Today’s Plan:
- Thoughts on the Paper
- Questions about the Paper
Thoughts on the Paper
A few things that are true enough:
- I have not given you much guidance on how to write this paper
- I do not *want* to give you much guidance on how to write this paper
- I do not want to give you guidance because I want you to invent your own assignment
- You, I imagine, would much prefer I tell you what to do
- You, I imagine, also probably believe that I have a very specific idea of what I want this paper to do and will penalize you if you do not do the thing that I want you to do but won’t tell you how to do
Let’s quickly watch a thing that I like.
Let me write a thing here. I have published numerous articles on “postpedagogy.” Postpedagogy kind of literally translates to “after teaching.” It is the idea that students will learn more, grow more, if we do not try to “teach” them how to do things. Particularly things like writing, which, as I have already ranted about, really cannot be taught. And I get that you are totally used to being taught all kinds of things and then measured to make sure you did them right. I hate that system, my complicity in it, and your expectation for it. But I certainly don’t hate you. I like you. I like you enough that I am going to hurt you a bit by not telling you what to do so we can break out of that cycle.
I had a graduate student a few years ago write, in a collaborative article, that my teaching style walks the line between “hopelessly lost” and “productively confused” and that is one of the nicest things a student has every said about me. It was a gift. Because it identifies precisely where I want students to be. My sense, from a few conversations, is that too many of you are in the “hopelessly lost” place, so let’s try to clear that up. In a second I’ll ask you to ask me questions. Anonymously, if you prefer.
First, a few things:
- I have asked you to write a close analysis of a candidate’s campaign materials. That candidate should be someone that you like, or are at least likely to vote for. That analysis should use the Miller, Burke, and/or Mercieca as a lens. I do not expect the analysis to be complimentary or critical in the traditional senses. Rather, the analysis should be trying to make some kind of argument about democracy/policy or demagoguery/identity and the candidate’s use of rhetoric in the terms that M, B, and M offer us. Do you have questions about those terms? Are you clear on what you are looking for?
- Do we want to look at a thing and see if, just based on the instructions above, we can say something smart?
- Note, too, that your paper doesn’t have to be on a politician. It can use those terms to try and do something else.
