Blog 8: Preparing for the Socratic Seminar
Socratic Seminar
In last week's class, we focused more on the Socratic seminar model and demoed a discussion on Prensky's 2011 article "In the 21st-Century University, Let's Ban (Paper) Books" (which I discussed in the previous blog post). I wasn't entirely surprised by the negative reaction from my peers, but I did enjoy the depth and variety of critiques:
- Ignorance of copyright (something I don't think about often),
- Prensky positioning himself as a disruptive "change-maker" within the field,
- Rhetorical failures (all of the logical fallacies etc.),
- Lack of engagement with related/complementary/more thoughtful trends in librarianship, etc.
To that end, I was disappointed in the direction that the first half of class went in. As we discussed the scope and focus of our bookclub topics, Kristin drew a distinction between appropriate and inappropriate topics. Inappropriate topics, for this assignment, would be "anything related to Trump", but also anything that would require "managing your classmate's emotions." When asked what exactly managing emotions would look like, Kristin said we should avoid creating a situation where a student would announce "I've been raped." Then, we moved on to a slideshow of book club discussion that emphasized 50s cartoons and public library discussions of literature.
I absolutely understand the value of setting a scope for this particular assignment. For an activity to be successful, it needs clear goals, and we can't engage every topic in every setting. However, I felt very uncomfortable with this idea that some experiences and issues and ideas are "too difficult" or "too dangerous" for us to handle. We are a room of aspiring librarians and information professionals that have a rich diversity of experience and identity, and work with people from all walks of life. There's a lot of shared respect in that room. Yet I feel sometimes our courses in librarianship end up setting as the "safe default" the experiences of white Midwestern library folk with the assumption that everyone is able to pack up and store away aspects of our experiences that may be political or difficult for another time. For many marginalized folks, the pretense of creating a safe, apolitical, trauma-free space is a false one.
I think we can do better. Again, I am not writing this to say that for this particular Socratic Seminar activity, every group should focus exclusively on the MeToo movement. But I am saying that by drawing a line between "safe/appropriate" and "dangerous/inappropriate" topics, and doing so in this kind of brief, uncomfortable way in the middle of a bigger discussion, we are reinforcing an idea of librarianship and professionalism that doesn't fully respect one another as peers and equals. Whether it's in this particular assignment or not, we are all going to face moments in our careers where we cannot (and should not) ignore that some us have been sexually assaulted, or have other experiences that may complicate our best intentions for public programming like book clubs. Shouldn't part of our development as information professionals involve learning how to "go there" when we need to, and how to hold our identities and experiences within a respectful, values-driven professional environment and community space?
I want to echo your challenge to the notion of constraining the realm of possible topics to supposedly "safe" terrain. Among all types of discussions, book clubs hold more potential than most to turn into venues for personal reflection, connection, and sharing. Indeed, they are often seen by participants as a safe and comfortable setting of mutual trust precisely because of the way they facilitate deeply personal or challenging dialogue. We can't all be psychologists, counselors, or experts in post-traumatic care and support, but we can all be listeners. What's more, we can be reasonably sure that whatever discomfort we may feel is outweighed by the value to the sharer who has opened up about their experience, and to the rest of the group whose understanding stands to deepen. It is the "drawing a line" you mention that sits uneasily with me as well. Rather than sorting topics into piles, it seems like tone, mutual expectations and atmosphere that need to be shaped mindfully, whatever the topic.
ReplyDeleteI see your point about not shying away from difficult/challenging topics. In this moment in class, I thought what Kristin said made sense for the purpose of the activity (maybe just to make sure everyone could be included and nobody would feel too triggered that they would not want to participate) but it might have been good to make it more clear that in a real-world setting, it's okay to explore those types of topics. And you also touched on where that line actually is and who draws it - one of our stories was about miscarriage, and that could certainly be triggering for some people.
ReplyDeleteThen there is the issue of in smaller or more conservative areas, would it be too "triggering" to explore topics like Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, or LGBTQ+ that would be deemed too bothersome to people with certain beliefs? Even if I disagree with those beliefs? And do we just accept that? Or do we push it? Obviously, I would want to push it. And when I imagine being in the situation of trying to conduct a book club with closed-minded people on one of those topics, it makes me feel gross. Would it be possible to use that as an opportunity to open minds, or would people just use it as their own opportunity to state their gross opinions and get into heated arguments?...
To some extent, delineating what is a "safe" discussion vs. what is a "dangerous" discussion undervalues our own experiences facilitating tough conversations on identity, power, and abuse. I would want to minimize any harm that may occur, but at the same time I both trust and expect my classmates to have the necessary skills to ensure that everyone felt included and safe during these discussions. And like you said, for folks with marginalized identities, you cannot simply compartmentalize politically-sensitive and potentially traumatic issues because politics and trauma are so interwoven in those identities.
ReplyDeleteYet, I can also see Kristin's point of view. She doesn't know our experiences first-hand and she wouldn't have control over a sensitive discussion if it got out of hand. She's also teaching in a political climate where professors who espouse "leftist propaganda" are put on a watchlist by Turning Point USA (http://www.professorwatchlist.org/). The pressures on her as a professor are palpable and the tangible result of that affects the topics of discussion.
This has been a trend I've noticed (please refute if this is all in my head) since Trump has been elected of professors shying away from discussions on politics when it inevitably arises in the classroom. It's a chilling effect that ultimately leads to a disappointing outcome: our underdevelopment as information professionals.