Full Contact Scholarship

When I read what one theorist, Dr. Merrifield, wrote about another theorist's, Dr. Soja, book, my jaw dropped in ecstatic joy: "Maybe the real problem here is Soja's prose.  It is far too remote and wordy, and often screams out for clear-spoken directness.  His verbosity militates against him really getting down deep, really immersing himself in the convulsions of daily life and in the cracks and marginal twilight zone of urban life. This is where his Thirdspace [theory] resides and it is plainly where he wants to be, but he cannot quite stoop that low." Whoa.  At times, Merrifield's tone is borderline offensive, I'll grant.  Nevertheless, there is something to learn from him about what it means to discourse with others.  

I would rather hear someone genuinely and thoughtfully disagree with my ideas and representation of those ideas than have my work met with bobbling heads.  As educators, we must balance intellectual encouragement with rigorous thought.  I think the two conflate with some frequency. 

I've done this: So thrilled that a student volunteered his ideas to the class discussion, I have nodded and trailed his thoughts with hmms and rights.  The quality of the ideas were firmly secondary to his willingness to share.  An informal poll of colleagues have revealed similar trends.  How openly we welcome classroom participation.   

But participation is not enough.  With high school students, I think there is much to be said for encouraging quiet and timid students to speak aloud in class.  However, if the teacher's only response is support or permissiveness, then he abandons edification for coddling.  Not all ideas students express are thoughtful.  Teachers have a tricky line to walk.  Though it's important that students take risks in classroom discourse, the sharing itself is only a first step.  If an idea is weak, rash, or problematic, the teacher has an obligation to question it, that is, to model for the class how thinkers explore others' ideas.  

I think teachers often find this modeling difficult.  I've both led, as a teacher, and been led, as a student, in many classes where the classroom discussion becomes wishy washy as others share their ideas with the whole class, deaf to the words of others and infatuated with themselves.  It's as if we have this unspoken binary: Either a teacher lectures or he lets students share, carte blanche.  Either we have a pontificating professor before us or mouthy students bemusing their own ears.  Why might this be? 

It seems to me that many of us (and I place myself in this category as well) are too concerned with the emotional well-being of others, to the point of soft scholarship.  Granted, teachers and classmates have to uphold common courtesy--it's rude to insult others, of course.  But, disagreement in classroom discussion is not discourtesy. 

I'd like to take the lead from the sporting world.  It is, after all, football season.  One would hardly expect two linebackers to spare each other's feelings before a tackle.  Tackling is what they do.  While I don't mean to distill academia into football, it's worth pointing out that at least part of our task as thinkers is to interrogate the ideas of others.  Understand in order to critique.  What we need is full contact scholarship.  I don't mean that students and teachers engage rudely or obnoxiously.  Far from it.  But I am calling for the celebration of disagreement in the classroom, for interrogating what others say, to poke and prod ideas until their merits and limits are clear.  It's not personal; it's academic.