Discussing Right from Wrong with Lynch (and a guest appearance by Ryan Gosling)

Lately I’ve been frustrated. Too much information has entered my brain, and I can’t retain it all—especially from this class.

 

We’ve discussed a lot of theories from a lot of scholars. If I were a good student, I would have been making a list as we read. But it is too late…

 

OH WAIT. We have blog posts.

 

The reason I’ve been frustrated is because I was trying to tie everything together: how do I take all of these theories and create a teaching philosophy? If I can’t take all of the theories, which ones should I value? If I value some over others, am I a bad person? An inept teacher? A curmudgeon?

 

My first step in remembering what we read and discussed was to review older posts. Here are some of the finer points made by YOU (or not you, depending on who you are.)

 

“The point is, for the critic (which is what FYC instructors are) we are to always exist with the orientation of questioning both status quo and resistance.” – Aaron, on critical rhetoric

 

“This process avoids position knowledge as static and encourages students to center their focus on the process of dynamic inquiry.” – James, on Postman

 

“Normativity can only be recognized in outline against the deviant.  It strikes me that this must require making the deviant visible.  How can we, in our classrooms, use this visibility to complicate students' understanding of their own positionalit(ies)?” – Sarah, on disability studies

 

“My hope is that we will all (continue to) consider the ways we invite heteronormativity in our classrooms – as both teachers and students, and, in response, the ways we might be able to create queer, safe spaces in and outside of academia.” – Hillery, on Queer theory

“Was the Internet ever a pure democratic, "rational-critical" space in which multiple participants could shape and reshape the discourse and resist hegemonic discourses and narratives?” – Matt, during ecology and complexity week

 

If you read those quotes instead of skipping over them (as I often do too), you will see a pattern. The key to several theories is resistance. I think this relates directly to Paul Lynch’s article “Composition as a Thermostatic Activity.”

 

As a student, I never like when a professor makes his/her political status known or when they have strong opinions that they preach. Lynch says students view this as “pushing an agenda” (737). I think he’s right. It has the ability to change classroom conversation, constrict freedom of thought, speech, and opinion, and is only ego-boosting to teachers who think they’ve enlightened students who, in reality, might only be telling the teacher what he/she wants to hear. As a teacher, I am easily frustrated when my colleagues tell me they have every right to be politically open in their classroom. One even said something along the lines of “they believe everything we say, so we should tell them what to think.” No. No no no no no no.

 

Want to hear another frustration? When supposedly open-minded people—our professors, our colleagues, ourselves—forget that there are two sides to every opinion and a lot of murky grey areas too. So hearing Lynch’s plea for teachers to set aside their ideologies and start thinking about their students’ ideologies was pretty damn refreshing.

 

Lynch asks, “What rationale could I offer for having wanted to change anyone’s mind in the first place?” (732)

 

His use of “change” is key for me. Teachers who believe something (like…Volvos are the only cars anyone should drive) should not have a goal to change their students’ views to simply agree. If a student claims he believes in Chevys, let him believe that. But take Lynch’s devil’s advocate position and make the student back up every single claim. Challenge the student in every way. Point out the grey areas. Give the student reason to question his/her beliefs. And if they do all of this and still think Chevy is the way to go, let them think that.

 

Yeah, let him think that.

Lynch questions, “How can they [teachers using the thermostatic technique] do this without coercing their students into false agreement or resentful silence? How can they present a counter-argument while keeping all other arguments in play?” (736)

 

I believe students do not have to feel this way if the teacher is not aiming for a particular answer. If a student is opposed to gay marriage, the job of the instructor shouldn’t be to phrase questions that lead the student to argue a particular thing or defend him/herself. Instead, they should engage with that student and converse. “What about this…” and “How would you respond to…” If they are actually critically thinking, they’ll see the value of the teacher pointing out flaws and grey areas. If they are not critically thinking and just holding on to their firm beliefs, they probably will become resentful. I think getting students to talk about issues is key. Make them give reason. Make them get to that point where they cannot answer—the grey area.

 

Every person believes there are “better” stances on certain topics. These are their viewpoints. But if teachers forget that these viewpoints are not correct just because they believe them, they put their teaching and classroom at risk. There is no truth; there is not right or wrong. There are widely held beliefs that stem from our histories, religions, upbringings, educations, and experiences. As we try to get our students to question everything they think, we should also remind ourselves that opposing opinions are allowed. What we think is wrong might be right for someone else. And if we are challenging our students to think about both right and wrong, they will maybe find that they can still be right as long as they consider how they could be wrong.

 

Show me my grey areas. Converse with me on this topic. Ryan Gosling already did.

  

http://forloveofcupcakes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/hey-girl-ryan-gosling.jpg