I don't normally begin a chapter discussion with a critique of the chapter, but I have to say I'm a little disappointed with this one. If this were a new (or worse, pre-service) teacher's first exposure to the concept of using Marxism as a literary theory in the classroom, how would she respond? Would she decide it's not worth her while to attempt using this theory and settle on the more traditional and comfortable New Criticism?
The first half of the chapter is heavily steeped in theory, which normally would be alright so long as the pedagogy section of the chapter was strong enough to allow the reader to see the all important praxis of theory put to use in the classroom. Unfortunately, the pedagogy section of the chapter was weak. I felt the classroom example was really stretching reality.
The teacher in question did not, in my opinion, approach the introduction of Marxist theory into his classroom in an appropriate manner. This is one of those examples where allowing students to discover the theory is better than giving students worksheets as models. The “Key Ideas of Marx” handout (Appendix, Activity 8) was given way too early in the discussion. It forced students to consider Hamlet in a way they weren't quite ready for. I liked some of the exercises on the “Reading Hamlet through a Marxist Lens” handout (Appendix, Activity 9), but some of the questions were too leading. It seems to me that the students felt manipulated by them. What are your two choices as a student when your teacher introduces a new way to read literature? You can go along with the teacher or you can resist him. And some of his students did resist.
It's way too easy in these types of studies to look in from the outside and explain the findings in a way that proves our point. While I agree the teacher in question had his heart in the right place when he attempted to use Marxist theory to nudge his students towards expanding their world view, I fear they were not truly changed by the experience. It looks like his students did nothing more than parrot the responses he expected of them. It's a role students are familiar with and adept at.
Worse for me is the offhanded way the students who resisted are dismissed in this text. Appleman's easy explanation for the student who asked “What does our social status have to do with reading Hamlet?” is that he is “an Ayn Rand fan,” as if that explains away his angry question. She goes on to describe the teacher as unprepared for his students' resistance, but doesn't explain how (or if) he overcame it. If the student asked this question, it is, by the nature of classroom experience, a legitimate one. It means that more discussion needed to take place. The fact that his question may have come from a conservative background is irrelevant. Appleman would have been better served by using a more successful classroom model for this chapter.
What I learned:
- Marxist theory encourages students to see texts as social constructions (i.e. they are not written in a vacuum) (61).
- Marxist theory is a great way to get students to think about the relationship between writer and audience (61).
- Marxist theory trains students to question explicit and implicit ideologies (62).
- Teaching literature is teaching societal values (62). Thus New Criticism can lead to blind submission to the status quo (my opinion).
- Marxist theory breathes new life into texts which may otherwise have lost their relevance in today's world (63).
I appreciate the section at the end of the chapter concerning the challenges with using Marxist literary theory. Appleman mirrors my concerns, especially regarding a confusion between Marxism and Marxist Literary Theory (72). Personally, I find parents to be much more open-minded than they are made out to be. A simple letter home explaining the difference should suffice to prevent any negative reactions from springing up.
No comments:
Post a Comment