Teaching Queerly
While reading Susan Waite's "Teaching Queer," I was struck by this question: "How do you teach composition queerly?" It's different from teaching what queer is -- and different from teaching queer texts, or being queer and teaching. The Waite reading was the introduction to her book, so it deals with the theoretical, primarily in that teaching queerly is teaching fluidity. However, I wanted practical application, since this idea of sexuality and gender being fluid is not new (at least to me, a queer person - although it took me, like the students in the DiGrazia & Boucher reading, a lot of reflection and recategorizing to come to terms with it). But how to apply that practically in the class room? How would you pull that off?
I had an epiphany during DiGrazia & Boucher (whose text was honestly SUPER validating - like Jennifer's anecdote in the beginning, you always worry, especially around other queer people, whether you're "queer enough"...kind of like how grad students wonder if we're really "smart enough" to share class with these other super smart grad students, huh? It's almost like the fear of inadequacy is part of the human condition or something!). It was this part which hit me over the head with the metaphorical frying pan: "We came to understand that there was something important to our students about naming and representing self, even if that self is multiple and ever-changing, and that writing queerly could enable such a process" (40). It seems now to me obvious: if teaching queerly means teaching fluidity, then it make sense that to teach queerly you have to focus around the intersections of identity, so that the writing class room becomes "a place to (re)create identity categories and (re)imagine possibilities for self-representation" (28). To teach queerly means to allow space for students to explore how identities are shaped.
Practically, then, a theme for an ENG 103 and/or 104 class arises: labels. How we label ourselves, how we fit or do not fit those labels. It's funny -- I've seen classes that do this, and I didn't question why at all. Angela Jackson Brown's (I think it's hers, anyway) community class works within this theme, since students have to articulate a particular community they're apart of. Even the strangest class I've ever had an assignment come through from, during my Writing Center hours, does this: he focuses on how marginalized groups (like doomsday preppers) form and practice their identity in relation to social norms.
Now, maybe they just really like to teach these topics and it's not conscious choice to teach queerly at all. That totally happens. But it is good to know that there are practical applications for the classroom. I like that DiGrazia and Boucher also offered a way to queer their authority in the classroom, which interestingly enough, are things we've doing all semester. Queering authority looks like shifting the power balance toward the students, so they could look "to themselves and each other as sources of authority" and balance power enough that students could "work with various forms and genres and see writing as a tool for representing what they discovered" (31).
Wow, that was a lot. I guess my only question remains is: would you teach queerly? Do y'all have any other idea about the way in which someone can teach queerly?
Mika,
ReplyDeleteI love this idea! I was having similar thoughts during this readings, like--I agree with what their saying and this can certainly fit into the composition classroom--and SHOULD--but how do we make that work practically?
I've been thinking about themes for my own classroom--do I need a theme? What does a theme do? How will my students react to a theme? And your thoughts about this idea of labels is really inspiring to me, and something I'm definitely already thinking about adapting for my 104 class for the fall.
I love the ways that this theme could open up our classrooms to discussions about different areas of identities and various texts that we may not otherwise have an opening to engage our students in. Ever since we talked about the responsibility we have to engage in challenging topics in our classrooms, I've been racking my brain for practical ways to fit in the conversations I want to have without forcing them--and I think a theme of labels is a GREAT way to do that. I love that this allows students to think about whatever facet of an identity they want and it doesn't force anything on them, but it certainly gives us a window as instructors to have discussions about what's in an identity, how we represent that, what's challenging about that, etc.
I love this! Thanks for sharing.
Shelbi
The doomsday prepper example is really neat. I don't know if it's what many of us would think of when the phrase "marginalized" gets mentioned, but it definitely fits the bill. We need to remember how vast an array of identities and groups there are out there.
ReplyDeleteI do think that sort of theming presents a challenge, however. My first assignment in 103 this semester was a literacy autobiography, and I had the darndest time getting students to take a step back and think about the different ways they communicate. I spent a whole class nudging them to think about the different social media platforms they use and hobbies in which they participate (it too so long to get the student who was dealing with a fairly major basketball-related injury to realize that maybe sports could be a topic!) that I can only imagine the work involved getting to students to engage with these even more complex and charged issues of identity.
I agree with you Lucas, the example of the doomsday preppers was very intriguing to me. I think even something like that could be very interesting to discuss in a freshman English class. This also brought to mind subcultures like metalheads, polygamists, Flat Earthers….
DeleteI have been strongly considering theming the ENG 104 sections I’m teaching next semester on “Popular Culture and Counterculture.” The way I see it, this would also intersect with identity and I could bring in a lot of examples and topics of things that my students are interested in, as well as things they may never have heard of before or really taken the time to think about or get to know.
I will agree with you though that theming can present a challenge. However, I also wonder if some of the resistance we face is because a number of our students just don’t want to be there. So, perhaps in picking a topic that could be broad enough to allow students to find something that interests them specifically, they will actually become interested in the learning process. True, it may take some time and a good bit of effort on our part to actually get them to see that we’ve created a course they can engage with, but I think it would end up being worth it. If nothing else, we’ve at least picked something that we can be enthusiastic about (which I think can be infectious).
lol, I definitely used the wrong word there Lucas - what I was looking for were the terms subculture/counterculture, so thank you, Cassia! While I do think that student engagement is super hard, I also think that Cassia's right - a lot of students just simply don't want to be there. It's important to remember that sometimes the only thing we can do is damage control, and keep that student's resistance from affecting the way the other students learn. I would keep trying, but at some point you have acknowledge that it's not personal.
DeleteYES! So true! The classroom is a place where identities are created and shaped. Granted, I have done a lot of studying and theorizing about the construction of identities and how the place we are in determines in a lot of ways how we are perceived and how we perceive ourselves––that we ARE different people in different places and situations. So I love this idea that the classroom is a place of identity construction. I think this maybe connects a bit with the blog post I wrote last week (which was partially) about how our beliefs and perceptions of the world are shaped by the classroom. And, of course, I see this as all being intertwined.
ReplyDeleteI especially love that quote you brought in “about naming and representing self, even if that self is multiple and ever-changing,” (40). The idea that teaching queerly is about focusing on the intersection(ality) of identity and that that is what it is that allows us to (de)construct identities was intensely cool. I personally see the classroom as being a place of acculturation (whether or not we decide to accept what we are being taught or no). I often wonder how much people think about this either as instructors or as students. Do they realized they are being shaped by what they are learning? Does this factor into their choices about what classes they decide to take? What about classes that are mandatorily forced on them? What does that say about the identity we are “supposed” to have as constructed by society writ-large?
Your insertion of the idea that there are professors out there teaching queerly and not even knowing it (or realizing it) was very intriguing to me. How exactly can we define queer pedagogy? Does it have to be strictly about gender? I don’t think so. After all, the readings we had for this week seemed to imply (and even outright state) that our identities are intersectional and it’s all bound up with other things: Class, ethnicity, race, relations of power, worldview, et cetera, et cetera….
It gets back even to me trying to pinpoint the exact definition of queer. It’s about an identity that runs counter to the norm, yes? Of course, the norm for one culture is going to be queer for another and vice versa. Could we even argue that we are all queer in some sense? Thus, maybe a lot of people teach queerly without even realizing it? Maybe even some of us are intentionally teaching queerly without the recognition that this is what’s going on? Is it specifically and strictly dealing with an acute focus on GENDER that makes a queer pedagogy?
As you can see, I’m a bit fired up about this. These were some pretty thought-provoking readings.
Mika,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post. I was also having all these questions while reading what you have here. Introducing this concept can be great and how they presented in their papers was really amazing. But when you are planning to implement this as a theme in your class that will be somehow troublesome. Probably in name of inclusions, we will exclude others.
However, we can talk about this in class or dedicate a few classes for this concept. Because our classrooms are best places to shape identities and acknowledge all the identities. We can discuss the challenges they have and how they are accepting those and how we should look at those but making this a whole theme for classroom would not be a good idea, I assume.
This pedagogy is something interesting to read and it's really important to facilitate these ideas in classroom for some discussion, but it's not that much easy to plan each and everything targeting this concept.
Writing classes help students to (re)think, (re)imagine but we just can't focus on one among all the diverse positionalities students hold. However, I'm more than open to know more about it, take suggestions from my peers and gather ideas about turning this concept into a whole course theme.
ReplyDeleteMika,
I find that my brain in a nearing-rotten state after reading DiGrazia, Boucher, Waite, and yes, your post as well. Haha I am an extremely reflexive person when it comes to pedagogical decisions and their implications and after reading these texts, I find myself “inQueering” (haha) whether I am doing enough in my room, in my philosophy, to consider the intersections of identity. In all frankness, I find that I look to the big picture of critical pedagogy because it is all-encompassing—Though, in these readings and in your post, I hear of the importance of labels, of identification, and of their ties to socio-emotional and ideological significance (something critical pedagogy is less concerned with).
These classifications are often diluted when privileging critical pedagogy because the purpose lies not in expressivist roots, but in critically questioning the subjugation that is violently oppressive to most all. I find the idea of “teaching queer” to be so…not abstract, what’s the word I’m looking for…. It is both dependent on labels and resistant of them. Multi-faceted! As is everything right? This is exhausting.
So I have come to the conclusion that when teaching queer, one can think of it as it relates to students and identity formation; one can think of it as it relates to reading queer texts alongside queer theory and synthesizing these texts as they relate to student identity; one can think of it as queering the traditional ways of “doing” writing. I am most intrigued (and confused) by the idea of queering the traditional ways of “doing” writing. Not only am I a huge promoter of genre studies and form, but I also consider this transition to queering writing as already upon us... and sitting closely to student-centeredness (adapting pedagogy to meet the learning needs of all students).
I guess my question is how far is too far? How much can we queer writing, queer composition, before composition becomes so abstract that students cannot identify the objectives they are working towards, the skills they are mastering, etc.? What does this mean for relative consistency in the teaching of composition and the consistency in English departments? Does THAT matter? If you are to integrate this concept of teaching queer in your room, how would you describe your course? I’m not sure that I could put words to it and that seems a bit frightening to me (though I love the epistemological stretch). Will continue thinking on this one…
Great post!
-Kelli