{"id":520,"date":"2007-06-01T10:58:36","date_gmt":"2007-06-01T10:58:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/34.95.25.178\/maggie\/2007\/06\/01\/fish_in_a_barrel\/"},"modified":"2007-06-01T10:58:36","modified_gmt":"2007-06-01T10:58:36","slug":"fish_in_a_barrel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.golding.ca\/maggie\/2007\/06\/01\/fish_in_a_barrel\/","title":{"rendered":"Fish in a Barrel"},"content":{"rendered":"

This past semester, the M.Ed. course I took was on the philosophy of education, which turns out to be fascinating. I remember really liking philosophy in university – I did two courses in my undergrad with a remarkable teacher; I enjoyed these courses so much that I considered doing a minor in Philosphy, only to find that I couldn’t stomach the professor of my third course.
\nThe following is a paper I’ve submitted for the current course. The assignment was to critique an article, in this case, Stanley Fish’s ‘Always Academicize<\/a>,’ originally published last fall in the New York Times.
\nIn \u2018Always Academicize: My Response to the Responses,\u2019 Stanley Fish\u2019s November 2006 response to critics of his earlier post regarding the role of teachers, Fish argues that \u201cthe redress of injustice and the inculcation of \u2026 values are worthy activities, but they are not academic activities, and they are not activities academics have the credentials to perform\u201d (par. 1). As such, Fish believes that teachers should do \u201cthe job they are trained and paid to do,\u201d exclusively (par. 1). The questions that arise, before one can accept Fish\u2019s dictum, are threefold: what are academic activities, what credentials are in fact required to \u201credress\u201d social issues, and what is the job that teachers are paid and trained to do? To agree with Fish, one must agree with his stated or implied answers to these questions; however, this agreement is not as straightforward as Fish would have us believe.<\/p>\n


\nAccording to Fish, the teacher\u2019s role is purely academic, regardless of topic. For Fish, this means exploring a topic in terms of its history, language, past controversies, and development; specifically excluded from his list of parameters is \u201ca resolution about a political or moral issue raised by the materials under discussion\u201d (par. 2). Thus, any topic can be discussed in the Fish classroom, as long as the discussion is \u201cacademized\u201d; that is, the discussion should consider the topic as an \u201cobject of study\u201d rather than a matter of ideology (par. 2). In Fish\u2019s view, education is meant to \u201clay out the history and structure of political and ethical dilemmas without saying yes or no to any of the proposed courses of action\u201d (par. 7). Therefore, all pedagogical activities, from grading to leading class discussions, must be apolitical, lest \u201cthe scene of instruction\u201d become the \u201cscene of indoctrination\u201d (par.5). Fish\u2019s use of the word \u2018indoctrination\u2019 invokes Atkinson\u2019s admonitions in \u2018Instruction and Indoctrination\u2019; like Fish, Atkinson eschews teaching \u201cin\u201d morals, as opposed to \u201cabout\u201d morals, because such instruction requires \u201ccriteria of truth, cogency [and] correctness in the field,\u201d and morality \u201cis a field in which there are irreducibly open options\u201d (Atkinson 176).
\nCertainly, what is \u201ctrue\u201d in fields such as morality and politics is perhaps elusive, or at least fluid. On the other hand, we can assume from Fish\u2019s concept of education that he believes a good teacher is one who knows, understands, and comfortably presents the history of a given topic, who is well-versed in the technical language of the topic, has spent a good deal of time considering the controversies surrounding the topic, and is familiar with the \u201csignificant contributions to its development\u201d (par. 2). In short, Fish\u2019s ideal teachers are steeped in knowledge of the topic; while they may not be \u201clegislators, or political leaders or therapists or ministers\u201d (par. 1), they appear to be well positioned to present the political and moral issues relevant to a particular subject, and to guide their students in an evaluation of possible resolutions.
\nThe teacher\u2019s role, according to Fish, is to be \u201csilent about [his\/her] ethical and political commitments\u201d (par. 3). Fish is careful to specify that this silence is exclusive to the teacher\u2019s time \u2018on the job,\u2019 and that teachers should be free to engage in the \u201creal world\u201d (par. 6) issues outside of the classroom. For Fish, the teacher\u2019s job is to improve \u201cstudent knowledge and analytical abilities,\u201d and anyone whose aspirations go beyond this task is in \u201cthe wrong profession\u201d (par. 6). However, if a different view of teaching is presented, Fish and Atkinson\u2019s calls for \u2018academicizing\u2019 classroom content are hollow. Fish writes that moral and political issues must be considered academically, without an invitation to \u201ctake a vote,\u201d because \u201cthat\u2019s what you do at the ballot box\u201d (par. 2). In fact, Fish writes that a teacher is doing his\/her job if \u201caside from the pleasures it offers \u2026 the academic study of materials and problems is absolutely useless\u201d (par. 8). Further, he claims that discussion of \u201creal world\u201d issues is only temporarily satisfying and effective (par. 10). Despite Fish\u2019s desire to remove the \u2018real world\u2019 from the classroom, he includes analytic skill as a fundamental result of good education; one might argue that discussion of \u2018weighty\u2019 issues \u2013 be they \u201chot-button\u201d or not \u2013 is another form of analysis, and perhaps one in which students will feel more personally implicated. Fish would have teachers abstain from discussion of resolutions for political issues, but have students vote \u201cat the ballot box\u201d; he wants no \u201cdecision-making\u201d about moral issues, but expects students to \u201cmake a life decision \u2026 in the private recesses\u201d of their hearts (par. 2).
\nThe fundamental problem with both Fish and Atkinson\u2019s position on the issue of moral and political discussion in the classroom is that this position is based on the false dichotomy of instruction vs. indoctrination. For Fish, the teacher either presents the material with no personal implication, or proselytizes. In fact, Fish implies that a teacher who openly presents his\/her position on moral or political issues does not take \u201cthe ethics of the classroom \u2026 seriously\u201d (par. 5), and openly says that someone who wants to solve \u201creal world problems\u201d should \u201cget out of teaching and into a line of work more likely to address directly\u201d these problems (par. 6). Fish\u2019s implication that the politically-engaged teacher is by definition not taking the job seriously is dismissive at best; the idea that teaching is a vocation in a vacuum, removed from the \u201creal world\u201d and thus unable to engage in \u201creal\u201d problems is idealistic at best, and irresponsible and dangerous at worst. Our students are with us not just for the \u201cpleasures of the classroom\u201d (par. 9) but also, as Fish says, to improve their \u201cknowledge and analytical abilities\u201d (par. 6). Pedagogically, at the Cegep level, our students should be exploring topics not just in terms of knowledge and understanding, but analysis and evaluation. Yet Fish would have us disregard the evaluative aspect of education, taking students only so far. Perhaps he assumes that their analytical abilities will be so honed that they will be able to make those life decisions easily. But perhaps we can assume that the politically or morally-engaged teacher is not a preacher, but rather a model whose mission is not to convert students, but to guide them through moral and political evaluative processes, allowing them to reach independent conclusions. What better place to engage in political debate or moral deliberation than the safe environment of the classroom, removed from \u201cthe decision-making pressures of the larger world\u201d (par 6)? Who better to guide students through such debates and deliberations than a teacher \u2013 by Fish\u2019s definition neither legislator, leader, therapist nor minister, but rather an expert in the history, language, development and controversy of the matter under scrutiny? Fish is absolutely right to say that \u201cwhat is out of bounds is using [the subject] as an occasion to move students in some political or ideological direction\u201d (par. 2). What undermines his argument, however, aside from his frequently dismissive rhetoric, is his fundamentally flawed instruction vs. indoctrination, all or nothing view of teaching. If we agree that a teacher can \u2013 and some would argue, should \u2013 present political and ideological issues, and guide students through the philosophical \u201cshould\u201d and \u201cought\u201d questions without proselytizing, then we must reconsider Fish\u2019s position.
\nWorks Cited
\nAtkinson, R.F. \u2018Instruction and Indoctrination.\u2019 In R.D. Archambault (Ed.) Philosophical Analysis and Education. London: Routledge, 1967.
\nFish, Stanley. \u2018Always Academize: My Response to the Responses.\u2019 New York Times Online, Nov. 5 2006. Retrieved May 30 2007 from .<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This past semester, the M.Ed. course I took was on the philosophy of education, which turns out to be fascinating. I remember really liking philosophy in university – I did two courses in my undergrad with a remarkable teacher; I enjoyed these courses so much that I considered doing a minor in Philosphy, only to … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Fish in a Barrel”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"wprm-recipe-roundup-name":"","wprm-recipe-roundup-description":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-the-learning-curve"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.golding.ca\/maggie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/520","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.golding.ca\/maggie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.golding.ca\/maggie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.golding.ca\/maggie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.golding.ca\/maggie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=520"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.golding.ca\/maggie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/520\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.golding.ca\/maggie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.golding.ca\/maggie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.golding.ca\/maggie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}