This past summer I posted on problems of Hermeneutics within the notion of blogging itself. In the comments to the post, Professor Stanzler wrote that there is an element of faith in this type of communication. I could not agree more. Exactly how to define this faith is something that has bothered me for a long time. Every time that words come out of my mouth, they can be taken the wrong way. Every time that I write something on my blog, it can be interpreted in a manner far from what I intended. Communication is a fragile enterprise, but there is nothing more important.
Sharing meaning is a dangerous business. Unless you are a clairvoyant of some kind, you are unable to step directly into the mind of another. (And if you are a clairvoyant, stay away from me. There are moments when my inner life lacks dignity.) This leaves us only two real options: sharing time and touch with another, and the use of language. Giving someone your time and touch, two things that cannot be reproduced, is perhaps the only ways to truly convey a meaningful message to someone. (This is the essential conclusion behind the work of scholar John Durham Peters.) A hug means more than telling someone to feel better, holding someone's hand means more than any poem, a lifetime of fidelity means more than all of the words of love ever written. However, most people are very careful with whom they share their time and touch - so we arrive at option number two. The second way that we attempt to share meaning is through the use of language, but as Peters notes and most agree with, words are crude representations of inner life. Yet, so crude as they may be in representation, they play a more important role for us than many realize.
This importance is perhaps suggested to us in The Phenomenology of Spirit, a beautiful book by German philosopher GWF Hegel. To probably oversimplify, Hegel wrote that ‘there is no self without the other.’ While he goes on to argue the less convincing point that there is no real inside and one cannot know what they really think or feel without the presence of others, his point is an important one. How would you know that you exist without the recognition of others? You recognize me; I exist. I recognized you; you exist. Together we enable humanity.
This recognition is enabled primarily through the use of language. Thus, it seems to me that existence as we know it is built upon a very two interesting foundations. The more stable recognition, that of time and touch, is essentially what propels humanity into the future (given a specific interpretation of the two words together). The second, more fickle, foundation of existence is that of language. So why does this matter for a teacher?
Language is the tool of a teacher. I guess the point I’m trying to get at here is be careful to acknowledge all of your students – a smiley on an assignment, a word here, a small conversation there – sometimes such words do more than assess and acknowledge. Some kids can go through a school day without speaking a word. At times, I was one of those students in high school. Ghosts do walk through our schools. It is possible to not-exist for hours at a time. How does it feel when you write a blog and no one comments on it? It’s almost like the post doesn’t exist. Words, as frightening as they can be when you’re trying to share your inner world, can mean more than you think.
6 comments:
Choosing "ghosts" as a subject this close to Halloween...I am assuming that this is not just a coincidence...
I think this case of "ghostly silence" can be especially true in the case of ELL students. There are a few in the classes that I observe that sit in their seats for the entire hour and never once make an attempt to participate in large class or small group discussions. And if attempts are made to engage these students, they contribute the shortest statement that they can before going back to staring at the desk. Maybe small things like comments on papers and individual conversations will help make the students feel comfortable enough with their language skills to participate in class...at least one can hope. As you said, it is important for teachers to recognize their role in these situations.
Damn, Jon.
Droppin' some knowledge on us.
As always, another insightful post. You are certainly not wrong to highlight the primacy of personal time/touch and language as two essentials of communication.
Lately, I've been geeking out a bit about Web 2.0 stuff (*cough* see my recent post on the topic *cough*), and how it facilitates communication and actually creates community and communication where it did not exist before.
But in remembering personal time/touch, you point out one detail that cannot always be accounted for in the innovations of the Internet--physical human connection.
Does this mean we should abandon everything that will leave us outside of the exact vicinity of another human being? Of course not. But it is important to remember the simple things sometimes.
If we're exploring how to communicate with Web 2.0, and the older developments of the Internet were Web 1.0, does that make holding hands part of Web 0.0?
-will-
Jon, my daughter is taking an world religion course (one of those that fills the big lecture halls in the MLB) and she tells me that one of her profs starts every class by pointing at each and every student. Your comments certainly remind me of the importance and the nobility of that gesture. The idea of greeting every student at the door (I first read the idea in Harry Wong's "first Days of School") really gave me pause for thought.
Your words also inspire me to think about the importance of figuring out both what our students bring to the classroom, and how we can utilize those experiences, skills, perspectives, etc. in our teaching.
As you well know, your drinking buddy John Dewey laid before all of us the challenge of seeing school *as* life, not as preparation for life. I think that establishing the kinds of intellectual and human connections you describe could help a kid see school as something that could be about their life, and not simply something that gets in the way of it.
Jon,
THIS is why I want to teach a writing class based solely on ethos, logos, and pathos. How do we try to connect to others when touch is not an option?
And, reflecting on some of what Jeff was saying, I think that this is something he's captured very well in his teaching. We've all experienced the scrunched-forehead-excited-crouch of Jeff Stanzler. We all won't have that tactic, of course. But the best teachers I've ever had, Stanzler included, have all made me feel as though they seriously see, hear, and understand me.
You are going to be a great teacher.
The reason I want to be an English teacher (and the reason I have been a writer for so long) is so that I can daily delve into this question of communication and true understanding. It frustrates me immensely that each utterance by a person is understood by the listener with their own inflection of every past use of the word in their experience. How do we make meaning clear when we can only rely on words that are so loaded with history? Oh, you've hit the question that causes me to get up every morning.
Sociologically (as well as philosophically) speaking, our identities are socially constructed and we are always social beings, this goes along with Hegel (and I can't believe I've never read him). In the classroom, this can mean a lot for the creation of community. I greet every student every morning, whether or not they acknowlege me back, me saying their name aloud when they walk is in important to me (and maybe to them). When I walk around to help them with their writing, I stop at every desk.
Anyway, I ramble. Have a good thanksgiving break! Right on, as per usual.
xo
l
Lauren, what an inspiring comment. The very thing that might--on the surface--seem to be the cause only of frustration turns out to be the thing that "causes (you) to get up every morning." What an inspiring statement!
One of the more interesting researchers into teaching that I know of, Martin Haberman, looks at the slightly different (but *related*) issue of disengaged students and how teachers define their role relative to such students. It is all too easy to frame the "problem" as one of "that kid," but his contention is that teachers need to see this "problem" as a core and enduring feature of their job--something to be embraced and not "fixed."
His ideal is teachers that are "constantly seeking out and capitalizing on problems, questions, discrepant events, current crises and emergencies."
The point is not to imagine "fixing" problems so much as embracing the ongoing challenges that (I imagine him saying) "(cause us) to get up every morning."
To paraphrase a good friend, Lauren, they're going to pay you (modestly albeit) to grapple with really important problems such as these...not a bad deal ;-)
(Haberman, Martin "Star Teachers of Children in Poverty" Kappa Delta Pi: West Lafayette, In, 1995: pp. 29)
Post a Comment