I found all of the readings in the Barnett text fascinating this week, particularly the Muksian-Schutt text about "contact zones." Actually, all of the readings from Barnett can be looked at as dealing with contact zones, if we use the Pratt definition of contact zones as "those social spaces where cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power" (Muksian-Schutt 339).
In the Lindquist text, about life at the "Smokehouse," the cultural clashing takes place between different subcultures within U.S. society. Even though both the working class people she writes about and the intellectual class people she addresses both can be considered part of the broad heading of "American society," in a way they are parts of very distinct cultures. Class can/does help shape a group's identity and culture, and I think that Virginia Anderson asks a powerful question about how academics deal with other (sub)cultures: "'What if the real solidarity that appeals to activist teachers is not that solidarity we might acheive with our students, but rather the unity and satisfaction we find in our radical stance?" (qtd in Lindquiest 184). I, for one, feel that this warning is meant for me: Can I teach writing in a non-classist way, realizing that not everyone participates in my academic mindset, valuing learning for its own sake, and that it is alright that they don't?
The Shen text deals with a clash between cultures with more obvious differences. However, she makes it clear that the differences are larger than I had realized and that students from different cultures experience the power-imbalance of the classroom much differently than do American students. I hadn't realized what huge differences there are between Chinese and English styles of composition. Although I do think that it is important that we require international students in our classes to learn to write in traditional Western forms (actually, I think we would be doing them a disservice if we did not, considering that they are now students at an American university and will be required to use these forms in the future), Shen has helped me to understand more clearly the challenges these students face, and this, I hope, will make me a better teacher.
I appreciated Muksian-Schutt's description of how she has used contact zones in her classroom. I would also like to use the idea of contact zones in my classroom, with regard to issues such as immigration, the Iraq war, the death penalty, etc. She uses very specific examples of clashes taking place; I don't believe I will structure my class around anything as specific as her two death penalty cases. I'm still trying to decide what theme(s) to focus on in my class. Does anyone have suggestions about how to use the idea of contact zones in a less focused manner than Muksian-Schutt uses?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
With regard to Shen's article and Leta's comments about it, I would just like to add my two cents and assure folks - at least based on my experience teaching compostion in Japan - that students there (both Japanese and Chinese) put a priority on learning western forms of argumentation. They are increasingly more familiar with it as a result of media such as CNN, English Language Newspapers, Magazines, and so forth. But, of course, it is very worthwhile to try to understand just how really different their cultural norms are form our own.
Leta, I am also trying to decide about incorporating contact zones into my class. It seems as if I could with the idea of our understanding of American culture that I am planning on using as my theme, but I am not sure how to incorporate the contact zones. I wonder if this is an idea we can discuss as a group in class to help clarify its possible uses since to structure a class around two cases does seem to be limiting in some way.
Post a Comment