The readings for this week definitely provided a lot of useful information and different ways of thinking about how to both approach and use texts in the classroom. What surprised me in the readings was the material presented in the first section of Critical Encounters in High School English: Teaching Literary Theory to Adolescents by Deborah Appleman. Not only did Appleman present a teaching philosophy that is very similar to my own, but she also brought up the importance of using literary theory as a prime means in which to provide students with, “critical lenses” that “provide students with a way of reading their world” (4).
It was startling to read that so many teachers have balked at using literary theory in the classroom. I don’t understand why teachers wouldn’t be able to see the benefits of using these different perspectives in interpreting texts. Appleman lists some common defenses against literary theory as being the difficulty of keeping up with the latest developments, the struggle to “to juggle curricular concerns as well as the varied literary skills and needs of their increasingly diverse student body,” or the difficulty of seeing the relevance of such “abstract” analysis. Nevertheless, I agree with Appleman that these statements are absurd. If anything, the use of literary theory in the classroom should help increase diversity of thinking in the nation’s increasingly diverse student population by allowing them think in ways that “sharpen one’s vision and provide alternative ways of seeing” (Appleman 4).
After reading this chapter, I feel fortunate in my own educational background. While it might not have been exceedingly multicultural, it definitely centered on the different perspectives associate with literary theory. I would say that starting in my sophomore year of high school I was exposed to literary theory in my English classrooms. We did a lot of our own research or analysis in searching for meaning and purpose within a text as well as discovering the analysis and research of others. My junior year we did a project of short stories and dug around for criticism that would help us explore the text. Then we were able to compare and contrast our own perspective against the articles we had found. We performed a more sophisticated version of this assignment my senior year and with every assignment I grew to appreciate the different perspectives of the theory.
I would say that the these assignments and the presence of literary theory in my classrooms prepared me for many of the college courses that required me to examine other cultures or think outside of my own limited experiences. In general, I also believe that without those opportunities to look at a text through a specific view, I learned skills that allow me to try and rationalize or sympathize with the actions of others in my day-to-day life.
I was also struck by Appleman’s reflection on the political side of teaching. She quotes Shirley Staton who claims that, “there is no such thing as an innocent, value-free reading. Instead, each of us has a viewpoint invested with presuppositions about ‘reality’ and about ourselves, whether we are conscious or not” (Appleman 8). This is so true! Everyone brings with them their preconceived notions, previous experience, values, and prior knowledge into whatever they read. As teachers it is important that we are able to guide students in such a way that they are able to use that knowledge to better understand and interpret texts. If students can understand that, just like them, the creators of any given object relied on their own personal backgrounds during the creation process, they will learn to question the purpose or drive behind an action and interpret it accordingly.
What startled me was the apparent distaste for such methods expressed to some degree, by Rosenblatt’s article. It seems to me that it will be difficult to create a classroom that can both scaffold students with ways to perceive a text through the use of literary theory while preserving aesthetic reading within them. I hope that I can create a classroom environment that is safe for the expression of thought and experience when reading a text but also drives students to look at readings through different lenses.
It was interesting to read your personal history with literary theory, as it is very different than my own. I never received any sort of instruction in literary theory until I got to college. Even then, I was taught what the various perspectives were, but was never required to use them. I'm actually fairly certain that to this day, I've never been asked to write a paper using the specific critical lens associated with a particular literary theory.
ReplyDeleteI think literary theory is definitely interesting, and is worth teaching to help students move past surface reading and personal response. I also think that there is potential that they could be limiting; a student may get the impression that they MUST use one of the lenses to write a proper paper. It would be important to remind them that literary theory provides multiple perspectives, but that none is necessarily more correct or better than the other, and that there's nothing wrong with combining aspects of each, or drawing from each and adding one's own thoughts. True critical reading isn't just borrowing someone's viewpoint, it's engaging with a text in one's own way.
I didn't really notice the tension between the Rosenblatt article and the Critical Encounters text until you pointed it out. It would be interesting to see what the authors would have to say about the difference of opinion. Maybe it's something you could bring up in class?