Even before I read this text, I had an issue with the title
for two reasons. 1) “Saving the world” implies that I am trying to make the
world better for everyone. I honestly don’t even know what that would
look like. You can’t make the world better for both the privileged and the
oppressed, and I promise you, I am not interested in the former. 2) On my own
time? As a graduate student, all of my time is somehow linked to my work (apart
from the occasional Netflix or Xbox session—which is riddled with slight guilt
for not doing work). In that regard, I found it funny. On a more serious note,
I have the privilege to reflect on oppressive structures “on my own time.” I
can pick and choose when to address them with little to no impact on my
personal life. But what about a student of color? Suddenly, “on your own time”
becomes “every second of your time.”
So, what exactly am I doing with “my time” in the classroom?
Or, Fish might ask me, “What is your job as an FYC instructor, and are you
doing it?” A large part of my job is dictated by the Writing
Program at Ball State, but I am working under my belief that higher
education is more than job preparation. Yes, I hope my students leave the
course knowing how to construct logical arguments, evaluate texts, conduct
reliable research, rhetorically analyze language, and write coherently. I also
hope that they can apply that knowledge to the world around them—can they see
the components of systemic racism in the language around them? Can they see how
language surrounding gender literally controls our day-to-day actions? This is
where I take issue with Fish’s argument about “doing my job.”
If part of my job, in ENG 103, is to teach students how to engage
with the “rhetorical choices” an author makes and the “rhetorical elements” of
a text, how can I do so without talking about race? Without talking about gender?
Class? These structures control the world we live in, and language is the
vehicle for that control. It makes me ask a few questions:
1.
How can I accurately and effectively do my
job without showing students the role that language plays in constructing
the world around them?
2.
How can I teach them to write effectively without
showing them how oppressive structures influence the texts they create?
3.
How can I teach them about making rhetorical choices
without showing them how those choices can perpetuate oppressive structures?
I agree that there is a difference between discussing partisan
politics and making students aware of the social politics that govern society,
and to give Fish a little credit, he does mention this; however, he equates “announcing
one’s political allegiance” with “[discussing] various forms of discrimination”
(17). I didn’t know that discrimination and oppression were partisan issues.
I think that it is easy to approach this text with disdain—in
fact, one of the first comments I read in the margins of my book was “This guy
is an asshole.” To the person who owned this before me, I agree with you. But
just like lamenting over the sorry state of Composition won’t get us anywhere,
ranting over Fish’s “asshole-ness” won’t either. I am more interested in the assumptions
he makes when constructing his argument. How do his assumptions differ from
mine? What are the consequences of this text in general? And, something I want
to explore as I continue reading, why bother even reading this text?
Margaret,
ReplyDeleteI loved this post, and as I told you, I was reading this metaphorically snapping my fingers throughout. As for your opening paragraph, I totally agree—I'm not trying to save the world. Instead, I'm trying to save myself. I cannot and will not allow myself to remain comfortable as well as refuse to address oppressions and privileges. I also always need to (un)learn more about privilege and oppression as well as teach others about that, which I don't think should that should be partisan issues either. Finally, I also do wonder about the consequences of this text. I'm curious as to how the field reacted to the book as a whole.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMargaret,
ReplyDeleteI agree with this entire post. I also take issue with Fish's title, as you discussed in your first paragraph. We are expected to do so much as educators and students. It's IMPOSSIBLE for us to "save the world on our own time" or the university's time or literally any time. We are already spread so thin in our roles as GAs that asking us to do more is almost insulting.
As for Fish's "just do your job argument," I agree with what Bethany said above. I will not allow myself to be comfortable and ignore the oppression of others when I am in a privileged position, regardless of what someone in the field thinks my job is.
I also agree that this text is very hard to agree with. I don't want to admit that Fish has some points I agree with because the presentation of them makes me so frustrated. I agree with Bethany in being curious as to how the field reacted to Fish's book and if it is similar to how we are reacting to it in class. It's made me think about the FYC community in more depth.
I think a lot of this comes from how we view saving that world. I'm DEFINITELY out to save the world--but I think of that as doing everything I can to make what I have any sort of control over or interaction with better. If I can give my students something to think about in a way they haven't before then I'm doing that work.
ReplyDeleteI also think Fish's problem is his privilege--he's never in his life had to wrestle with it. Like you said, those of us in privileged positionalities get to choose when we engage with these uncomfortable *things*...I don't think he's ever made the choice to do so.
As for "do your jobs," I wouldn't be the human I am today if the people who taught me were braenly apolitical. I have had the privilege of professors who, without ever explicitly revealing their own political leanings, changed the way I thought about the world. And somehow they also managed to teach me the skills that they were supposed to. Obviously, they would also have something to say about what Fish qualifies as "our job."
First off, yay Xbox! I too find myself playing for maybe 30 minutes and then immediately regretting it since there's so much to do.
ReplyDeleteOkay. That's over. I think that Fish's ideal state, his utopia, is a higher education that doesn't push ideology if it isn't directly spelled out in its discipline (political science for example). However, as we move deeper and deeper into understand how our very language is oppressive and severely white, I don't see Fish's argument holding much weight anymore. If then doing our jobs requires us to churn out perfect little language monsters, then we first must address the racist nature of our language. To Fish, that is a political affair. Like you said, these matters, these social injustices, are not partisan in nature, no matter how hard some people try to make it that way. Like you, I want my students to leave my classroom not prepared for a job--that, in fact, isn't my job--but to understand the world they live in a little bit more clearly. That, to me, is the point of higher education. Not job preparation. That's a late capitalist construct that needs to die.