Writing: Philosophical, Political & Pedagogical (ELC 688E-01)
Fall Term, 2007
Tuesdays @ 4:00- 6:50 pm.
204
Glenn Hudak, Professor
Office: 236 Curry Bldg.
Phone: (336) 334-3465
Office Hours: By Appointment only
email: gmhudak@uncg.edu
This experimental course in epistemology and phenomenological methodology is intended for doctoral students in the Educational Leadership and Cultural Foundations Programs. More specific, this course is about writing: writing not simply as an object of philosophical investigation, but further as an epistemological activity that entails the political while embodying the pedagogical. This sounds interesting, but what does it all mean? This means that this course will move along two paths/pedagogical strategies, both hoping to gain some understanding about this activity we call writing: the first will be to examine what philosophers have said about writing (keeping in mind that our focus will be rather narrow—this course is not intended as a survey) while the second will revolve around a writer’s workshop where the student will be doing a phenomenological investigation of writing. The two paths will hopefully meet at the end of the road in a grounded theory about writing that is useful to the student.
The first path will be to examine one of the oldest critiques of writing, Plato’s short dialogue, Phaedrus. Phaedrus was written just after Plato completed the Republic and picks up many of its themes but in a more concise manner, especially the theme of erotic love. Of import, within the context of this dialogue on love Plato presents a scathing critique of writing: privileging speech as primary over the activity of writing. Plato felt that while writing may be necessary, it is in the face-to-face activity of speech that one discerns the truth, for while writing can be useful, it can also be used to manipulate us away from the truth. Now, this is somewhat puzzling in that while Plato critiques writing, he is in fact writing all this down! It is not enough to claim that Plato is being contradictory, or paradoxical here for as classical scholars point out Plato was a masterful writer; he knew exactly what he was doing. So, the question arises, why write? Again, another piece of the puzzle: Plato’s mentor was Socrates. Socrates never wrote anything down as far as we know. So, if Plato was following in Socrates’ footsteps why doesn’t he stay with the Socratic method? Again, it is not enough to claim that Plato wrote to have his ideas passed down to younger generations for oral traditions often passed down ideas, cultural myths, etc through forms of discipleship. So, what is Plato up to?
To address these concerns we next turn to Jacques Derrida’s interesting deconstruction of Phaedrus in the essay, “Plato’s Pharmacy.” To make a long story short, in this essay Derrida demonstrates that we can neither privilege speech nor writing as a primary activity of communication. Ok, and so? Well, Derrida goes further to claim that writing for Plato represents a sort of ‘drug,’ a pharmakon. That is, like any drug writing can be both a cure and a poison, but a cure for what? poison to whom? Herein lies the rub claims Derrida, that our translation of the pharmakon as a binary-- cure/poison-- ultimately breaks down and is unstable: that is, ultimately the meaning of the pharmakon in undeciable. As such, every time we try to ‘nail’ down writing, to control our writing, our writing defies our intention and posits meanings that we did not plan on! This is just not a case of the reader having a different interpretation, which is often the case, but more so, that the nature of writing itself is that of a ‘trickster.’ We cannot fully control our writing in that our writing often plays with us (and this can be frustrating). Here writing is not merely a mode of communication, but an activity of play. Perhaps some of our difficulties with writing lie in our difficulty to let-go and play. Plato, of course, already knew this when he wrote in the Republic, “don’t use force to train the children… use play instead”(537a). Here, I suspect, Plato tacitly/implicitly knew he was playing not only with his own insights and conclusions but further testing the very limits of his own writing.
From Derrida, we will follow the trail to French feminist thought with, Andrea Nye’s (1996), “The Voice of the Serpent: French Feminism and Philosophy of Language,” Carole Boyce Davies’ (1996), “Other Tongues: Gender, Language, Sexuality and the Politics of Location,” and Teresa Ebert’s (1991), “The ‘Difference’ of Postmodern Feminism.” As we read these articles we will make the transition from the philosophical to the political. Indeed, to compliment these essays we end this series of pieces by Richard Rorty (1989), “Private Irony and Liberal Hope,” Glenn Hudak’s (2001), “Addicting Epistemologies,” and Edward Said’s (1993), “The Politics of Knowledge.” Where in a controversial fashion Said (1993) states that, “victimhood, alas, does not guarantee or necessarily enable an enhanced sense of humanity…Although I risk oversimplification, it is probably correct to say that it does not finally matter who wrote what, but rather how the work is written and how it is read.” Here Said ruminates over the tension between the writer and writing and the politics of knowledge. We in turn may ask if our writing can betray our intentions, then how do we write our political concerns?
Finally, we make yet another transition from the political to the pedagogical in our exploration of writing. If it is the case that writing can play tricks on us, then what can we learn from this? What is the pedagogy of a trickster? Indeed, what do we ask of our writing? What do we want our writing to do? How does our writing en-frame us, situate us in the world? Reveal who we are, with regard to: identity, race, sexuality? And what about power? If our writing has power, then where is the locus/focus of that power?
Here the second half of the course will focus on student initiated explorations of writing by engaging in a phenomenological investigation. That is, our method of inquiry is not to seek out the final ‘truth’ about writing, but rather to locate/situate ourselves within our daily writing worlds. To do this sort of investigation is to engage in a phenomenological investigation into our own writing engagements. As such, this part of the course will touch on how to ‘do’ a phenomenological investigation as a research methodology with the goal of generating a grounded theory on writing: a theory that is useful to the student. The form and content of the investigation is open-ended to allow the student to play with their writing. This means after we leave the assigned readings, it is the student’s responsibility to explore and investigate their own paths to writing.
Pedagogically, we will make a transition from a classroom setting to that of a writer’s workshop, where we will share and present our findings along the way to our grounded theory. To accomplish this task I will ask each student to pair-up with a philosopher/thinker of their own choosing. Here your philosopher/thinker will serve as a conversation partner in your explorations, engaging your ideas and insights with the thoughts of another thinker. This means that you will need to read up on your thinker’s POV such that you can converse.
In sum, we need to keep in mind that this is an experimental course, and by experiment I mean that it is not clear how all this will turn out. As such, this course is intended for the experimental, those who enjoy discovering/inventing novel ways of thinking, and writing, without losing sight of our commitments to making our world more humane.
Prerequisites:
ELC 696 (Philosophy of Education) or ELC 609 (Epistemology and Education).
Requirements/Evaluation:
Handouts of readings to be distributed in class:
-Davies, C. B. (1996), “Other Tongues: Gender, Language, Sexuality and the Politics of Location.”
Derrida, J. (1984), “Plato’s Pharmacy.”
-Ebert, T. (1991), “The ‘Difference’ of Postmodern Feminism.”
-Hudak, G. (2001), “Addicting Epistemologies.”
-Nye, A. (1996), “The Voice of the Serpent: French Feminism and Philosophy of Language.”
-Rorty, R. (1989), “Private Irony and Liberal Hope.”
-Said, E. (1993), “The Politics of Knowledge.”
-Stewart, D. & Mickunas, A. (1974), “The Origins of Phenomenology.”
Required texts:
-Nehamas, A. & Woodruff, P. (trans.)(1995). Plato Phaedrus. Indianapolis, Hackett Pub.
-Toibin, Colm.
(2004). The Master.
Tentative Schedule:
August 21: Introduction. Why does one write? Reading Colm Toibin’s, The Master.
8/28: Discussion of The Master. Short
essay #1, with notes on one’s writing encounter. Remember your notes will
become data for the phenomenological investigation.
September 4: Begin Plato’s Phaedrus. Short essay #2, with notes on one’s writing encounter.
9/11: Plato cont. Short essay #3, with notes on one’s writing encounter.
9/18: Derrida. “Plato’s Pharmacy.” Short essay #4, with notes on one’s writing encounter.
9/25: Derrida cont. Short essay #5, with notes on one’s writing encounter.
October 2: Nye & Davies. Short essay #6, with notes on one’s writing encounter.
10/9: Ebert & Rorty. Short essay #7, with notes on one’s writing encounter.
10/16: Fall Break no class.
10/23: Hudak & Said essay. Short essay #8, with notes on one’s writing encounter. Closure to readings. What have we gathered?
October 30: Workshop: What is Phenomenology? Handout. Bring your notes to class.
November 6 - December 4 (Last Class). Workshop: Towards a Grounded Theory of Writing. Topics and readings TBA.