Word.

Ahhh, deconstruction. I’ve been banging my head against this wall for several months. I didn’t really get this until I sat down with RoyalOil and talked it all out. For me, deconstruction only really makes sense in the context of it being a reaction against the rigidity of structuralist theory. While structuralists hold that language functions to convey definitive meaning, deconstruction theorists declare such absolutism to be totalitarian. There can be no way of knowing what any given text means, as the influences on a text are broad-ranging and ultimately unknowable. If you can continue to question what a text means, or what subtle influences may have unconsciously shaped the word choice of the author, you can continue to question what the real meaning of a text can be. When you reach that point of paradox where you cannot determine actual meaning and the text becomes “undecidable,” you have achieved aporia. This seems to be the actual goal of deconstruction literary criticism; finding the aspect of text that makes it unknowable is a grand irritant to other literary critics, and therefore desirable. The deconstruction theorist is a gadfly…

This theory is ultimately very useful to the teacher. Appleman cites Moore (1998) who quotes McLaughlin who defines deconstruction theory as “equipment for post-modern living” (p. 104). Ultimately, deconstruction is a rebellion against accepting the opinions of others; this makes the theory highly attractive. Students may revel in the idea that they can reject meaning. As they search for ways to reject what you offer them, they may actually learn something new…

—Ludlow

Reference

Appleman, D. (2000). Critical Encounters in High School English: Teaching Literary Theory to Adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press.

I love Marxist critical theory. There, I said it. I love it. I love the way Marxist theory allows me to review the text in the context of class and status. I love being able to look at texts from a position that questions the intentions of the author, attempts to recognize the influences of society, and embraces the social constructions inherent in our understanding of text. Appleman points out how Marxist critical theory allows the teacher to widen the viewpoint of the student. In discussing a typical crowd of AP English students, she says “They’re basically good people, motivated learners, and engaged students, but they hardly ever think beyond the boundaries of their own comfortable world” (Appleman, 2000, p. 63). I am especially fond of the way Marxist critical theory tracks back to the idea of “who benefits?” when analyzing texts. This sort of critical thinking is useful for teaching students to be critical about information they are presented; Marxist literary theory can be used to recognize the embedded power, class, ideology, and resistance messages present in classroom texts (Appleman, 2000, p. 62). No matter what we read, it has been touched in some way by these issues. Writers do not exist in a vacuum; they assimilate information and it comes out in what they write. Sometimes it is overt, such as Sinclair’s socialist message in The Jungle, but frequently the influences on a writer are quite subtle and require careful reading to parse out hidden meanings…
I am pleased with my Marxist lens. It allows me to analyze the class issues that are so prevalent in our literary canon. How can we look at books like The Grapes of Wrath or The Great Gatsby without considering class and social status? I use Marxist critical theory in my class, if for no other reason than to provide a solid jumping off point for discussion. The students don’t have to agree with my interpretations; often they don’t even get to hear them. The questions prompt discussion, which prompt more questions, in an ever-deepening spiral into the meaning of the text. Which is, truly, a good thing.  So I say “Yay, Marxist critical theory!”

—Ludlow

The ubiquitous quality of technology in our lives is starkly contrasted by the availability of technology in the classroom.  While we have podcasts and blogs, streaming media and complicated presentations as an active part of our private lives, the use of technology in the classroom on a practical basis seems to be limited at best.

I see fantastic resources available to us in the university; technology and instruction was a fantastic class that really opened my eyes to the possibilities inherent in the available tech provided by simple office suite programs.  When I am in the classroom, however, I have to scramble for an LCD projector, dual task the standard housekeeping roles of the laptop with the demands of running a presentation, and utterly discount the possibility of streaming video; the pipes just aren’t fat enough.

Give the schools five years to catch up; do you think they will?  I hope they do, but while we wait, I will continue the scramble to expose our visual learners to all that I can in the way of technology.  Even the old standby of the overhead projector has immense power with these students.  Put something up on screen in front of them, and they shift into an absorption mode of being; they sop up the information, and seem to be better able to retain what they learn when they SEE it.  Have any of you observed this?