I’ve always been
resistant to suggestions that new media and new modes are the answers to
disrupting old paradigms (admittedly, in the 5 or so years that I’ve thought
about it…). They’ve certainly played their roles, and I know that American
history is rich with stories showing how the right person (or people) with the
right audience and a new forum at the right time has succeeded where those
prior have failed. But they never seem to accomplish what they're proposed to accomplish, and I tend to think that progress is generally built from the tragedy of lots and lots and lots of public sacrifice, not necessarily new technologies. And because of this, a stubborn mindset, I’m resistant to
accept Banks’ notion that a new approach to composition pedagogy--one that can
weave together the diverse multitude of African American experience into a new,
digital, multimedia platform--can achieve the type of liberation he sees as central
and necessary to a new composition pedagogy and African American rhetoric. But I’m not sure.
Now, I need to admit that I value history and tradition. This isn’t because I yearn for stasis or the good ol’ days as so many others who claim to value history and tradition do--and I generally consider most stories that begin with “back in the day” to be romanticized or straight-up bullshit. Instead, it is because I see history and tradition as being a history and a tradition of both persistence and change. Things never fully stay the same, even when they crawl along slowly toward some teleological ideal, and what is often written off as ineffective in bringing about change is often written off prematurely.
This of course, is a central challenge to any call for a new direction. “How can we be sure that we weren’t on the right path? And since we’re having this discussion, the path we’re on clearly hasn’t been *terrible* for us….” But, to borrow the story of Dr. MLK, Jr., whom Banks cites frequently in Digital Griots, sometimes the old methods and the old technologies turn out to be the most effective recourse: mass protest, civil disobedience, public speeches, the FREE exchange of knowledge, endured violence, and so on.
The problem though, is that technologies and media change, and sometimes the inability to change with the technology curtails any successful attempt at change. Another problem, with this long history of technological/media change, is that it’s tempting (but sometimes appropriate) to view it as the catalyst or the causation for change. Dr. MLK, Jr. relied on new communications to coordinate his speeches, SNCC’s sit-ins, the freedom rides…. And the footage that broadcast the dogs, the fire hoses, the beatings and batons to the formerly apathetic played a major role in achieving the successes of the Civil Rights Movement—granted, a movement that has been romanticized, exploited, and elicited a cultural backlash.
But in promoting the idea that the digital medium is the path to liberation and a new African American experience, Banks seems to overlook the tenuous history of this idea, one that was considered with print media, radio, film, television, public speaking forums (religious, stand-up, so on), and the first twenty years or so of the Internet. Instead, what has happened has been a recurring tale of forum control and unjust economic conditions. To cite just one example, some thought film could be neutral ground for dialogue about race, a new way to share black experience, a new way to reclaim and preserve tradition. But Hollywood has systematically avoided funding black films, promoting black directors, and casting black actors (focusing on the history of black actresses in Hollywood reveals an even more disheartening story).
So, to reiterate, coming full circle on a tangent that might not contribute anything to our understanding of the text, I’m resistant to Banks’ proposal. I’m not sure if liberation begins in the composition classroom, a place where old hierarchies at least seem to have far too much influence regarding access, content, and instructors. I don’t necessarily disagree—my desire for social change has pulled me through my education—but I wonder if sitting where you’re not supposed to, saying what you you’re not supposed to, risking bodily harm to gather in mass, speak, listen, and share knowledge and experience are still not the best way to accomplish the types of things that Banks wants to accomplish. Sure technology helps facilitate this; but if the Arab Spring or the Civil Rights Movement are any indication, communication and coordination are only the beginning (it takes leg work), and we already have the appropriate technologies for those tasks.
Questions:
1. Can old pedagogies achieve what Banks suggests a new ,digital, African American remix pedagogy can achieve? (For clarity’s sake, let’s simplify this as black liberation or racial equality in the U.S.)
Now, I need to admit that I value history and tradition. This isn’t because I yearn for stasis or the good ol’ days as so many others who claim to value history and tradition do--and I generally consider most stories that begin with “back in the day” to be romanticized or straight-up bullshit. Instead, it is because I see history and tradition as being a history and a tradition of both persistence and change. Things never fully stay the same, even when they crawl along slowly toward some teleological ideal, and what is often written off as ineffective in bringing about change is often written off prematurely.
This of course, is a central challenge to any call for a new direction. “How can we be sure that we weren’t on the right path? And since we’re having this discussion, the path we’re on clearly hasn’t been *terrible* for us….” But, to borrow the story of Dr. MLK, Jr., whom Banks cites frequently in Digital Griots, sometimes the old methods and the old technologies turn out to be the most effective recourse: mass protest, civil disobedience, public speeches, the FREE exchange of knowledge, endured violence, and so on.
The problem though, is that technologies and media change, and sometimes the inability to change with the technology curtails any successful attempt at change. Another problem, with this long history of technological/media change, is that it’s tempting (but sometimes appropriate) to view it as the catalyst or the causation for change. Dr. MLK, Jr. relied on new communications to coordinate his speeches, SNCC’s sit-ins, the freedom rides…. And the footage that broadcast the dogs, the fire hoses, the beatings and batons to the formerly apathetic played a major role in achieving the successes of the Civil Rights Movement—granted, a movement that has been romanticized, exploited, and elicited a cultural backlash.
But in promoting the idea that the digital medium is the path to liberation and a new African American experience, Banks seems to overlook the tenuous history of this idea, one that was considered with print media, radio, film, television, public speaking forums (religious, stand-up, so on), and the first twenty years or so of the Internet. Instead, what has happened has been a recurring tale of forum control and unjust economic conditions. To cite just one example, some thought film could be neutral ground for dialogue about race, a new way to share black experience, a new way to reclaim and preserve tradition. But Hollywood has systematically avoided funding black films, promoting black directors, and casting black actors (focusing on the history of black actresses in Hollywood reveals an even more disheartening story).
So, to reiterate, coming full circle on a tangent that might not contribute anything to our understanding of the text, I’m resistant to Banks’ proposal. I’m not sure if liberation begins in the composition classroom, a place where old hierarchies at least seem to have far too much influence regarding access, content, and instructors. I don’t necessarily disagree—my desire for social change has pulled me through my education—but I wonder if sitting where you’re not supposed to, saying what you you’re not supposed to, risking bodily harm to gather in mass, speak, listen, and share knowledge and experience are still not the best way to accomplish the types of things that Banks wants to accomplish. Sure technology helps facilitate this; but if the Arab Spring or the Civil Rights Movement are any indication, communication and coordination are only the beginning (it takes leg work), and we already have the appropriate technologies for those tasks.
Questions:
1. Can old pedagogies achieve what Banks suggests a new ,digital, African American remix pedagogy can achieve? (For clarity’s sake, let’s simplify this as black liberation or racial equality in the U.S.)
2. What are the
strengths/weaknesses of this new pedagogy?
3. What ideals affect your interest in teaching
English? And what has compromised or prevented your integration of those ideals
into your teaching philosophy and practice?
No comments:
Post a Comment