Bibliography
Monk's Hood - Ellis Peters
Why, yes, I did read two Cadfael novels back to back, mainly because they came in a really big omnibus and I wanted to read them both before returning it.
I feel as if Peters is starting to get the hang of it here. Her pacing is better, her characters are stronger, her plot twists are more convincing. There's also a less heavy-handed emphasis on the political side of things, which really felt quite - leaden? Unexpected? Misbalanaced? Something, anyway, in One Corpse Too Many. It's dealt with as a reality of life here, but with a much more delicate touch - it impacts but it doesn't overwhelm, as it had a tendency to previously. Mind you, Shrewsbury is no longer under siege, which helps, but you take my point.
The plot follows murder on this occasion, again, by poison - although said poison was actually a medicinal rub put together by Cadfael himself, which gives him more than just cause to get involved in sorting out whatever's happened in this case. Turns out it all revolves around land ownership and inheritance and family and status and stuff. Not to mention a quite fun bit of Welsh vs. English law, which the reader hasn't got a chance to see coming but is completely convincing for Cadfael to put two and two together on.
Anyway. More light historical detective fiction, very much appropriate for the dying days of summer, and it feels like Ellis is starting to get the hang of her craft just that bit more. Plus one of Cadfael's old girlfriends turns up, and that's pretty amusing.
The Feminist Classroom - Frances A. Maher and Mary Kay Thompson Tetreault
I came across the title whilst reading Maher and Tetreault's later work, Privilege and Diversity in the Academy. You can see how one book grew out of the other; there, they were interested in the intersections of race, gender and to a lesser extent sexual orientation in an institutional setting, and how various universities coped with the demands of diversity in the academic framework. The Feminist Classroom is ultimately also concerned with questions of race, gender and sexual orientation, as well as class, and how feminist classrooms can acknowledge the intersecting networks of oppression and privilege that they exist in.
Those of you following me on Twitter will have been following my immediate reactions to this book, but let me try and pull them together. In some ways, this has been a helpful read, because it's been an insight into other disciplines and other classrooms; in other ways, it's been helpful in helping me to articulate some of my questions and concerns with instituting a feminist pedagogy, broadly defined, given the nature of my subject. Maher and Tetreault are excellent at recognising that even defining a feminist pedagogy is impossible, because of the fluid nature of feminism, disciplines, personal choice and so on, so I don't think that they'd object to me saying that while their writing is partially helpful, it doesn't articulate solutions to the questions posed by Classics.
Some elements that Maher and Tetreault identify as feminist strategies I already use. The importance of using students' questions and reactions to texts, and of not trying to be a top-down 'I am the teacher therefore I am right' authority figure is something I already try and incorporate; I believe my authority in the classroom should come from my experience with the material, not my position as instructor. However, the way that Maher and Tetreault sometimes discuss the centrality of the student experience in generating knowledge makes me feel uncomfortable; it feels as if they are advocating student-centered learning rather than subject-centered learning, and I have big problems with student-centered learning. I don't think being subject-centered is anti-feminist, but as this book was published in 1994, I'm not sure that particular idea had come of age yet, so Maher and Tetreault don't incorporate it into their discussion as a liberating strategy. I'm pretty sure it is one, though.
Another thing the feminist classroom can and should do is use professors to model their responses to social issues, such as racism and sexism. Now, in classes like sociology or biology or... well, modern subjects, this is all well and good, but how on earth do you discuss social issues in Latin 101? What social issue is raised by the gerund? In some ways, of course, these are the kinds of issues that are raised in courses that teach gender and sexuality in the ancient world, and the historical distance raises the issue of constructed sexual/gender identity in a way that the teachers who were the subject of Maher and Tetreault's study sometimes struggle with. But it is very, very interesting that most, if not all, of their subjects taught courses dealing with modernity. I think the earliest authors who are discussed are Charlotte Bronte and Emily Dickinson. That's still very much the modern period - so how do you have a historical feminist classroom? Even if they'd studied somebody in History, teaching the Renaissance even, some of these questions might have been answered.
I think I have a hypothetical answer, which hinges on the emphasis Maher and Tetreault place on positionality - that is, teaching students to think of themselves in terms of their position in a network of shifting status, as white or black, as male or female, as straight or bi, as cis or trans, as upper/middle/lower class, and how all of those facts can be taken one at a time or all together in shaping identity. The material of classics doesn't do that well, or when it does, it has to use entirely alien referents - for instance, teaching class in ancient Rome means doing slaves, freedmen, free citizens, knights and senators, which involves a whole lot of historical consciousness-raising and not necessarily much connection to the 'American Dream' (putting aside the 'aspirational freedman' narrative although you can get somewhere with that, but going too far with it is very dangerous in terms of historical anachronism). The web of positionality in the ancient world isn't the same as that our students currently occupy, and so The Feminist Classroom's emphasis on using student experience as a source of knowledge is very problematic - we don't want to be reductionist about the difference between us and them.
What we can do is think about the institutional structure of the classroom in which we teach, about assignments, about the make-up of courses, about making students examine the classroom dynamic that means the opinions of the dominant group are listened to more. On that side of things, The Feminist Classroom gave me some interesting ideas, including some helpful ways of thinking about using journals in relation to literature as a way of starting discussion. But ultimately, and Maher and Tetreault recognise this, so long as the instructor is assigning a grade, authority still lies with the instructor, and so long as institutions require a grade to be given, then the instructor still has to give a grade. Now, I don't think that's actually a bad thing; I don't think authority is a bad thing, I don't think recognising experience with the material is a bad thing, I don't think grades are a bad thing. But I see Maher and Tetreault's point about making that authority more transparent; I also think of the groupwork workshops I've attended as part of the TA Project that have had some excellent ideas about making groups responsible for grading themselves (each member grades each other member, for instance), which means students have the authority to judge the contribution others have made to the group and thus (hopefully!) leads to an environment where freeloading doesn't get rewarded because the professor doesn't know about it.
There are some sensible ideas here, there are some things that are thought-provoking, and it's good to know a text that lays out the basic lie of the land about what various incarnations of self-labelled feminist classrooms look like and how they differ. The different case studies are, in fact, one of the greatest strengths of the book; if you don't like person A's teaching style, you might feel more comfortable with person B's approach. The fact that there's no judgement about what is feminist helps too. But the fact that classes dealing with material from before the so-called 'modern' era are completely excluded means that there's only so much I can ultimately take away from it.
Why, yes, I did read two Cadfael novels back to back, mainly because they came in a really big omnibus and I wanted to read them both before returning it.
I feel as if Peters is starting to get the hang of it here. Her pacing is better, her characters are stronger, her plot twists are more convincing. There's also a less heavy-handed emphasis on the political side of things, which really felt quite - leaden? Unexpected? Misbalanaced? Something, anyway, in One Corpse Too Many. It's dealt with as a reality of life here, but with a much more delicate touch - it impacts but it doesn't overwhelm, as it had a tendency to previously. Mind you, Shrewsbury is no longer under siege, which helps, but you take my point.
The plot follows murder on this occasion, again, by poison - although said poison was actually a medicinal rub put together by Cadfael himself, which gives him more than just cause to get involved in sorting out whatever's happened in this case. Turns out it all revolves around land ownership and inheritance and family and status and stuff. Not to mention a quite fun bit of Welsh vs. English law, which the reader hasn't got a chance to see coming but is completely convincing for Cadfael to put two and two together on.
Anyway. More light historical detective fiction, very much appropriate for the dying days of summer, and it feels like Ellis is starting to get the hang of her craft just that bit more. Plus one of Cadfael's old girlfriends turns up, and that's pretty amusing.
The Feminist Classroom - Frances A. Maher and Mary Kay Thompson Tetreault
I came across the title whilst reading Maher and Tetreault's later work, Privilege and Diversity in the Academy. You can see how one book grew out of the other; there, they were interested in the intersections of race, gender and to a lesser extent sexual orientation in an institutional setting, and how various universities coped with the demands of diversity in the academic framework. The Feminist Classroom is ultimately also concerned with questions of race, gender and sexual orientation, as well as class, and how feminist classrooms can acknowledge the intersecting networks of oppression and privilege that they exist in.
Those of you following me on Twitter will have been following my immediate reactions to this book, but let me try and pull them together. In some ways, this has been a helpful read, because it's been an insight into other disciplines and other classrooms; in other ways, it's been helpful in helping me to articulate some of my questions and concerns with instituting a feminist pedagogy, broadly defined, given the nature of my subject. Maher and Tetreault are excellent at recognising that even defining a feminist pedagogy is impossible, because of the fluid nature of feminism, disciplines, personal choice and so on, so I don't think that they'd object to me saying that while their writing is partially helpful, it doesn't articulate solutions to the questions posed by Classics.
Some elements that Maher and Tetreault identify as feminist strategies I already use. The importance of using students' questions and reactions to texts, and of not trying to be a top-down 'I am the teacher therefore I am right' authority figure is something I already try and incorporate; I believe my authority in the classroom should come from my experience with the material, not my position as instructor. However, the way that Maher and Tetreault sometimes discuss the centrality of the student experience in generating knowledge makes me feel uncomfortable; it feels as if they are advocating student-centered learning rather than subject-centered learning, and I have big problems with student-centered learning. I don't think being subject-centered is anti-feminist, but as this book was published in 1994, I'm not sure that particular idea had come of age yet, so Maher and Tetreault don't incorporate it into their discussion as a liberating strategy. I'm pretty sure it is one, though.
Another thing the feminist classroom can and should do is use professors to model their responses to social issues, such as racism and sexism. Now, in classes like sociology or biology or... well, modern subjects, this is all well and good, but how on earth do you discuss social issues in Latin 101? What social issue is raised by the gerund? In some ways, of course, these are the kinds of issues that are raised in courses that teach gender and sexuality in the ancient world, and the historical distance raises the issue of constructed sexual/gender identity in a way that the teachers who were the subject of Maher and Tetreault's study sometimes struggle with. But it is very, very interesting that most, if not all, of their subjects taught courses dealing with modernity. I think the earliest authors who are discussed are Charlotte Bronte and Emily Dickinson. That's still very much the modern period - so how do you have a historical feminist classroom? Even if they'd studied somebody in History, teaching the Renaissance even, some of these questions might have been answered.
I think I have a hypothetical answer, which hinges on the emphasis Maher and Tetreault place on positionality - that is, teaching students to think of themselves in terms of their position in a network of shifting status, as white or black, as male or female, as straight or bi, as cis or trans, as upper/middle/lower class, and how all of those facts can be taken one at a time or all together in shaping identity. The material of classics doesn't do that well, or when it does, it has to use entirely alien referents - for instance, teaching class in ancient Rome means doing slaves, freedmen, free citizens, knights and senators, which involves a whole lot of historical consciousness-raising and not necessarily much connection to the 'American Dream' (putting aside the 'aspirational freedman' narrative although you can get somewhere with that, but going too far with it is very dangerous in terms of historical anachronism). The web of positionality in the ancient world isn't the same as that our students currently occupy, and so The Feminist Classroom's emphasis on using student experience as a source of knowledge is very problematic - we don't want to be reductionist about the difference between us and them.
What we can do is think about the institutional structure of the classroom in which we teach, about assignments, about the make-up of courses, about making students examine the classroom dynamic that means the opinions of the dominant group are listened to more. On that side of things, The Feminist Classroom gave me some interesting ideas, including some helpful ways of thinking about using journals in relation to literature as a way of starting discussion. But ultimately, and Maher and Tetreault recognise this, so long as the instructor is assigning a grade, authority still lies with the instructor, and so long as institutions require a grade to be given, then the instructor still has to give a grade. Now, I don't think that's actually a bad thing; I don't think authority is a bad thing, I don't think recognising experience with the material is a bad thing, I don't think grades are a bad thing. But I see Maher and Tetreault's point about making that authority more transparent; I also think of the groupwork workshops I've attended as part of the TA Project that have had some excellent ideas about making groups responsible for grading themselves (each member grades each other member, for instance), which means students have the authority to judge the contribution others have made to the group and thus (hopefully!) leads to an environment where freeloading doesn't get rewarded because the professor doesn't know about it.
There are some sensible ideas here, there are some things that are thought-provoking, and it's good to know a text that lays out the basic lie of the land about what various incarnations of self-labelled feminist classrooms look like and how they differ. The different case studies are, in fact, one of the greatest strengths of the book; if you don't like person A's teaching style, you might feel more comfortable with person B's approach. The fact that there's no judgement about what is feminist helps too. But the fact that classes dealing with material from before the so-called 'modern' era are completely excluded means that there's only so much I can ultimately take away from it.