I've spoken individually to most of the class about the first assignment, in one form or another. Something that comes up fairly often is the perception that not having mastered the theory we have read is somehow a problem - either a problem with the student or, if not with the student, perhaps with the class itself. I on the other hand do not see this as a problem at all.
The North Star of the class - the goal toward which I want us to move - is an increasingly subtle understanding of the same theoretical concepts we have already introduced. The practice happens by grappling with theory in different instances, even arguing with it, approaching it with a questioning mind. A subtle hand with theory takes practice, and it takes this kind of disagreement, the willingness to change your mind, not taking anything for granted as the authoritative truth. It takes practice to use the power tools of theory not to bludgeon defenseless artifacts into submissive signification within a total interpretation but - on the contrary - to see how, all around us, in every area of human endeavor, theory is already being used, all the time, for all kinds of purposes. To practice theory in an integrated way is to be aware of the uses of theory, to denaturalize the hidden uses of theory, such as how master narratives eat away at historical knowledge, continually revising and eroding it to convert the "common sense" version of that history into soundbytes in the service of the powerful; to see how vulnerable art is to the many forms of capture and also how resilient it is; to see that something can be both captured and capturing, both avant-garde and popular, and that these identities depend on perspective and are not set in stone. To see that "minor literature" is about what it does, rather than what it is. To arrive at an integrated practice of theory is to be able to see different points of view at once, and allow multiplicity rather than needing it to all signify in the service of one interpretation - much as Tevye does by mixing registers (Yiddish and Hebrew, second-person, first person, reported dialogue, etc.) and - on the contrary, many critics want to capture Tevye to "mean" and embody their particular interpretation of "modern Jewish identity" and nothing else.
The first assignment is not where you do all these things. Rather it is the first of several (yes, admittedly obligatory) opportunities to think with theory, to try it out wherever you are in a process of learning about many new things. Thinking with theory, or practicing theory, is more like driving a car than solving a puzzle. The assignment is not supposed to show everything you have learned, nor are you expected to form a definitive opinion on any of these things, but rather to take it out for a spin and see what happens.
I am very much grading the assignments based on what each person is able to do rather than based on what they didn't do or "should have done." I think you will all feel better once the first assignment is done with and you receive my feedback as well as the dreaded grade (the latter of which is, as you probably already suspect, merely the institutionally mandated analogical translation of what you have done as if all class work across all disciplines in the college existed in perfect analogues of each other).
Let me stress that I view the assignments as a progression through the semester, and that I don't expect you to engage with theory in the same way in the first assignment as in the last. I consider it a learning process, and the assignments are meant to be a way of both articulating and deepening the learning process. They are not meant to be finished, total products with airtight arguments, or anything like that. If you were learning to play the piano, would you expect that your first performance would be at the same level as your third? Please allow yourself to learn, and be compassionate with yourselves. I promise to be compassionate with you as well. In short, this is a somewhat meandering pep talk. You can do it!
No comments:
Post a Comment