Rhetoric on the Edge of Cunning
Rhetoric on the Edge of Cunning
Karen Kopelson's article "Rhetoric on the Edge of Cunning; or, The Performance of Neutrality (Re)Considered" focused on something we've discussed in class at length: the politicalization of the First Year Composition classroom and the student resistance that arises from it. Kopelson argues that teachers that integrate overtly critical pedagogical approaches are ineffective for those "who [are] immediately read by students as belonging to any of the marginalized constituencies listed above" (118). Instead, she proposes that teachers from these marginalized groups should base their pedagogy practices in "cunning performative reappropriation of traditional academic postures, such as authority, objectivity, and neutrality" (118). She argues that neutrality, which is expected by many students, can still be rhetorically savvy, and politically responsive and responsible, therefore minimizing resistance.What Kopelson describes seems to be a type of rhetorical utopia in the classroom where politics and neutrality can exist together in harmony. Even within her argument, she states that its a "performance" of neutrality. Although I think we can all agree that teaching is, in a way, a performative act, I find myself bristling at the idea of performing neutrality. I've noticed my success in my classroom is rooted in the trust I've built with my students, and I don't think I would have this trust by "performing" in any way. We've discussed in class how effective or ineffective we think pushing certain pedagogical practices would be in our classrooms and how receptive we believe our students would be to these practices. While I think we have to have certain limits to keep our students from shutting us out, I'm not sure performing neutrality and using "cunning" to still be political is the right move.
What are your thoughts on Kopelson's article? Do you think the performance of neutrality could be effective in our composition classrooms?
P.S. I hope you all are well!
I really appreciated Kopelson's argument here.
ReplyDeleteAs possibly the lone expressionist in our class, I have a number of concerns about imposing my own beliefs on students, and a performance that actively tries to counterbalance my natural urges to reproduce my system of belief seems very useful (and, I think, something I already practice to some degree).
I think we need to remember that, for the most part, systems of schooling are utopian in conception as well, whether that's the Germanic model the US imported that would magically make everyone good, obedient factory workers or the model provided by many of the theorists people in our class are reading favorably where the instructor as revolutionary leads their students on a merry quest to fight the power.
What actually happens is a big mess of a classroom where everyone brings different assumptions about how things are supposed to work. How are you managing that miasma? I would posit that, unless you're being utterly authoritarian, you're performing some manner of neutrality as you nudge your students around and asking them their opinions without (at least initially) showing your hand.
I would definitely have to agree with you Lucas, that I don’t want to force my own beliefs on my students. In the end, if I’m being honest, I would like them to at least consider my point of view on certain things, but in no way would I want to create little drone-clones of myself. Yet, perhaps there’s a fine line between indoctrination and acculturation? The difference between the two being that acculturation is dependent on agency (students are given the freedom to choose whether they want to accept all of these ideas and beliefs we’re throwing at them). Indoctrination on the other hand, doesn’t leave this wiggle room (at least––and I stress this––form the perspective of the indoctrinator).
DeleteAlthough, perhaps to complicate things, it seemed to me that Kopelson was arguing for a performance of neutrality specifically for the purpose of cunningly convincing students to come around to the instructor’s way of seeing things (and to then believe it themselves in the best case scenario). (See for instance the bottom of page 129.)
Also, I love that you used the word “miasma.” Happens to be one of the most epic words in the English language.
Cassia,
DeleteI like the distinction you’re making – this concept of indoctrination and students feeling forced to agree with the teacher – that’s why I resist the idea of telling students what to write about, as I feel they often get “stuck” thinking they’ll receive a bad grade if they’re forced to write about an issue and write in a direction they know their instructor will disagree with. I’ve been in similar situations, and even if I’m not afraid to state my opinion, I don’t want to unnecessarily start a fight with someone when I know they’re not going to change their opinion.
The idea of sneaking around seems super sticky to me (and I think a lot of students can see through it), which is why I resisted this article so much—I’m all for the idea of being frank and straightforward with where I fall on issues with students, but taking an extra, intentional step to let them know that they’re allowed and even encouraged to disagree with me as long as they present their point of view with informed knowledge and with the same respect I’m offering them. I don’t think you can say you encourage students to critically think and then put a limit on which directions they’re allowed to think in. Do we then become afraid of knowledge and education in the same way we look down on others for resisting new ideas and exploration?
-Jessie
Cassia,
DeleteI supposed I still worry about whether students actually have agency in our classrooms. Many have already been indoctrinated into one mode of classroom operation in their K-12 education, so there might not be a meaningful difference between attempts at indoctrination and acculturation in practice.
As to neutrality being a tool used to convince students of the correctness of our own personal positions, I guess I find that a preferable (if still imperfect) option compared to outright stating my beliefs, for reasons of unintentional indoctrination as I've stated above. In my ideal world, there would be no teachers standing at the front of a classroom. However, since I am currently in such a role (if digitally at the moment), and recognize that I am a person with ideas that I think everyone else should agree with, I would prefer they agree with me because they came to the ideas somewhat on their own, and not because they want to explicitly agree with the teacher.
In a way, even if Kopelson is being sneaky and just trying to indoctrinate her students in a different mode, this neutral playacting mode gives the students enough wiggle room to end up somewhere different than the instructor wants.
I really appreciate your post Natalie. Thank you for asking about our wellbeing. I think I am finally beginning to find a way to claw myself out of the abyss of work (as a student and a teacher) that’s swallowed me up in the past few weeks. I hope everyone else has been able to establish some kind of routine now.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see your point about the effectiveness of being upfront with our students. That being said, I think there is certainly an upside to performing neutrality in the classroom. I don’t agree with lying outright to our students, though I think there is a way to be honest and still perform neutrality. I have had professors who, from day one, will say that we are going to talk about things in the class that they don’t agree with, but they are not going tell us what those things are in the name of critical academic discussion. In that way, it left students guessing about the beliefs and opinions of the professor and also meant that the professor was not outright lying to students.
Somehow this all puts me in mind of something my dad would always do. He would get into these deep discussion/debates with people about theology. Because he knew theology so well he would start off taking the opposite theological opinion as whoever he was talking with. It didn’t matter what he personally believed was the right position or even whether he agreed with everything the other person was saying. He would do this just to see how they would respond to having their ideas challenged, or to see how they would argue for their beliefs. In a way, he used it to challenge people to see the other perspectives.
The same line of thinking can apply to the composition classroom and I think that this is partially the attitude Kopelson was arguing for. This is an attitude that I have tried to take on in my own teaching because I think it can be an effective strategy.
I debated this topic when preparing my 104 class this year. My uncertainty of political topics led me to choosing a neutral, exploratory research topic instead (healthy habit immersion experience). However, in preparing for 103, I want to further understand how to approach these topics in an organized way, doing so while respecting ALL of my students ideas and opinions. Higher education has become, to an extent, and indoctrination into an echo-chamber of shared beliefs. In discussing hot topics, I want to hear variety. The 103 and 104 classrooms are diverse ones because they are required for everyone, so everyone's voice should be heard and not guided by my authoritarian preconceptions of truth.
ReplyDeleteHi Natalie!
ReplyDeleteThis post is really interesting because it makes us reflect on our own values as instructors. Being neutral in the classroom sounds like a good idea to give students the confidence they need to be themselves. However, it would be important to think of the degree of neutrality we may perform in class. We don't want to make students shape their minds according to ours, yet, we should consider whether performing neutrally may take us out of ourselves in a sense that we are not ourselves anymore, but what we are trying to perform. In this sense, I think that more than struggling with the type of performance we should adopt, we should start by being ourselves first. It will be easier for us to bypass any obstacles in the way if we start by being as natural as possible in the classroom since that is what are all familiar with.
Natalie,
ReplyDeleteMy values say something different here. Of course, I support neutrality. But again, who am I then? Our classes shape identity. If I don't have my own identity in class, then how will that work? In ENG 103, what we do and what we teach?
We discuss how we can persuade our audience and persuading means not to mislead someone but to show them the other side of the page. So, I would like to present myself as a person who I am but I'll be neutral in terms of preaching. Whenever I'll introduce something, that will require my experience too.
However, I want to add one more thing here. My father is a teacher. He always says that a teacher should be the best artist. He needs to wear all the colors according to the class' demand. Teachers perform to make things easier for them. Teachers have opportunities to take the lead in a particular direction. But how much effective would that be? So, it's better to show them all sides of a page and let them make the decision. That's how they will learn. This advanced world requires students to learn about economy, politics and other issues but, I don't think I need to introduce any particular one as a pedagogy and make that the theme of my class. I can introduce those in other ways too.