Tuesday, September 24, 2019
New Episode! Jenn Stewart (The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga) talks about FYC and the importance of talking about diversity
Dr. Jenn Stewart - The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Join us this week as Devori talks with Dr. Jenn Stewart, the director of composition and assistant professor of English at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Jenn tells Devori about her research with first-year composition courses and texts that focus on issues surrounding diversity. They talk about how important it is that humanities courses provide a necessary touchstone to diversity for college students, as well as what sort of data can be derived from such initiatives to help steer humanities programs into public-facing pedagogy that helps create an informed electorate and conscientious citizens, and avoid the dreaded "indoctrination" accusation.
Check out the episode here!
As always, be sure to like, share, rate, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. If you're interested in talking with Remixing the Humanities, you can reach out to us on Twitter at @humanitiesremix, or via e-mail at humanitiesremix@gmail.com.
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
New Episode - Jason Farr and Travis Lau talk queer/disability studies, embodiment, and vulnerable pedagogy.
Jason Farr Travis Lau
On our first episode of our third season, we’re joined by Jason
Farr and Travis Lau. Jason and Travis talk with us about disability/queer
studies and how those areas of interest intersect with issues of embodiment. We
also talk about how social media is a problematic but potentially fruitful
space for public-facing engagement that moves us out of the ivory tower, and
the value of collaborative work in the academy. Furthermore, we discuss how
questions of disability should be influencing both our pedagogy and how we interact with one another in scholarly spaces like conferences.
Please check out Jason and Travis’s work:
Jason Farr, Novel Bodies: Disability and Sexuality in
Eighteenth-Century British Literature: https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/novel-bodies/9781684481071
Travis Lau, The Bone Setter from Damaged Goods Press:
http://www.damagedgoodspress.com/product/2019-chaplet-series/
Jason and Travis's ASECS post on accessible conferences: https://asecsgradcaucus.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/accessibility-at-asecs-and-beyond-a-guest-post-by-dr-jason-farr-and-dr-travis-chi-wing-lau/
Please be sure to like, share, review, and subscribe. If you’re
interested in talking with Remixing the Humanities or contributing a
short piece to our blog https://humanitiesremix.blogspot.com/ , reach out to us
on Twitter @humanitiesremix or via e-mail at humanitiesremix@gmail.com.
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
New Episode - Looking Forward to Season Three!
Hello, listeners!
We're back for season three of Remixing the Humanities! In this short preview episode, we tease some of our upcoming content, as well as solicit some more participants for both our "Remixing Teaching" and "Humanities from the Margins" series. If you're interested, or know someone who's really remixing humanities education in research in interesting ways, please send them our way! They can reach us on Twitter at @humanitiesremix or via email at humanitiesremix@gmail.com. Or, comment below!
We'll be back with our fascinating discussion with Jason Farr and Travis Lau in early September!
Check out the episode here!
We're back for season three of Remixing the Humanities! In this short preview episode, we tease some of our upcoming content, as well as solicit some more participants for both our "Remixing Teaching" and "Humanities from the Margins" series. If you're interested, or know someone who's really remixing humanities education in research in interesting ways, please send them our way! They can reach us on Twitter at @humanitiesremix or via email at humanitiesremix@gmail.com. Or, comment below!
We'll be back with our fascinating discussion with Jason Farr and Travis Lau in early September!
Check out the episode here!
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
The State of the Humanities Revisited: Toward a Public Humanities
We ended our second episode (over a year ago) with a discussion about the humanities’ digital future. Flash forward. In a recent public talk, Yuval Noah Harari argues that the 21st Century has given rise to humans as “hackable animals,” by which he means our current predisposition to allow algorithms to make our choices for us. From Netflix to Spotify, or Blue Apron to Stitch Fix, Harari surmises that we frequently give over our free will for the convenience of tailored content. The stakes of such tailoring are high (much like that of an intrusive inseam): we’ve placed too much trust in the tailor, and now we’re walking (and thinking) with a limp. More to the point: we trust algorithms more than we trust ourselves. Why not, so the logic goes, let the computers make choices for us? In effect, digitization of this sort has the potential to beget dehumanization. Or so Harari warns.
Just to be clear, I’m not proposing that all things “digital” are the boogeyman. Rather, in the spirit of reflection, “digital” serves as a helpful interlocutor for conversations about “the humanities.” To return to Harari, the problem is not the proliferation of algorithms in contemporary culture. That ship has sailed and will likely never be returning to port. The problem is the potential for human willingness to give over our capacity to think for ourselves, turning instead to the slick comfort (some might say the apathy or indifference) of digital decidability. Let Yelp pick tonight’s dinner choice. Let Spotify choose music that I will like. Let Netflix decide what I want to watch. Let Trunk Club tell me what I should wear. Let OkCupid (or if you’re an academic, EliteSingles) pander to my need for intimacy. The peril here is the potential for scalable de-intellectualism: why bother thinking for yourself? There’s an app for that.
Perhaps this is the true “crisis” in the humanities, or indeed the humanities’ perpetual state. The word crisis is etymologically derived from the Greek term “to decide.” As the OED can attest, crisis carries medical-pathological inflection (“the point in the progress of a disease when an important development or change takes place which is decisive of recovery or death; the turning-point of a disease for better or worse”), as well as figurative meaning (“a vitally important or decisive stage in the progress of anything; a turning-point”). This medical language is telling. As Blane Greteman reminds us, Robert Burton’s 1621 treatise on melancholia places the humanities in direct contact with disease. Indeed, the humanities cause us great dis-ease (or they should). That is the whole point of the humanities. The “crisis” of the humanities is that of ever recognizing the turning-points within our cultural and historical currents in order to better navigate toward a more humane future--to choose recovery or death.
Today, my hope is being renewed by the resurgence of a humanities whose public-facing works seek to challenge the anti-intellectualism so prominent in our culture. In this context, the famed (or perhaps infamous) Zizek vs Peterson debate comes to mind. Their exchange, “Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism,” sold out a stadium this April. A stadium. To be more specific, Toronto’s Sony Centre, Canada’s largest sports and music venue. Such an event would suggest public interest in what we might call humanities thinking. Other (more personal) examples include ASU’s Symposium: Race Before Race and its follow up Race and Periodization: a #RaceB4Race Symposium, to be hosted by the Folger Shakespeare Library this September.
If, as we surmised at the end of our second episode, the future of the humanities will follow a digital trajectory, then this trajectory ought to leverage the potential of the digital to think with one another. Twitter, Podcasts, and YouTube all come to mind, as well as open-access digital print venues. The emphasis here lies in the potential for the digital to both create and leverage shared spaces for thought and engagement, for community building and social progress.
On this note, I’d like to close this post with two gestures toward a public humanities. First, given the (necessary) brevity of blogging as a medium, I would encourage interested parties to explore the current issue of Profession (the MLA’s online magazine) which takes “Public Humanities” as its theme. Second, for those who are members of the Shakespeare Association of America (or those who wish to become members), I’d like to invite you to participate in our 2020 Seminar: “Public Shakespeares and New Media: Critical Approaches.” Let’s share ideas together, and, in the words of philosopher Andy Clark, work collectively “to build better worlds to think in.”
Wednesday, June 5, 2019
The State of the University Revisited - A Case for Hope?
When we recorded our first episode in November 2017, we
thought the natural place to start was assessing the state of the university as
a whole. As relatively new graduates joining the ranks of full-time faculty at
a wide variety of institutions with differing sorts of positions, we had
definite opinions about how the university was holding up against the political
and social environments of the early Trump administration.
Now, nearly two years later, it seems to me that the state
of the university is much the same as we left it in 2017. On one hand, it's disheartening
to see continued pressure put on higher educational institutions to corporatize
– arguing tacitly, and sometimes verbally, that the same employment and "customer retention" models that
work for Wal-Mart must work for your local community college. On one hand, the
fact that the current administration has not been able to do significant damage
to the university system during these two years is cause for some mild celebration.
Despite proposals to do so, the education budget has not been thoroughly decimated.
Financially, those who seem poised to suffer the most are college graduates who
are slowly but surely being frozen out of the loan forgiveness programs that
promised relief for those who worked in the public sector. Law students found
themselves on the receiving ends of rejections from the PSLF program, despite
meeting all published requirements. Of the first round of applicants to this
program, less than 3% of applicants received their loan forgiveness, despite
meeting all published requirements. Now, as it was last year, the program is on
the chopping block again. Its termination seems politically unpopular, so there’s
always hope that it will remain.
There are, however, cracks in the edifice that show the
weight of cultural shift we’ve undergone as a community these last three-ish
years. The issue over campus “free speech” is once again in the spotlight. The
president recently signed an executive order purportedly guaranteeing free
speech on college campuses, claiming simultaneously that conservative ideas and
speakers were routinely stifled at universities. (I’ll spare readers here the
old joke about indoctrination and syllabus-reading.) As a result, federal funds
to universities could potentially be denied if the Department of Education
feels that the university has stymied free speech by not allowing the likes of
Milo Yiannopoulous or Jordan Peterson to address students. This has continued
to foment distrust amongst the conservative community and university faculty
and staff, the former who still believe that universities are sites of “indoctrination.”
In truth, more often than not, it is student bodies, not administration or
faculty, who oppose these types of speakers. Although federal funding is a
significant portion of any university’s budget, we must not forget that the
most significant amount of funding comes from students who will be paying for
their educations for the length of a mortgage. Do they not deserve a say?
These developments aside, I can tell you as a teacher on the
front lines in a very conservative state that things are perhaps not as bleak
as they seem in the classroom. I teach introductory composition courses
frequently, and part of our curriculum is to adapt our required “campus read”
into our course structure so students will engage with it more earnestly. This
year, the selection is Keith Payne’s The Broken Ladder: How Inequality
Affects the Way We Think, Live, and Die (2017). I teach in a boot-straps mentality
state. If I have it, it’s because I earned it. If you don’t have it, it’s
because you didn’t work hard enough/deserve it. While that mentality is
part-and-parcel of most conservative thinking, it is worth noting that many of
my students and their parents are extraordinarily hard workers in a state with the
10th highest rate of poverty in 2017. As they’ve entered college,
many of them doing so for that ephemeral promise of a “better life,” and the
costs are burdensome. They work hard for classes. Then they go home and work hard
at a minimum wage job and find time for homework in between. Although my university
is certainly one of the more affordable ones in the state, many will still
leave with close to $40,000 in debt if they are able to graduate in four years.
Our state legislature recently approved extending two years of funding,
typically only available to community college students, to university students
as well – so this will make a huge difference. Yet as we read through The Broken
Ladder and other texts exploring types of inequality, my students did not
seem the same to me as other students from conservative bastions where I had taught
before. While you still find a lot of vocal support for the current
administration, students are much more at ease admitting that they find the
system to be “rigged.” What used to be dismissed as complaining or a lack of ingenuity
is now a common parlance for the course. “I feel like it’s bad that they’re making
it so only rich people can afford to go to college or become doctors and
lawyers,” one student said. We talked about the systemic problems that might
arise in that kind of world. What does it mean to have a doctor who’s never tried
to buy groceries on $150 a month tell you that your eating choices are “unhealthy?”
What would it mean to have a lawyer who never had to financially struggle
represent you in a small claims dispute? What does it mean to have an upper-middle-class
teacher thrust into a public school in a high-poverty district with students
whose parents are at work all day and have no time to help with homework or
bake sales?
It can be depressing
to recognize that while the situation isn’t starkly worse in higher education
now, it seems as though we are all holding our fingers in the dam praying that things
don’t get worse. There’s a mighty institutional force on the other side
of that dam chipping away with budget cuts, administrators who have “bold ideas,” worshiping big data and assessment, and a general fear of the power a
university can wield in capable hands. But take it from me, although we find
ourselves in much the same predicament as we were two years ago, the situation
on the ground seems as if it there’s an awakening happening among young
college-going students. A lot of my colleagues who have been teaching for years
may not see it. Complaints still abound about entitlement, laziness, ignorance,
etc. Where I see significant progress, though, is that many of them show up to
college with a more progressive ideology than they’re perhaps comfortable
admitting. They know they’re coming into a rigged system. They’ve watched it
their whole lives. And they’re starting to figure out who rigged it. And they’re
starting to figure out that they need to fix it. And the state of the
university now is that we need to be the ones who stop griping about what they
don’t know and give them the tools to fix it – for all our sakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


