The following post is by Julie Gorlewski and David Gorlewski, 起点传媒members and editors of the English Journal and guest editors, Sean P. Connors and P.L. Thomas.听
We are delighted to invite you to preview our November 2016 issue of EJ, which鈥攊n keeping with the presidential election鈥攊s particularly provocative and compelling. In this blog post, we feature the issue editorial, composed by guest editors Sean P. Connors and P. L. Thomas, as well as the introduction to a special section on teaching Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. We hope that the issues highlighted in this month鈥檚 EJ will open conversation among English teachers everywhere. 鈥擩ulie Gorlewski and David Gorlewski
听From the Guest Editors (Sean P. Connors and P. L. Thomas)
鈥淰isible Teaching: Open Doors as Resistance鈥�
鈥淰isibility,鈥� Michel Foucault famously argued, 鈥渋s a trap鈥� (200). Foucault reached this understanding as a result of his efforts to theorize the panopticon, an 18th-century prison that was designed to control the behavior of inmates by ensuring that they were continuously subject to the gaze of those entrusted with supervising them. For Foucault, the panopticon offers a metaphor for understanding how power functions in modern society. 鈥淚t is the fact of being constantly seen, of being able always to be seen,鈥� he wrote, 鈥渢hat maintains the disciplined individual in his subjection鈥� (187). Significantly, Foucault recognized the panoptic principle鈥攖hat is, the shaping power of the gaze鈥攁t work in other institutions, including school.
Given the surprisingly large number of submissions that the call for this issue of English Journal听elicited, we suspect that Foucault鈥檚 observations are likely to resonate with English teachers working in the current education reform era, a time when local media publish standardized test scores as a way to hold teachers accountable for their students鈥� performance, when teachers are subject to unannounced walk-through observations, and when they are required to submit written lesson plans as evidence of their having complied with prescriptive standards. As the articles in this issue demonstrate, however, the gaze is not unidirectional. Rather, there are times when people make themselves visible to others for the express purpose of capturing their attention and resisting what they recognize as unfair or unproductive practices and mandates. To this end, Steve Mann, Jason Nolan, and Barry Wellman use the term sousveillance to refer to a practice wherein people 鈥渞esist surveillance through non-compliance and interference 鈥榤oves鈥� that block, distort, mask, refuse, and counter-surveil the collection of information鈥� (333). Visibility, in other words, is not always a trap. It can also constitute a form of resistance, and that is the source of this issue鈥檚 call for teaching with our doors open. While the authors whose work appears in this issue of English Journal approach the subject of visible teaching in different ways, they each take visibility as a starting point for considering how teachers can resist education reform mandates that promote, intentionally or otherwise, instructional practices that research suggests are not in the best interest of students. By reflecting on the many benefits that accompany a decision to open one鈥檚 classroom door to colleagues, administrators, and parents, these authors celebrate the liberatory potential of visible teaching.
In closing, we return to Foucault鈥檚 work, specifically, his admonition against conceptualizing power objectively鈥攖hat is, as something that some people 鈥渉old鈥� and 鈥渆xercise,鈥� and which others aspire to 鈥渟eize鈥� and 鈥渨ield.鈥� Instead, Foucault argued that power is everywhere, with the result that people are continuously able to shape (and reshape) their relationships with others. Rather than understand ourselves as limited in what we are able to accomplish with students in our respective contexts, the authors whose work appears in this issue challenge us to consider how teaching with our classroom doors open constitutes a form of resistance. In doing so, they, like Foucault, invite us to remember that we are always 鈥渇reer than we think we are鈥� (Bell 83).
Works Cited
Bell, Vikki. 鈥淭he Promise of Liberalism and the Performance of Freedom.鈥� Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism, and Rationalities of Government,听edited by Andrew Barry, Thomas Osborne, and Nikolas Rose. U of Chicago P, 1996, pp. 81鈥�97.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by A. Sheridan. Vintage Books, 1995.
Mann, Steve, Jason Nolan, and Barry Wellman. 鈥淪ousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices or Data Collection in Surveillance Environments.鈥� Surveillance and Society, vol. 1, no. 3, 2003, pp. 331鈥�55.
Sean P. Connors (sconnors@uark.edu) is an associate professor of English education at the University of Arkansas. He has been an 起点传媒member since 2010.
P.L. Thomas, professor of education (Furman University) and former 起点传媒Historian, taught high school English for 18 years in South Carolina before moving to teacher education. He is currently a column editor for English Journal and author of Beware the Roadbuilders (Garn Press). Contact him at paul.thomas@furman.edu and follow his work at http://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/ and @plthomasEdD.
Editors鈥� Introduction to Special Section on Teaching Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: Essays in Conversation (Julie Gorlewski and David Gorlewski)
When we read Peter Smagorinsky鈥檚 provocative article, in which he exchanges racism with misogyny in a quest to cultivate empathy, we were riveted, to say the least. Reviewer comments echoed our sense of the power of the piece. One said she would renew her subscription if we published the article. Another commented, simply, 鈥淧lease publish this. . . . There will be backlash. So be it.鈥�
We consulted with the guest editors, who concurred. However, upon further consideration, our own editorial limitations became clear. The author of the article is White. Both guest editors are White, as are we. As moved as we were by Smagorinsky鈥檚 experiment, we recognized that our own perspectives, despite our best intentions, were insufficient. Fortunately, brilliant colleagues stepped forward in response to our invitations to participate in the conversation. Thus, this section includes an array of voices and perspectives, and it involves diction that may offend some readers. We trust that our readership will appreciate how words, especially those that stretch us into areas of discomfort and even pain, can lead to learning and, perhaps, healing.
Initial submissions by these four esteemed contributors varied in their presentation of sensitive terms. Sometimes the terms were spelled out; other times, they were filled with asterisks or dashes. In the copyediting phase of production, we consulted with numerous experts in language and publication. Ultimately, in the context of academic freedom and with a passionate wish to avoid censorship, we decided to allow each author to determine how to present sensitive terms to express ideas clearly, with intended connotations. Please note that the language employed by each author is presented in the spirit of noncensorship and with scholarly purpose.
We are honored to publish Peter Smagorinsky鈥檚 article and to feature exceptional respondent articles written by Leigh Patel, Ebony Elizabeth Thomas, and Jocelyn Chadwick鈥攁ll of whom offer thoughtful, compelling, and invaluable contributions to this ongoing dialogue. We trust you will be challenged, stimulated, disturbed, and enlightened by these articles.
Julie Gorlewski is chair of the Department of Teaching and Learning at Virginia Commonwealth University.
David Gorlewski听works with preservice and practicing teachers and conducts research on literacy and professional dispositions.听 Both are former English teachers and members of NCTE, Julie since 2004 and David since 2001.