In reading The Other "F" Word: The Feminist in the Classroom by Dale M. Bauer, I was struck most poignantly by the concept of identification. Particularly, I took note of the idea that by identifying oneself within this or that category (i.e., White, Feminist, Male, etc.), you are putting yourself at the mercy of whatever the selected label(s) mean to the people to whom you are identifying yourself.
In other words, if I were to walk into a room full of complete strangers (we can call them students) and proclaim myself to be a feminist, I would have to be prepared for these strangers (students) to take that into account when evaluating my actions/behaviors (lessons plans, grading, teaching style, etc.).
What I am left wondering is this; is it better to refuse any identification within a classroom (as a teacher) in order to preserve a sense of non-bias? Or is it better to embrace how I self-identify and attempt to perform a non-bias despite how I self-identify? In considering this, I also have to wonder whether or not I can be perceived by students as acting in a non-bias manner once my self-identification is public.
This idea of self-identifying creating a perception of bias (students believe that grades are based on their alignment with the view of the teacher) creates a space for discussing the implications of division. That is, if we suppose that a student doesn't agree with my position on some matter (as implied by my self-identification), the difference between that student and I is a place for discussion where we can ask questions like "where does agreement end and resistance begin," "are there places of unity," and "how does your difference of opinion also serve to identify you?"
One goal of Feminism in the classroom according to Bauer seems to be to help students identify themselves and, within that identification, build a community which can overcome divisions by finding where we align. Self-identification is internal. The acknowledgement of that self-identification as a political stance others may share becomes external. This bridging of the internal to the external opens up a pathway by which students can move from the realm of "moral speculation" (which I read as internal) to a realm of "decision making" (which I read as external; social change).
To sum it up (and answer my questions in paragraph three), it would seem that it is better to wear your self-identification on your sleeve and use any resistance to it as fuel to help students identify themselves (either with or against your identification). The key is not to focus on the differences, but to focus on what those differences say about the student, to help the student understand how those differences necessarily identify them, and then to help the student turn that identification into decision making and social action.
Hi Steven,
ReplyDeleteI like your idea that the difference between a professor's and a student's beliefs can be a place for rhetorically rich discussion. I think that that approach is a good argument for a professor taking a certain ideological stance, rather than "privatizing" their beliefs. However, I did not get the impression that Bauer was actually encouraging students to "identify themselves," and in fact, it seemed to me that she was saying the opposite. With statements such as “We exercise authority over them in asking them to give up their foundational beliefs,” and “How do we move ourselves out of this political impasse and resistance in order to get our students to identify with the political agenda of feminism?” it rather seemed that Bauer was arguing for students to give up their previously held identities and align themselves with her own. Bauer also specifically decries the "expressivist model" as reinforcing patriarchy. I think that a "help students discover themselves" classroom model would qualify as expressivist, and while I'm not sure I agree with Bauer, she clearly does not support that approach to teaching. Anyway, I'm still not sure if I read the article correctly, so I might have just sounded pretty dumb.
Have a good one,
Andrew
Going back over the article, I suppose I sort of assumed that after (as Bizzell is quoted) "we give them nothing" to replace their foundational beliefs and "deny the validity of all authority", we deconstruct their institutionalized beliefs and leave them to rebuild their own. However, there is some part of that process which requires resistance. Particularly, resistance to the beliefs they hold. My consideration may more aptly be stated as "can we turn the resistance a student may have against our self-identification backward onto them in order to help them critically view themselves?" That critical self-view seems vital as a starting point for understanding and deconstructing identities born of institution and replace them with identities born of the self.
DeleteHi Steven,
ReplyDeleteAs I read your blog, I thought about what you said about declaration. Must an individual walk into a space and declare themselves a feminist? Is this our responsibility as teachers? Do I have to walk into a space and declare myself as a feminist? Is it different between females and males? I wonder about that concept as I think there is a difference. I also think being a feminist in the classroom, or having a feminist approach, can be shown in how a teacher teaches and how teachers interact with students. Reading your blog, I am internally struggling with self-identification and practicing a feminist classroom approach. I like that you say we have to self-identify and use this identification, to help students with their own identification, and to build a community to overcome divisions. By self-identifying, this is facing resistance. This idea makes me think about the Crabtree and Sapp (2016), reading. Both Robin and David were self-identified feminists however, there experiences and the resistance they faced from their students and the administration was different based on their gender.
In the readings, I found myself becoming infuriated by Bauer’s student’s responses. And then I wasn’t surprised. I wonder if by self-identifying, the students were then able to use feminism as an excuse of why they didn’t like the course and the material. I also found myself identifying with Crabtree and Sapp (2016), in relation to Robin’s experience. In my own experience, I am currently teaching 109X. While I don’t outwardly identify as a feminist, I try and take a feminist approach. I try and let students decided on due dates for their online postings. And sometimes I’ll bring different material to class and let them decided what they want to cover. It’s difficult as they resist and push back. I am trying to take a more open, while still meeting the University requirements, approach and still I’m being meet with resistance. I wonder if the students would react differently if I had had self-declared myself a feminist at the beginning of the semester. Or, would they use this as another excuse of why they don’t want to engage and participate in the work?