs about what constitutes a valid reason for believing something, and this could be called bias. I need to look more into the method in the first place. Lay it out. Then evaluate it. I am sure that there are descriptions of how it is done...or I could probably just talk through it myself. Perhaps it could be done neutrally.
Also, perhaps what is important is not the development of a set of beliefs, but the development of a set of reasons, standards, one accepts or rejects a particular belief or fact.
Also (again), I'm a little wary about the idea of entrenching the ideas they "do believe in" because I always want every perspective to be able to be problematized, to be able to be re-visited when new information comes to bear. After all, entrenched ideas are quite dangerous:
"We adhere, as though to a raft, to those ideas which represent our understanding. For a vested interest in understanding is more preciously guarded than any other treasure. It is why men react, not infrequently with something akin to religious passion, to the defense of what they have so laboriously learned." John Kenneth Galbraith.
Goodnight
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment