Webb, Chapter Three – Genderizing the Curriculum: A Personal Journey
If feminist theory is going to become more mainstream in the secondary classroom, it is going to have to start with the canon. While female authors are more prominent in today's anthologies, especially with poetry and short fiction, they are still noticeably absent from the novels and plays being read. While we can't turn back time and change the root causes of these absences, we can discuss the reasons today. Discussions about canons can be as illuminating for students as discussions on the texts themselves. At the very least the misperception that we don't read female authors of a period because there weren't any female authors in that period needs to be disabused.
Webb mentions that his students failed to find the relevance of Woolf's A Room of One's Own to their own lives (35). While I agree with his students that the rights of women are far improved today over Woof's time, that shouldn't be the end of the discussion. We need to guide students towards finding relevance. There are parallels that can be drawn to today's society. Women are still objectified; women still face spousal abuse; women are still the victims of workplace harassment; women are still discouraged from certain subjects of study and career choices.
One thing that Webb makes apparent in this chapter is the need to conflate literary theories to truly understand a given text. Webb gives the example of Hurston's Their Eyes Were Watching God (43). In order to truly understand Janie's perspective and actions, you have to read her as an African American woman, not just an African American. Her gender has as much, if not more, to do with her situation and her responses to her situation as her race.
I'm glad this chapter also tackles gay and lesbian studies. While it can be argued that women are approaching true equality in the United States, being homosexual in this country is still extremely problematic, with legal discrimination and even violence still prevalent. While it would be easier (and perhaps safer) to ignore this topic in our language arts classrooms, we would be doing a grave disservice to our students to do so. To quote the focus teacher Trisha, “Teachers who just keep quiet [are] helping their gay/lesbian students find their way to suicide” (46). Webb has some good advice on how to prepare students, parents, and administrators for dealing with controversial topics. I wish gay and lesbian studies wasn't considered a controversial topic.
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Sunday, October 21, 2007
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
