Pratt's Contact Zones

I've really been intrigued with Pratt's "Contact Zones" and figuring out how to apply this in my classroom. I think that one reason why it is such a shock for students to learn to think outside of the the comfort zone that they've built around themselves their entire lives is because they've never ventured outside of that comfort zone. They've never been challenged to even spread open a space in the blinds and look out "into the mystery." But how does one address this concern without creating a battle zone or allowing things to get out of hand? It's a very touchy endeavor indeed, one from which most people steer away for fear of creating a war zone in the classroom.

One of these very topics of interest is racism. Oooh, scary. To discuss racism sends a shiver up the spines of some people. Why? Do the students not have anything to add to this discussion? Are we afraid that they aren't mature enough or sensitive enough to deal with such an "adult" topic? What assumptions are we making about them that cause some of us to veer hard and heavy in any other direction when encountering the potential discussion about race? And further, what assumptions do we make about ourselves that we feel we can't handle this type of discussion?

Look. I've posted some stuff on this blog that sounded as if I was very irritated or very discouraged. Some of it was venting, some fishing for new ideas. But if there is anything that will get these students talking, and more importantly, thinking, it is this discussion. I may post some things in jest...to sort of test the waters or see if anyone even reads these things. You can't take everything I say seriously, it's no fun that way. But why not get serious for a second and discuss some issues that really mean something. Ok, you got me. I can't be all that serious. So what follows is half written in jest and half a discussion that begs for response. Nobody may respond, but let's proceed anyway, shall we?

Today, I showed Dave Chappelle's interview on Inside the Actor's Studio. For those of us that know his work, Chappelle's comedy comes from his fearless and clever willingness to push beyond racial boundaries and to force these issue into the public forum, for ridicule, for awareness, and for good, fun comedy. But he threw it all away, even a 50-million-dollar contract, for piece of mind. Is he crazy? 50 million dollars! There had to be some underlying reason for throwing away that kind of financial freedom. But isn't that the point...that there are other things to be concerned about in this world than money, things, financial security?

I showed the first 45 minutes of the show in class after briefly discussing the power that comedians have in terms of slyly conveying a message to their audience and cut it off for discussion. I proposed the same thing that I just wrote here about why he may have given it all up. Then I asked the question that, when asked, receives the same response as shotgun blast to the face: silence. Of course, there is that instant silence. And the first thing that we all think is: Great, here we go. Now I'm going to have to rephrase the question or just start talking until I can't stand hearing myself speak. They are refusing to take part in this. They are bored. They want to go home. I want to go home. And just when I started to open my mouth, one of them responded.

I have to admit. I got scared. I didn't know what to think. I mean...they talk? They can actually talk? I thought they were just machines that only responded to commands. You know, robots. Wait a minute, I told myself. Let's see where this talking thing takes us. This was strange, but I let the student continue.

"It's like he's saying money isn't everything," the student says.

Ok, so now she has just basically said the same thing that I said. Not necessarily original, but that's what robots do. They are programed to repeat things. Let's test it and see if it knows anything else.

"So, what do you mean by that? Is there something that he insinuates that would be better?" I replied.

"Yeah," she said. "He talks about missing time with his father, who was dying, so that he could go meet TV executives about his pilot. He lost time with his father that he would never be able to make up."

Is this really a machine, I thought. It seems to be doing something...I can't quite place it. I think that it's thinking. I don't know if I care for that. Machines thinking? Maybe it's not a machine after all. Maybe it's...human. Well, let's keep testing it with more question to find out what else it knows.

"So these TV guys didn't really care that his dad was sick. They were just interested in making another show so that they could make money. Is that what you are saying? That they only wanted to exploit his talents because he appealed to a certain market of people and could make them a bundle of money?" I further questioned her.

She got this look on her face. It was strange. It was like she was...I don't know...excited? Is that the right word? Can you use that word to describe robots? It's as if she had something else that she couldn't wait to add, some idea that she was eager to convey. Well, right away I grew suspicious.

This could be another machine trick. I've seen this before in movies. I'm not a sucker for the old "I've got an idea that I want to discuss" trick. I've seen machines pull this one before. Fool me once, you crazy devils...

I started to interupt her and she just talked over the top of me. This machine is pretty persistant, I thought. It wants something, but what?...But what?

I let her speak.

"Well, look at how they tried to change his pilot. They wanted to recast a character for a white woman to make the show more appealing to white America. And how about the fact that they offered him 50 million dollars but told him that he was going to have to change his show a little bit to get a wider variety audience to watch it. To me, they are just trying to take something that he made and make it more white," she said emphatically.

I think I'm beginning to like this machine, I thought. It says things and has reasons.

"More white!" I exclaimed. "Whatever do you mean by that?"

"Let me explain," she responded.

I got animated. "Oh no. I don't know if I care for that. You can't say things and then expect to be able to explain yourself. That's not how it works around here. How dare you presume that I would allow such things as not standing on blanket statements alone. How dare you assume that I allow things like substantiated argumentation. What kind of class do you think this is? You just think you can just waltz in here with your fancy thinking and your opinons that can be backed up with logical reasoning. Oh no, not in this class. We'll have none of that 'thinking for yourself' stuff around here. We're robots awaiting instruction."

Of course, I was kidding around and everyone laughed. They got me. Finally! I think the point was made and maybe even understood. It may even stick. Well, we'll see what Spring Break does for that. But, nonetheless, there was progress. By poking at her comfort zone, she responded and so did others. She explained herself and made her point. There were head knods and I could see some students privately confirming what she said to each other. Most people agreed. But before I had time to look for alternate views, class time had expired. Actually, we had gone over a couple of minutes. So I sent them away with a final rousing speech about challenging your own assumptions and not judging things by the way they look. I told them that this is what we can expect to get themselves into when they get back from the break. If Pratt has taught me anything, it's that I need to expose their contact zones a tad to get them to respond. Maybe, by revealing these contact zones, my students will find a commonality that they never knew existed. Of course, I'm beginning to sound a bit ideolistic, but hey, why not? At least it would make for good conversation.

My Little Experiment

I was having a hard time getting my students to speak up in class. You all know what I mean. You review a text. You ask questions.

Silence.

No matter how long you wait them out...silence. So, I figured that if they didn't want to communicate verbally, I would have them communicate in writing. So I gave them five prompts, and asked them to write as much as they could within the prescribed amount of time (6-7 minutes). Here are the prompts: (1) Write about a time when you were lost and you could not find help. How did you feel? (2) Write about a time when you were lost and you find help. Were you relieved? Were you annoyed? (3) Write about your expectations before you came into class today. And what are you thinking right now? (4) Write about what you think my expectations were before coming into class today. What am I thinking about right now? (5) If you were the boss, the one in control, let's say...me, how would you handle things? What would you do with the class?

Of course, you can change these prompts to fit your taste. But what I wanted them to do was to simply write as much as they could. Tell stories, recount their past, whatever. I just wanted them to give themselves some material to work with. Then I asked them to remove all personal account from each piece of writing and rewrite them as if they happened to someone else. I gave them the latitude to determine how they would do this. Finally, I asked them to read everything they had wrote, from beginning to end, as if they were all part of the same narrative. I told them to try to find a theme or underlying story that related all of these pieces of writing. They were to give each story a name. I asked them to write about that theme and use each individual piece that they had written about as evidence to support their writing/argument, citing each story by title.

The point was for them to learn to look outside of themselves, to develop the ability to conceptualize each piece of writing as something written by someone else. Too often have I found that they have a hard time getting away from what they think or how they feel. My students simply can not remove themselves from a situation and look at it objectively. They are too focused on their personal "opinion." This word get thrown around as if it holds some sort of substantive meaning. Most still don't know how to distinguish opinion from analysis.

My hope was that they would learn to think objectively through this exercise. They should learn to look at their writing objectively and compile the content (what each story/writing sample is about) of each writing prompt, not their individual opinions, into a single piece of writing that is driven by a theme and supported with evidence. At least, that is my intention. I'll keep you all posted when I get the results. Keep your fingers crossed for me, please.

My Pedagogy

Wow, do I really have a pedagogy? If so, does it resemble anyone's? These are tough questions, because I don't know if I have enough experience to adequately answer them. Simply put, I don't know if my pedagogy is developed to the point that it can be identified. I know that there are certain policies that I maintain in my classroom. For instance, I expect a certain level of responsibility from my students. I know freshman are freshman, but I think that if we continue to treat them as high school students, they will act like high school students. We are college teachers, therefore we should demand a certain level of professionalism. I don't believe in setting the bar too low; however, I try to remain very aware of whether I am setting it too high. I don't expect my students to write like DeLillo or Updike, but neither do I expect them to write like my 14-year-old cousins. I think if we set a high enough standard, they will step up their game in order to meet it. Let's face it, college isn't for everyone.

So what about the writing itself? Am I a process guy or a product guy? Hm. Both. I want them to produce a good product--one that is clear, concise, and contains good content. But I believe that in order for them to produce good writing, students must learn to hone their skills in terms of their writing process. Of course, editing and revision come into play when considering this. I try to stress the importance of revising their writing, that a true final draft is unattainable because they can always do better, but that doesn't mean that they can't do well. Students have to understand that producing good writing is work. It just doesn't magically happen. Learning good editing and revision skills is just one way to mold and polish their writing. That's what I tell them: Revision is the molding processing. It enables you to shape your work. Editing is polishing that work, removing the rough edges. Both are work, but both will provide you with a professional-looking product.

What is funny is that after I explain all of this, they look at me, amazed. "Oh my God, writing is so much work."

Exactly. But practice makes perfect. Well, sort of.