Today’s Plan:
- Reviewing Papers (I still have 3 to do)
- Expectation #1: The Reflection
- Expectation #2: The Letter
Random Introductory Thoughts
As I indicated when we started this project, I was working to develop a space/time in which we could attempt to enact Miller, Blankenship, and Ore’s rhetorical approaches.
In terms of Blankenship, I wanted to think about how to enact critical self-reflection in a way that attends to postpedagogy. That is, how can I ask you to position yourself in socio-political contexts without risking performativity. Authentic self-reflection is personal work, potentially uncomfortable work, and, thus, has to be personal. It is also work that I shouldn’t force you to do. [Sidenote: what is higher education? What is a seminar? What is my job?]
Ore is a bit tricky, since (unlike Blankenship), her book lacks a pragmatic aim. As I said when we were discussing the first chapter, I think the argument of Ore’s book is clear, but she leaves the consequences of that argument a bit ambiguous. It is up to us (as teachers, students, citizens) to figure out what to do as a consequence of her argument.
The project I developed–which I’d call, drawing upon Heidegger “dwelling with race”–aims to splice Blankenship and Ore together. My response to Ore’s book is to think about how I, as a white educator in a position of (sorta) power, is to use my power to amplify her voice, to lend credence to the problem(s) she identifies. At the same time, as a postpedagogue, I am not trying to dictate a particular solution to that problem, nor even to “persuade” (which in the power context of the classroom might as well read “force”) you to agree with her. At best, my aim is exposure with (a la Blankenship and Corder) space for digestion, reflection, and (non-policied* need a better word) response.
Along the way, I’ve asked you to close read some news stories. I haven’t yet had time to comb through your entries yet. As of Sunday afternoon, there’s 47 responses submitted so far. We have 17 active students, so 6×17=102. So… um…
Well, let’s review the Calendar as I imagined it back on Feb 19th:
- Monday, March 8: Lay out final reflection assignment. Homework: make sure you have read and annotated all 7 sources. The weird timed thing on Wednesday will be open note.
- Wednesday, March 10: In class “quiz” on sources. (timed writing that should take around 30 minutes). Let me know if you need help locating a lap top.
- Friday, March 12: Class cancelled. Submit your Final Reflection. If you so choose, submit any other materials you wouldn’t mind me using anonymously in a conference paper or academic article.
We are going to stick with this schedule, but I am going to tweak the assignments a bit.
Wednesday will still be an in-class “quiz,” open note. I will ask you to identify some patterns/observations in news stories that speak to the theorists with whom we’ve been working. It isn’t a quiz as much as a reflection piece. I’ll also ask you to reflect a bit on the course thus far. My goal is to keep the quiz anonymous, so as long as you show up and work for the class session, you’ll get an A.
Expectation #2: The Letter
This second project attempts to put theory into practice. It should take you two hours to complete.
For one hour, I would like you to draft a letter to someone. The letter should have a purpose. (Aren’t those instructions clear!). The purpose should be rhetorical in the terms I have laid out this semester: when selecting to whom to write, and what to write about, you should be thinking about Miller, Blankenship, Corder, and/or Ore. Maybe not all of them. Your letter should reflect what in this course has mattered to you.
I will not collect the letter, nor ask to read it. I will create a submission portal in Canvas if you *want* to share it, but such sharing will not be required.
I will also develop a short google form that asks some basic information about the letter for you to complete once you have finished it.
There’s no class Friday (let’s just start that break thing a day early.
