Appleman, Chapter 7 - From Study Guides to Poststructuralism

Although this chapter does not discuss a specific theory and doesn't look at specific classroom practices, it's a useful read for future teachers. The twist of this chapter is that literary theories are not only transformative for students, they are transformative for teachers as well. Of course we already know that teaching changes us – but Appleman is making a very specific claim here. Instead of being changed by the experience of teaching, literary theory changes us because it brings into question are very methods of teaching. While Appleman cautions against thinking of literary theory as a magic snake oil cure-all (128), she is definitely promoting a change in pedagogy. If a teacher is changed by teaching literary theory, then soon a whole school, then an entire district can be changed by it. Is Appleman proposing a new academic movement?

I was particularly struck by Martha's discussion about moving – both from one house to another and from one school district to another. She implies that she was a hypocrite because she was asking students to release themselves from their conceptual worlds, while she was still stuck in her own (127). It's hard for me to imagine someone living in the same neighborhood as an adult that she group up in, but I've lived in ten different cities and have gone through several career changes, so I may not be coming from the same point of reference. However, I can see the importance of living the life you preach. Students don't like their teachers to be phonies.

If the true importance of literary theory is its transformative nature – its ability to allow students to read the world differently and change their lives accordingly – then teachers better be willing to be transformed in the same sorts of ways. Otherwise, literary theory can only be applied to the texts students read in school and literature will once again lose its relevance.

Appleman, Chapter 6 - Deconstruction

I almost didn't assign this chapter. I was thinking that, of all the literary theories we could discuss in this class, as secondary teachers you would least likely use deconstruction. This may have been due to personal biases I've had against this theory. Like Barnet, I have felt the “irritating arrogance in some deconstructive criticism” (103). I've at times found it difficult to see what it has to offer the high school classroom. I like to think of theory as a way for students to garner more meaning from text. To me deconstruction meant showing how all text is meaningless.

This chapter has changed my mind somewhat. I see now that deconstruction can be about making meaning, although the meaning will be contradictory to other meanings depending on the reader's focus. This is not reader response, however. According to Appleman, it is the sophistication of the reader that will determine the meaning gathered. It is this point that still bothers me about deconstruction: the idea that there are levels of sophistication to reading. I don't want to be in a position to tell one of my students that her reading is naïve because she is buying what the author is selling and another of my students that her reading is sophisticated because she is a resistant reader (102). I have a hard enough time getting students interested in literature without making them feel stupid because they don't “get it.”

I am excited about the prospect of deconstruction teaching students to break out of their binary mode of thinking. I wish I could teach this to some adults I know as well. The whole “you're either with us or you're against” mindset is not only narrow-minded, it is destructive as well. It is an overly masculine way of thinking that does not allow for the nuances of our lives that make up reality. Politicians are punished by their opponents when they see both sides of the issue – or worse yet, that there may be a third choice. Our media finds it easier to boil down all issues to two sides. Is it any wonder that adolescents pick up on this way of thinking? If deconstruction offers a way out of this trap, then I am all for it.

Finally, I was intrigued by the story at the end of the chapter of the students who went through a meltdown after learning about deconstruction. Evidently, this theory does more than dismantle the text on page – it dismantles the text of our lives as well. Rachel, one of “the beautiful people,” according to Appleman, had her whole life figured out. She was satisfied with her comfortable life thus far and was looking forward to more comfort at the University of Michigan. There were no clouds in her sky. I am impressed that learning deconstruction allowed her to see through her life's own illusions. While I feel for her because of this sudden sense of disembodiment she must have felt, I argue that this was probably one of the most important moments of her life. It is good to be forced into a position of questioning your own life. This incident happened almost ten years ago now. I would be interested to meet this Rachel and see if her life is truly different because of this terrifying moment of realization. Appleman offers this incident as a word of warning, but I take it as evidence that deconstruction is a useful theory to be employed in the secondary classroom.

Appleman, Chapter 5 - A Lens of One's Own

Appleman, Chapter 5, A Lens of One's Own: Of Yellow Wallpaper and Beautiful Little Fools

Like Marxist literary theory, there are a lot of negative misconceptions about feminism. Even some women fear calling themselves feminists because of the societal implications behind the word. Ignoring for this discussion the causes behind the vilification of feminists, it is important to be able to show why feminist theory is important and useful in language arts instruction. Appleman does a good job in this chapter of explaining not only how feminist theory can be used in the classroom, but rationalizing why it should be used. She has excellent answer to those who worry about teachers trying to “transform” their students to a certain political belief: “the point is to help adolescent readers read texts and worlds more carefully as they become aware of the ideologies within which both are inscribed” (76). Learning a literary theory is not about becoming indoctrinated in that theory. Instead, by learning a theory such as feminism, you are able to read the world differently. Most importantly, using feminism as a lens does not necessitate that everyone be of one mind. Two people can view a subject through a feminist lens and come to two different conclusion.

I liked how Appleman broke feminist theory into four dimensions: 1) the reading of female characters, 2) the gender of the author, 3) the text within a feminist framework, and 4) the reading of a gendered world (77). I think these dimensions could get garbled and confused without explicitly separating them. Appleman stresses that ultimately, what is most important is how student read the world (87), and I am on board with that opinion. If we are creating world citizens, than the ability to analyze a text is meaningless if it does not lead to being able to analyze the world as well.

I keep asking myself whether I am cynical or is Appleman naïve? I find students are incredibly astute when it comes to giving teachers the answers they want. In the student response examples in this chapter, the students were asked to give a “traditional” and a “feminist” response to certain literary characters (e.g. Daisy in the Great Gatsby and Ophelia in Hamlet) and real life events (e.g. The Miss America Pageant and media coverage of the U.S. women's Olympic hockey team). To me, the traditional responses sounded far more authentic than the feminist responses. The feminist responses were text book, complete with all the expected jargon. The classroom dialogue, on the other hand, sounded much more sincere, as if the students really believed what they were saying. If our goal is authentic student response and not role-playing, how do we frame our exercises to make them safe for honest response?