Day 9
We spent the entire class today discussing essays by Emerson on history and the abolitionist movement of the 1800’s. This may seem strange for a class ostensibly designed to instruct the class in effective argumentation—but such is the wandering mind of our professor. It would, of course, be different if we diagramed the distinctive qualities of the various positions made and how they were effective or not, persuasive or not, impactful or not. Instead we wholly shy away from such productive analysis that might be germane to the title of our course.
He made a telling slip of the tongue in today’s lecture. In describing some point made in an assigned essay he said, “The statement has a certain ‘performative’ quality. Do you all know what ‘performative’ means?”
I raised my hand and was called upon. I had to remind the professor that the class indeed did know about the concept of performative utterances because we had studied it as part of the course work in the first few days of this very class—that it was part of the core curriculum of the session. The professor laughed and said that he “forgot” that was part of this class.
To sum up—he spent so much time in civil rights discourse over the last few weeks that he forgot one of the core concepts he was supposed to be focusing on.
This simple faux pas says more than I am capable of relaying and any attempt to add further emphasis would likely bring diminishment.
Be well,
Monday, March 31, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
When do we get to the Learning Part?
Day 8
It has been three weeks since the last class—Spring Break intervened into one and our professor was ill for another. Today we are back at it.
As previously discussed, this class is called “Advanced Argumentation, Critical Reasoning, and Public Communication.” I feel compelled to restate the title of the class because—as we have now passed the half-way mark towards its conclusion—we have had precious little argumentation, mostly no critical reasoning, and the public communications we have studied have been more indoctrination than analysis. One could forgive the abject Liberal ideological nature of the works we have studied if in the process we analyzed what techniques or methodology made one argument more effective than another. Instead it seems that we are consigned merely to read extremist Liberal demagoguery and discuss its relative “correctness” as compared to another in the metrics of agreement with mainline Liberal thought.
Please Sir, I Want Some More…
It would be refreshing if the professor were to introduce a Conservative author once in a great while—even if such introduction was purely to pour ridicule. Sowell, Buckley, Safire, et al—they will not whither before even an unfair onslaught. At least the students would be therefore aware of contrary view. Rather, we are given one set of Liberal writings and assigned to compare them to another set of Liberal writings and we get to judge between them. This seems akin to offering a man his choice of entre’ at a soup kitchen—you get to have whatever you want so long as you bring low expectations and choose precisely what is being served that day.
I am afraid that I embarrassed the professor just a bit today. We always have a good deal of reading for each session, and today it was doubled up due to the missed class. But the professor spent a great deal of time on two essays in particular—namely, “The Crusade of Indignation” by James Baldwin and “Wealth (2)” by Emerson. As is his wont, he focused on anti-capitalist snippets here and collectivist sentences there, all to the previously defined somnambulant nodding of the class (I am left to wonder if they had read the assignments at all). I had, in fact read them thoroughly—the dismal science of economics being, to my mind, not so dismal—because I was interested in what they had to say. I offered to openly contrast the two essays by reading excerpts from each and the professor eagerly agreed.
Emerson Said What?
Turns out that when it comes to industriousness and productivity, Ralph Waldo Emerson was pretty Conservative, indeed. Where Baldwin sought some method of artificial wealth distribution, Emerson very squarely believed in individual productivity and self-sufficiency, and said so in words more forceful than even I am comfortable with. I will let Emerson speak for himself:
I did not comment beyond reading this passage from our assignment. Our professor then spent the next fifteen minutes parsing that what I read aloud did not quite mean what I thought it did. Well, it seemed rather clear to me.
I actually felt a bit uncomfortable on behalf of the professor. He stammered through his rebuttal and directed his comments to me (again, at great length), but—since I offered nothing more than a gentle reading—he was, in fact, arguing with Mr. Emerson himself. What’s worse…he knew it.
I must sign off. My wife will be quite upset that I come home so late as it is. Be well.
It has been three weeks since the last class—Spring Break intervened into one and our professor was ill for another. Today we are back at it.
As previously discussed, this class is called “Advanced Argumentation, Critical Reasoning, and Public Communication.” I feel compelled to restate the title of the class because—as we have now passed the half-way mark towards its conclusion—we have had precious little argumentation, mostly no critical reasoning, and the public communications we have studied have been more indoctrination than analysis. One could forgive the abject Liberal ideological nature of the works we have studied if in the process we analyzed what techniques or methodology made one argument more effective than another. Instead it seems that we are consigned merely to read extremist Liberal demagoguery and discuss its relative “correctness” as compared to another in the metrics of agreement with mainline Liberal thought.
Please Sir, I Want Some More…
It would be refreshing if the professor were to introduce a Conservative author once in a great while—even if such introduction was purely to pour ridicule. Sowell, Buckley, Safire, et al—they will not whither before even an unfair onslaught. At least the students would be therefore aware of contrary view. Rather, we are given one set of Liberal writings and assigned to compare them to another set of Liberal writings and we get to judge between them. This seems akin to offering a man his choice of entre’ at a soup kitchen—you get to have whatever you want so long as you bring low expectations and choose precisely what is being served that day.
I am afraid that I embarrassed the professor just a bit today. We always have a good deal of reading for each session, and today it was doubled up due to the missed class. But the professor spent a great deal of time on two essays in particular—namely, “The Crusade of Indignation” by James Baldwin and “Wealth (2)” by Emerson. As is his wont, he focused on anti-capitalist snippets here and collectivist sentences there, all to the previously defined somnambulant nodding of the class (I am left to wonder if they had read the assignments at all). I had, in fact read them thoroughly—the dismal science of economics being, to my mind, not so dismal—because I was interested in what they had to say. I offered to openly contrast the two essays by reading excerpts from each and the professor eagerly agreed.
Emerson Said What?
Turns out that when it comes to industriousness and productivity, Ralph Waldo Emerson was pretty Conservative, indeed. Where Baldwin sought some method of artificial wealth distribution, Emerson very squarely believed in individual productivity and self-sufficiency, and said so in words more forceful than even I am comfortable with. I will let Emerson speak for himself:
“Wealth brings with it its own checks and balances. The basis of political economy is non-interference. The only safe rule is found in the self-adjusting meter of demand and supply. Do not legislate. Meddle, and you snap the sinews with your sumptuary laws. Give no bounties, make equal laws, secure life and property, and you need not give alms. Open the doors of opportunity to talent and virtue and they will do themselves justice, and property will not be in bad hands. In a free and just commonwealth, property rushes from the idle and the imbecile to the industrious, brave and persevering.”Yep…that’s Emerson on the topic.
I did not comment beyond reading this passage from our assignment. Our professor then spent the next fifteen minutes parsing that what I read aloud did not quite mean what I thought it did. Well, it seemed rather clear to me.
I actually felt a bit uncomfortable on behalf of the professor. He stammered through his rebuttal and directed his comments to me (again, at great length), but—since I offered nothing more than a gentle reading—he was, in fact, arguing with Mr. Emerson himself. What’s worse…he knew it.
I must sign off. My wife will be quite upset that I come home so late as it is. Be well.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Thoughts on James Baldwin
Brilliant Writer, Cynical Heart - Day 7
As with last week, half the class departed before the mid-point. Where last week I despised this behavior, this week I feel almost relieved by it. Even though I disagree with a large majority of those who remain, the fact that they remained says something indeed. As the Bard said in Henry 5th, “I would ask for not one man more” than those who would freely and actively participate in learning with me.
Paper #2 was due this week. I am particularly pleased with my paper, as I believed that I discerned a literary and poetic sleight-of-hand by Emerson (part of our required reading) that I think novel and—to the best of my knowledge—as yet undiscovered. I must find a way to post my essays online via this blog to make them accessible.
We had more readings by Baldwin for this week and we saw a snippet of a documentary about the man. The snippet was of no real help—perhaps if we had watched it in its entirety we could have gleaned some value. If the professor had a point in the particular segment he showed us I am afraid that I missed it. But it was, to my mind, at least partially beneficial to hear Baldwin’s actual audible voice. As I read his other works, I will be able to imagine him speaking them now that I have somewhat of an ear for his meter, inflexion, and tone.
Nothing that I write here could diminish the quality of Baldwin’s prose or the moral courage of his participation in the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. But his work reflects a disconnection and pessimistic outlook that screams out from the pages. I fear that, for all of the good he effected, there is also a legacy of error in his work that harms those he sought to help—even to this day. I pretend to no psychological authority, but some of this mystery may be in James Baldwin’s “personal” diaspora.
More than Personal
Baldwin was one of nine children and never knew his biological father. His step-father was reputed to have a cruel streak and opposed James’ literary aspirations. James, of course, was African-American (to use the terms of today)—which presented well established incumbent identity challenges of that period. And it must be noted that he was also homosexual at a time when it was profoundly more difficult to be so (setting aside that hot-potato for the moment). So, to paint this picture in broad strokes, Baldwin was a relatively poor, black, out-of-wedlock, “blended” family, homosexual whose natural talents were not readily accepted by the authority figure of his home. The fact that he managed to rise above that station is a testament to his talent. But it is also reasonable for us to postulate that his personal feelings is disaffection were given amplitude by his personal condition. Perhaps this increased amplitude served to increase his effectiveness--giving constructive output to his many frustrations by channeling his energies.
But we should also Consider...
There is a psychological condition called “transference” where emotions or associations that naturally belong to one person, object, or circomstance become linked or directed at another. Baldwin writes about the disassociations and disaffections of/by/and among America and African-Americans, but he so often tosses the baby out with the bath water that plausibility suffers. He wrote ably for decades—some of the most progressive decades in racial matters—and in that time if one were to listen solely to Baldwin (albeit to my limited readings so far) that not a step of progress had been made. And as he defends the struggles and culture of the African-American, he becomes what he abhors—mocking and deriding the struggles and cultural traditions of other groups and seemingly denying the ones we share. Such blindness speaks to a pathology of the soul that denies the ability to belong and to celebrate the victories. Even if fresh battles await.
James Baldwin was an important and great writer, but I think that there was a lot more broken than he would let anyone really see.
Be well,
As with last week, half the class departed before the mid-point. Where last week I despised this behavior, this week I feel almost relieved by it. Even though I disagree with a large majority of those who remain, the fact that they remained says something indeed. As the Bard said in Henry 5th, “I would ask for not one man more” than those who would freely and actively participate in learning with me.
Paper #2 was due this week. I am particularly pleased with my paper, as I believed that I discerned a literary and poetic sleight-of-hand by Emerson (part of our required reading) that I think novel and—to the best of my knowledge—as yet undiscovered. I must find a way to post my essays online via this blog to make them accessible.
We had more readings by Baldwin for this week and we saw a snippet of a documentary about the man. The snippet was of no real help—perhaps if we had watched it in its entirety we could have gleaned some value. If the professor had a point in the particular segment he showed us I am afraid that I missed it. But it was, to my mind, at least partially beneficial to hear Baldwin’s actual audible voice. As I read his other works, I will be able to imagine him speaking them now that I have somewhat of an ear for his meter, inflexion, and tone.
Nothing that I write here could diminish the quality of Baldwin’s prose or the moral courage of his participation in the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. But his work reflects a disconnection and pessimistic outlook that screams out from the pages. I fear that, for all of the good he effected, there is also a legacy of error in his work that harms those he sought to help—even to this day. I pretend to no psychological authority, but some of this mystery may be in James Baldwin’s “personal” diaspora.
More than Personal
Baldwin was one of nine children and never knew his biological father. His step-father was reputed to have a cruel streak and opposed James’ literary aspirations. James, of course, was African-American (to use the terms of today)—which presented well established incumbent identity challenges of that period. And it must be noted that he was also homosexual at a time when it was profoundly more difficult to be so (setting aside that hot-potato for the moment). So, to paint this picture in broad strokes, Baldwin was a relatively poor, black, out-of-wedlock, “blended” family, homosexual whose natural talents were not readily accepted by the authority figure of his home. The fact that he managed to rise above that station is a testament to his talent. But it is also reasonable for us to postulate that his personal feelings is disaffection were given amplitude by his personal condition. Perhaps this increased amplitude served to increase his effectiveness--giving constructive output to his many frustrations by channeling his energies.
But we should also Consider...
There is a psychological condition called “transference” where emotions or associations that naturally belong to one person, object, or circomstance become linked or directed at another. Baldwin writes about the disassociations and disaffections of/by/and among America and African-Americans, but he so often tosses the baby out with the bath water that plausibility suffers. He wrote ably for decades—some of the most progressive decades in racial matters—and in that time if one were to listen solely to Baldwin (albeit to my limited readings so far) that not a step of progress had been made. And as he defends the struggles and culture of the African-American, he becomes what he abhors—mocking and deriding the struggles and cultural traditions of other groups and seemingly denying the ones we share. Such blindness speaks to a pathology of the soul that denies the ability to belong and to celebrate the victories. Even if fresh battles await.
James Baldwin was an important and great writer, but I think that there was a lot more broken than he would let anyone really see.
Be well,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
