In "Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing," Maxine Hairston observes what she thinks is a problematic trend in freshman English classes--that is the shift from process oriented, student centered work to a more political model where students are subjected to a brainwashing of liberal proportions. Hairston observes this "disturbing" trend where some composition instructors feel it is their duty to push their "radical" (180) politics before a Hairston defined composition emphasis on student growth as a writer.
If Hairston were to frame this argument within a baseline structure of "pushing a political agenda in an educational setting is problematic," then I think there would be more merit to her piece--at least initially. However, much like her sabre-rattling in "Breaking our Bonds and Reaffirming our Connections," Hairston gets carried away with superfluous metaphors that ironically cause her arguments to mirror the same simplicity, silliness, and undemonstrative nature that she claims Marxist critics possess. It is not outlandish in my estimate for Marxists to equate previous co-opted movements like expressivist writing as a perfect fit for assimilating students into a conditioned behavior in which they become a commodity. If we are to read Hairston's assertions that freshman composition students are "largely unsophisticated" (185) and even momentarily bypass a rather tasteless metaphor that compares students to a fertile field to cultivate, then there is an opportunity to offer a constructive point to work off. If freshman English students are somehow in need of sophistication, can it be achieved in a freshman English class in a political nature without Hairston's concern of a sort of liberal brainwashing?
Today, my students talked about their research questions. I have framed the project in a way where they will interview someone they call a mentor and synthesize that with secondary research to explore their question. Topics ranged from the climate to protests in Hong Kong. There is a student desire to explore politically charged content without Hairston's fear of forcing them into liberal ideological thinking. I think the goal is to teach them to think critically about the content they are already consuming or seeking out. So far, that is my best guess as how we can retain student-centered agency in a world of inescapable political context.
Jake,
ReplyDeleteI'm in the camp of really disliking Hairston's argument in this piece She makes several assumptions: 1) that writing is apolitical, 2) that one can learn about how writing uses language without being political. Both of these are wrong. Because language is inherently embedded with positionality, privilege, and power, it is always “for” and “about” (Hairston 179) everything and thus, political.
Also, I like to return to this quotation from Asao Inoue's 4Cs address. He explains how the academy that was built on the bodies of those it marginalizes, and which continues to be bolstered by White supremacy and its language. Worth quoting in full, he declares: "Our decisions to NOT build more radical, antiracist, and anti-White language supremacist assessment ecologies in our classrooms often are based on our own selfish sense of comfort, selfish senses of not being ready to share our gardens. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard writing teachers, ones who are conscientious, critical, and experienced, say to me, “I’m just not ready . . . I don’t feel comfortable yet, maybe next semester.” What a blind sense of privilege! What a lack of compassion – if compassion is more than feeling empathy, but a doing something, a suffering with others. What a lack of asking the deep attending and problematizing question: Am I causing you to suffer? Many of your students of color, your students who do not embody enough of the White habits of language that make up your standards, stand at your classroom doors and die for your comfort, die as they wait for you to be ready."
So, overall, the classroom and writing is always political and avoiding that kills our students, metaphorically and literally.
Jake,
ReplyDeleteHairston's argument was difficult for me to understand, mainly because I hated it. Her assumptions, as Bethany outlined in her response, make her argument seem impossible. Language and writing is naturally political. I can't think of a single topic in a classroom that would not in some way relate to the bigger political picture.
I believe we are doing our students a serious disservice by depoliticizing the classroom. If a first year composition class is a place to explore identity in writing, this identity should include all facets of life. We shouldn't walk on political eggshells around our students. At the end of the day, we are all humans with our own opinions. If we can't share those opinions in a constructive, positive way, we are failing our students and ourselves. We are teaching adults who should, at this point in their lives, be able to handle differing opinions. It's ridiculous to think our class exists in a sort of depoliticized bubble.
Jake,
ReplyDeleteI agree that Hairston's simplification of terms like "identity, "diversity," and "politics" creates a piece that is both unrealistic and privileged. What upset me the most is that she chastises instructors who feel that it is their duty to politicize the classroom. I cannot even begin to comprehend this privileged opinion.
The first time I read this piece, I wasn't fond of it, but I could see her point. Now, after a year of grad school, this article makes me cringe. While I agree that we should not address partisan politics in the classroom, I find it difficult to teach writing without addressing politics. If we believe that writing is a social process and is influenced by the experiences we bring into the classroom, how can we teach writing without addressing the oppressive structures that govern our world? The idea of apolitical writing instructor is a massive contradiction and a disservice to every student who walks through our door.
Most students will not critically engage in political material on their own (the key word here is critically--I'm sure they would engage). It is our job to bring it to the table--if we left it up to them, I doubt any positive change would occur. I consider myself pretty far left, but I didn't get here without mentors and instructors who opened my eyes to the oppressive reality that a lot of the world lives in. Now it is time for me to continue that eye-opening process, no matter how uncomfortable it makes me.
Jake,
ReplyDeleteI think you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to the most problematic aspect of Hairstons argument. Aside from the fact that she's wrong, she destroys her own argument with the lengths she goes to prove it. She gets in her own way.
You're right about the students. They're looking for ways to engage with and make sense of the world they live in, a world that is instrinsically politcal.