On Wednesday, we attempted to temporarily withdraw ourselves from the phallocentric representational economy that defines our classroom. The discussion,without any set agenda, seemed to be rather slow but eventually the class was able to engage phallocentrism in sports. This topic overall concluded that historically sports were developed for the masculine physique and today's women's sports are modified versions that accomodate the feminine physique. We also discussed how sports are so encompassed by phallocentrism that women are rarely commentators of sports. Is this to say that women lack the capacity to aquire knowledge about sports or overall appreciate sports as a whole...no. This is just another example of the grasp phallocentrism has on our everyday lives.
While this was a very interesting discussion, I believe more importantly it displayed our own need for phallocentrism in the classroom. Order in the classroom via a sylabus featuring course subject matter, requirements, etc., is important to aid us in our learning endeavors. Without such structure what would we do? The obvious answer is talk about sports, but other than that, what would we do without someone actively, in a patriarchal manner, teaching us and providing course requirements and expectations? How would we be graded? Would grades even matter? And honestly, if grades don't matter, what incentive is there to work hard in school?
While this was a very interesting discussion, I believe more importantly it displayed our own need for phallocentrism in the classroom. Order in the classroom via a sylabus featuring course subject matter, requirements, etc., is important to aid us in our learning endeavors. Without such structure what would we do? The obvious answer is talk about sports, but other than that, what would we do without someone actively, in a patriarchal manner, teaching us and providing course requirements and expectations? How would we be graded? Would grades even matter? And honestly, if grades don't matter, what incentive is there to work hard in school?
I know some "A" students that could care less about the subject. They get A's because they have good work habits. They can memorize stuff that will be on tests. On the other hand I also know some "C" students that are genuinely interested in the subject and can apply it to their everyday lives. Who is the better student? Sometimes grades aren't the only incentive to learn a subject. Where is the incentive when learning how to play guitar? I don't believe a structure needs to exist in order for someone to want to learn. Unfortunately we don't have a grading system for "applying" the subject to everyday life.
I think that you're right about us having a certain need for phallocentrism in the classroom. From my own personal experience, I know that I really enjoy classes where I know what I am going to learn, when I'm going to learn it, what needs to be done, and how exactly I am going to be evaluated. I get frustrated in classes where there isn't a sense of structure or where the professor is really vague about assignments. On the other hand though, there is a sense of accomplishment when you take the initiative to further your education rather than relying on other people to force you. I think that in order for us to have the type of education that we discussed in class (one where the student takes the initiative to further their education), a change needs to take place before kids even enter the school system. I think that an innate curiosity and a will to learn needs to be nurtured at home from parents.
Rob would have to agree with you that we as a class did seem somewhat lost because of the withdrawal of a phallocentric representational economy but I think that has something to do with breaking societal norms. Its the same as if you come into a class without much regulation and there are several assignments waiting for you. One would think that the class would be alittle lost.
Max, you bring up the question of where the incentive of learning a guitar comes from, thats different from incentives to get good grades. We grow up hearing from our parents and other mentors to get good grades and get a good job. Most parents don't say learn the guitar and become a rock star. They usually say get good grades and become a doctor or a lawyer. Our incentive to get good grades comes from what society tells us what is right.
While I find the idea of having a class like the one we had on Friday very intriguing, the practicality of it is very small given the way we as a culture were raised. For a class like that to be effective and be able to produce quality students, we would need to have been cultivated on a sense of intrinsic motivation, which simply wasn't done. All of the motivation I received to do in school was almost entirely extrinsically motivated. I'm sure this was almost the same for the rest of you. It is entirely too late in our lives to try and alter this. I could just imagine the type of class we had being applied to a 500 student lecture. Nothing would ever get accomplished. Students have to want to learn to be able to flourish in such a classroom setting.
On the side of grading, and how one would be evaluated in that type of system, Id assume it would follow the Brown method of either pass or fail. If the professor feels the student acquired the ability or thought processing that the course was meant to instill on the student, then the individual would pass. If not, then you know the drill. Again, I find this method of evaluating extraordinarily interesting, but this would need to start being instilled upon student at the earliest age for it to be effective.
I don't believe that our motivation to get good grades is solely because society tells us its right. I believe that people also want to get good grades because they want to feel accomplished. This point was brought up by before. Also, students like getting good grades because those good grades usually are a direct medium to success in the future. Structure (class with grades, test, etc.) is needed in order to ensure that each student can be evaluated equally and provide incentives for students to work hard.
“Order in the classroom via a syllabus featuring course subject matter, requirements, etc., is important to aid us in our learning endeavors.”
Judging from most of the comments and perhaps on majority view, it seems to be implied that structure is absolutely necessary. I think that it is more so unavoidable and in the norm. I’d venture to assume that, as evidenced by some of these comments, no structure at all in education signifies inefficiency and failure. I do not know whether to agree or not because, being that I was raised up in such a “disciplined” and “orderly” educational environment (like most here), it’s odd for me to consider other approaches toward education.
So I want to ask, “What is it about ‘mandatory’ and structured education that makes us so loyal to it?” Why is this one of the most stubborn areas that we are unable to budge from—why are most of us unable to consider and accept education through other more lax styles? Although it’s in the American norm to do so, I also question why we begin the structuration process so early in children’s lives—we divide and train them almost immediately. As JT Gatto says in an article entitled “Against School”, why can we not “encourage the best qualities of youthfulness-curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight-simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids to truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then (?)” Instead, we turn to forced education which we find is synonymous with progress and success. Is this what it’s all about, then? Do we continue to adhere to structure because following it always presents a safety net?
I think structured education can work to our disadvantage. We may immediately attribute efficiency to systematic education and that it assists us in our development as better citizens and “high achievers”, but according to Gatto, there have been consistent statements that exhibit the true purpose of education. Such a quote is from H.L. Mencken—though a satirist, this quote comes from a serious article (he was also a journalist) that traces our education system back to Prussia. He reveals that the aim of education is not “to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim . . . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else.” And I agree with Gatto that it’s appalling that we adopted “one of the very worst aspects of Prussian culture: an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens-all in order to render the populace "manageable."'
What do you think—does structure, especially in education, force most of us into becomnig helpless, close-minded, and reticent individuals? And if so, are there any ways to change this without having to overhaul the entire system?
I'm not sure I agree with the fact that having order has to equal phallocentrism. Perhaps we have grown inherently used to a phallocentric type of order, but when you take the phallocentrism out of it I don't believe that everything melts away to chaos and anarchy.
Order does not have to come in one shape or size--when a class is used to professor led discussion than it might feel unnatural to have another type of discussion. This does not mean that this class is incapable, it means they need to practice and become more used to a new type of order.
I think we fall into a dangerous trap to say phallocentric order or chaos--it's a very black and white situation with no middle ground which is, in my opinion, a dangerous way to approach any situation.
I agree with Sam in saying that if we take away order in a class room we won't necessarily get anarchy. I've had a few classes in which the syllabus is loosely defined and the class gives their input on how they want things to proceed. However, there is no total lack of authority or freedom. I do believe that I got a lot more of this type of learning environment rather than the standard phallocentric one. However, there was still the incentive a grades to keep the class motivated. Although we persuaded our teacher not to give us some tests our participation grade was weighed heavier, meaning that we still had to read the required material.
However, I do believe a class room situation or one similar would have to take place in a small class environment; chaos would erupt in a lecture class and the students would not take it seriously. I do believe that this is a possible classroom experiment if done right.