On one hand, I have to say that I liked the peices on Rogerian argument. I like the idea of fostering empathy in students. That seems like a goal that corresponds to teaching critical thinking and analysis--maybe one needs to learn empathy before one can think outside of one's own experience.
On the other hand, I can't get out of the postcolonial mindset of last semester, which I had two simultaneous postcolonial theory classes. I wonder about the idea that one can experience something from someone else's point of view (particularly that one can experience something from another point of view that is separated from yourself by race, class, history, etc). Postcolonial theory would say no, and that its arrogant to think that one can. So I'm not convinced that Rogerian argument would be equally appealing to the entire world, but I still find a lot to like in it.
I particularly like the idea that Rogers wants to remove the idea of threat; I think anything that can help to reduce the amount of fear and hostility that students experience is probably good. On yet another hand, I wonder if it's arrogant to try to change people.
Ultimately, yes, I will probably rework at least one of my assignments in light of the Rogerian readings. Not totally sure how I'll do this but I think it'll be good to think it through.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That's an interesting point, Claire. Is it even possible to empathize with someone who is radically different from yourself? What does empathy entail? In order, to see from another's point of view, one would need to go further than simply understanding the fragmentary propositions of an argument. What cultural conditioning lies behind that argument? What fear? What psychosis? It is difficult enough trying to understand the interior workings of those to whom we are closest -- but imagine trying to really empathize with your opponent during every argument . . .
It seems, if not impossible, then certainly exhausting.
Speaking to what Tim asks about what empathy entails, I'm reminded of the distinction Judy Jones and William Williams make between it and sympathy in their book, _An Incomplete Education_. Empathy is actually a relatively recent concept, a "translation" of the German term "nacherleben" by way of a faux-Greek borrowing. The idea was first articulated by Robert Vischer in
_Das optische Formgefühl_ (1872)as a theory in psychology which tried to explain the effects of art on the viewing subject (the object arrouses muscular and emotional responses in the viewer, creating what would now be called "an empathetic understanding" within in the viewer).
Jones and Wilson question if there really is a difference between empathy and sympathy--the former often is used to describe how someone not only can "feel sorry" for someone else, but can actually relate to, "feel someone's pain," maybe because they've experienced a similar situation themselves.
In terms of whether that's possible between people of vastly different socioeconomic backgrounds (in relation to poco), I blogged about that.
Post a Comment