[journal entry] on Peter Elbow’s “Embracing Contraries in the Teaching Process”

October 1, 2007

In this article, Elbow argues that it is not in avoiding the conflict of “hard” teacher versus “soft” teacher but in embracing the conflict, and more specifically, in giving each extreme its full due that makes for good teaching. He’s saying that it’s not when we care for little for either or for one over the other, but it’s exactly when we care deeply about both about helping our students, being their allies and coaches, and about our subject, about the benefit society gains from high standards in our subject that we can teach more successfully. When we care more for students than standards (or vice versa, more for standards than students), we end up teaching poorly. But it’s not when we show our care for both at the same time; it’s when we “go whole hog with one mentality” and then the other that makes teaching work (61).

I found this point fascinating and liberating. Fascinating because it does, as Elbow points out, apply to life in general, not just teaching. It’s the same way a good writer works: by caring deeply about the sound and feel and play of writing as well as caring deeply about form and organization and sense (though, again — not at the same time). It’s the same way a mature personality develops: by caring deeply about both sides of one’s soul, so to speak – nurturing one’s self as well as pushing one’s self. I love the way Elbow’s insight corresponds to a lot of the way the universe seems to work (at least the human universe, if not the inanimate universe). That makes his insight all the more believable.

I found it liberating because it means that the main thing I have to do in teaching is to care deeply about my love of writing and my love of students. And that seems almost easy, when put that way. I know the logistics have to be worked out – and Elbow gives some very sane and helpful examples of ways to emphasize both students and standards (alternately, not simultaneously) – but it’s freeing to know that it’s the caring, the energy I bring to both that makes it all work ultimately.

Finally, as a former divinity student, I especially loved Elbow’s use of Christ as a prime example of a teacher who cared deeply about “standards” and “students.” I’d never thought of his teaching style that way. But, come to think of it, I can’t think of anyone who was more willing to do whatever it took to fulfill both his “students’” needs and the requirements of a higher spiritual “law.” That’s a cool example, and one I’ll never forget. But I did find that it also raised a troubling question for me. It made me wonder how much charisma has to do with successful teaching. The more I thought about it, though, the more I think Elbow’s basic insight still holds true: it’s our love, our passion for writing and for students that generates the “charisma,” not vice versa.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “[journal entry] on Peter Elbow’s “Embracing Contraries in the Teaching Process”

  1. Cool new banner – and is that another contrary – the desk of books and the earlier photo of the grassy meadow in the mountains – inside/outside, mind/body? Jesus said we should be perfect, yet he also rebuked someone who called him “good” saying only God is good. In fact, we should be human.

    I like the layout of your blog. Not sure that blogger allows as many formatting choices.

  2. Hi, Sara. Heheh, yeah, I hadn’t thought of that — the contrary between this banner image and the previous one. Maybe I’ll go back and forth between inside/school-ish banners and outside/nature banners — gotta emphasize both!

    And yeah, excellent point: that Jesus didn’t want anyone to call even him “good.” I guess the Elbow’s analogy to Christ’s teaching methods only goes so far. Or…. maybe being perfect just means being “fully” or “perfectly” human. Anyway, I guess that’s another discussion.

    I like this layout, too, though I’m starting to wonder if the font is too small. What do you think?

    ————————–
    Thanks, Michael! I appreciate you saying that. And I’ll be curious to hear more of the feminism(s) and rhetoric(s) conference. You didn’t happen to go to the “Arguing About Same-Sex Issues” session, did you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s