Mark Slouka in Harper’s:
What is taught, at any given time, in any culture, is an expression of what that culture considers important. That much seems undebatable. How “the culture” decides, precisely, on what matters, how openly the debate unfolds—who frames the terms, declares a winner, and signs the check—well, that’s a different matter…
The humanities, done right, are the crucible within which our evolving notions of what it means to be fully human are put to the test; they teach us, incrementally, endlessly, not what to do but how to be. Their method is confrontational, their domain unlimited, their “product” not truth but the reasoned search for truth, their “success” something very much like Frost’s momentary stay against confusion.They are thus, inescapably, political. Why? Because they complicate our vision, pull our most cherished notions out by the roots, flay our pieties. Because they grow uncertainty. Because they expand the reach of our understanding (and therefore our compassion), even as they force us to draw and redraw the borders of tolerance. Because out of all this work of self-building might emerge an individual capable of humility in the face of complexity; an individual formed through questioning and therefore unlikely to cede that right; an individual resistant to coercion, to manipulation and demagoguery in all their forms. The humanities, in short, are a superb delivery mechanism for what we might call democratic values. There is no better that I am aware of.
Which is awesomely timely. Here at school, we’ve all been assigned to “data teams,” the purpose of which is to pose a problem, collect data, and attempt to solve it. Questions that have come up in English Department discussions seem to center around either CAPT skills or knowledge of literary terms.
I get that. I understand why it’s easier to design a data-driven exercise around easily measurable information. But at the risk of sounding like a total hippie, Slouka’s absolutely right about the purpose of the humanities being teaching people how to be human, how to ask questions, and how to have their minds changed.
I have little hope that the data team on which I’ve found myself will concern itself with anything even remotely related to the humanities. We teach sophomore mid-level English; therefore, the logical assumption is that our data team work will have something to do with the CAPT Reading test that every Connecticut 10th grader will take in March. I wish I knew how to design a measurable assessment, though, of how much our students’ perceptions of the world and of themselves have been opened up by deep reading and exploratory writing.
Back to Slouka. I recently had a parent confront me about the lack of formal grammar instruction in our high school. Raising this point with some colleagues, I heard a whole litany of reasons why, in fact, diagramming sentences is good for high school students. I was curious about this, and got out my copy of Constance Weaver’s Teaching Grammar in Context, which I had from an English Methods class back in grad school.
In her list of twelve reasons why teachers still insist, despite decades of research to the contrary, that teaching formal grammar in isolation is a good thing, Weaver writes that these teachers
bow to pressure from parents and other community members who are unaware of the research but naively think that teaching grammar will improve their children’s use of English. Clearly the idea that grammar is good for a person has becomed a hallowed part of our cultural mythology, a legacy from the Middle Ages, when the study of grammar was considered vital for disciplining the mind and soul.
Grammar study, then, is deemed important by society, because it has a definite product (or at least the people who push for it think there’s a product): children who speak Correct English.
But then, if you really were to study grammar, not just memorize a whole list of rules that seem made to be broken by real writers, you’d learn that our language is constantly changing, and certainly has changed since those scholars so many hundreds of years ago decided that grammar instruction should be the main point of the trivium.
I am pretty sure I’m way more interested in grammar now than I was in high school or even when I began teaching. I’d love to know about linguistics and the evolution of language and code-switching and all of that stuff. I’d love to invite my students to take apart the words they read and hear and speak and write to figure out how the structures of English can and do work. I’m thinking now that when we’re in deep free-reading time (like, after Thanksgiving) that this can be part of what we do. Starting each class block with a text–a poem, perhaps, or an excerpt from something–to look at the language–not the theme or characters or anything like that, but the language–might be a way to stretch this group more than a little.
Recent Comments