Intellectualism

I need to get to the analysis of the DAJs, but that’s going to have to wait one more post. I was feeling really sick on Monday and just couldn’t get focused on the academic tasks at hand, which included leading (and participating in) a discussion of Sandra Silberstein’s wonderful War of Words: Language, Politics and 9/11. I call it wonderful even when some of the students (who took the time to read it) were more like, “ehh.” And what added to the ehh-factor? The students’ responses could have easily been interpreted as an anti-intellectual dismissal of academic discourse. When confronted with the kinds of books I read for living, many students claim that they don’t speak to them, that they bore them, or that they make points so subtle and minute as to not be important. Teachers often dismiss these reactions as laziness or lack of intellectual curiosity. And they’re not always wrong—though they sometimes leap to that conclusion too quickly. Some academic prose is boring, petty, and narrow. BUT, I didn’t sense that the students who were “ehh” about the book were so for these reasons. Several of them said that Silberstein didn’t say much about what they didn’t already know. Two points about this reaction: one, these students have been thinking all along about how language shapes our political/social institutions, so Silberstein’s analysis, while deft and specific, easily confirms much of what they’ve been considering; two, I didn’t do a good enough job of introducing the book as an example of discourse analysis written for a larger public audience than usual. What I think some students missed was how accessible Silberstein made her analysis—almost to the point of making it appear “simple.” But discourse analysis does not have to be difficult or obtuse; in fact, it’s most effective when its accessible and timely. On Wednesday, I’ll discuss more the approaches and techniques Silberstein uses.

Here’s the frustration: half the class didn’t crack the book—and half of that half appeared to not even know they were supposed to (despite the syllabus and my announcement the week prior). What’s up? In my frustration I threatened quizzes, a move which firmly placed me back at the center of the class. And what good would they do?

What bothers me is not so much my lack of power to get the students to read. Instead, I’m simply disappointed that (some) students are ok with missing the intellectual exchange that comes with reading and discussion. I’ve tried to establish this class as one that emphasizes intellectualism over good-student-ism. The class should be a gathering of intellectuals looking to reflect on their own ideas and reactions, not a group of students following the rubric toward a particular grade. Why don’t some students want to claim the more interesting identity?

Am I failing here? Probably too early to tell. I’ve spent a great deal of energy explaining and providing rationales for the structure of the course. I have not spent the same amount of energy defending the book choices and assignments. And I think the expenses have been appropriately distributed. But is it because there was not an assignment or a test directly linked to Silberstein’s book that students chose to ignore it? Does education really require such direct links between ideas and assessment? Are the only things worth learning the things we get graded on? Depressing.