I made this one as a stitch with a mutual ages ago, been meaning to do a proper job of it. decided to get it done while I was visiting friends in Georgia #literature #analysis #redscare
More than one thing can be true at the same time. We can recognize the anti-communism within education while also recognizing there is a difficulty in keeping students engaged.
what's the theory here? that kids would be into literary analysis if it was more marxist? I do see the point that the most common methods of analysis at the primary school level are informed by cultural anti-communism, but "the curtains are just blue" meme is pretty clear about the object of its criticism, which is that fiction has any meaning at all beyond literal interpretation.
Not trying to say that if literature was taught through a marxist lens that kids would be more interested, I'm saying that the current pedagogical mode is anti-communist and doesn't engage students. Both of these things can be true without necessarily being explicitly related.
That being said, from my experience, students/learners are more engaged with literature (or reading period) if the topic relates to them, and only formalist education makes the text sterile. Books, especially literature, I've found much more engaging if the students can relate to places that they know(especially if its a new perspective on them), topics that interest them, etc. There are currently a ton of problems within education. I don't think that anti-communism is necessarily the most pressing, but I don't see it meaningfully changing under capitalism either. So it kind of leaves us in a position where education sucks because of the current economy and state formation and said education reinforces the status quo through, amongst other things, anti-communism. So, any leftist speaking on the sorry state of education is doing a disservice by not at least mentioning how anti-communism puts unique and extra pressure on an already exploding system & how education might be differently approached within socialism (if the conversation allows the avenue).
Large class sizes, uniform curriculum, and the desperate need to constantly evaluate progress do far more damage to the education system than Red Scare politics.
I think generally you're right, but I don't think it's right to call it anti-intellectual. I think often what our relationship to literature (or art) is even supposed to be is just poorly taught.
Like I know a lot of clever (but not university-trained) adults who think a piece of art is about This Thing The Artist Is Saying To Us and our role is to discover what This Thing is. Like I think that's a very intuitive expectation if you've never really been taught otherwise.
teenagers and former teenagers. I'm not saying it's their fault, I do think it's a difficult subject to teach, and an underfunded education system that emphasizes test results and generally disdains the arts is mostly not up to the task.
Like I know a lot of clever (but not university-trained) adults who think a piece of art is about This Thing The Artist Is Saying To Us and our role is to discover what This Thing is.
Art routinely has a story behind it. Why an artist chooses a particular media or composition is as important as the final product. Things that look like shit but have a story can be more compelling than things that are expertly crafted without explanation or reference.
That isn't to say you are beholden to the artist's own interpretation. An artist may make a statement inadvertently or subconsciously. They may capture a moment with its own meaning that even they don't comprehend. Or they might just be full of shit (Hemingway was famous for bullshitting audiences when they asked him about this or that allusion in his fiction).
But knowing the history of an artistic piece is vital to understanding it in context. And, at some point, that means engaging with the thoughts of its creators.
Hm, no I think it really is just anti-intellectualism from teenagers who had a bad experience in English class. Ironically, it is not that deep.
More than one thing can be true at the same time. We can recognize the anti-communism within education while also recognizing there is a difficulty in keeping students engaged.
what's the theory here? that kids would be into literary analysis if it was more marxist? I do see the point that the most common methods of analysis at the primary school level are informed by cultural anti-communism, but "the curtains are just blue" meme is pretty clear about the object of its criticism, which is that fiction has any meaning at all beyond literal interpretation.
Not trying to say that if literature was taught through a marxist lens that kids would be more interested, I'm saying that the current pedagogical mode is anti-communist and doesn't engage students. Both of these things can be true without necessarily being explicitly related.
That being said, from my experience, students/learners are more engaged with literature (or reading period) if the topic relates to them, and only formalist education makes the text sterile. Books, especially literature, I've found much more engaging if the students can relate to places that they know(especially if its a new perspective on them), topics that interest them, etc. There are currently a ton of problems within education. I don't think that anti-communism is necessarily the most pressing, but I don't see it meaningfully changing under capitalism either. So it kind of leaves us in a position where education sucks because of the current economy and state formation and said education reinforces the status quo through, amongst other things, anti-communism. So, any leftist speaking on the sorry state of education is doing a disservice by not at least mentioning how anti-communism puts unique and extra pressure on an already exploding system & how education might be differently approached within socialism (if the conversation allows the avenue).
Large class sizes, uniform curriculum, and the desperate need to constantly evaluate progress do far more damage to the education system than Red Scare politics.
I think generally you're right, but I don't think it's right to call it anti-intellectual. I think often what our relationship to literature (or art) is even supposed to be is just poorly taught.
Like I know a lot of clever (but not university-trained) adults who think a piece of art is about This Thing The Artist Is Saying To Us and our role is to discover what This Thing is. Like I think that's a very intuitive expectation if you've never really been taught otherwise.
teenagers and former teenagers. I'm not saying it's their fault, I do think it's a difficult subject to teach, and an underfunded education system that emphasizes test results and generally disdains the arts is mostly not up to the task.
Art routinely has a story behind it. Why an artist chooses a particular media or composition is as important as the final product. Things that look like shit but have a story can be more compelling than things that are expertly crafted without explanation or reference.
That isn't to say you are beholden to the artist's own interpretation. An artist may make a statement inadvertently or subconsciously. They may capture a moment with its own meaning that even they don't comprehend. Or they might just be full of shit (Hemingway was famous for bullshitting audiences when they asked him about this or that allusion in his fiction).
But knowing the history of an artistic piece is vital to understanding it in context. And, at some point, that means engaging with the thoughts of its creators.
deleted by creator
Yes