running thoughts and amendments
okay, so i continued to think about maura's concern about the novel and the way in which i seem to turn it into an actual space as i was running in the andover "sanctuary." this seems essentially to be a concern about the utility of utopian thinking. i'm totally happy to acknowledge that LMA's representations of learning are idealized (and perhaps untenable), but utopias can be usable -- and ultimately pragmatic -- blueprints for the future. so LMA never opened Plumfield (or Lawrence College in Jo's Boys), but as I was trying to think about resonances of her pedagogy in progressive america, my mind drifted to my old pal Jane Addams. Addams claimed that Alcott was one of her most beloved authors and her novels were part of the curriculum at Rockford Seminary where Addams was educated. One of my central contentions about Alcott is that she constructed individual pedagogies for each of the students at Plumfield. For example, when Jo realizes that Dan has a natural proclivity toward identifications in nature (of trees and bugs and things), she offers him a large cabinet where he is to sort his "collections" (might she be thinking about teaching classification?). Jo capitalizes on Dan's treasure trove of prior learning to further the sophistication of his thinking and to integrate new knowledge with the old.
Okay, that's well and good, but you still say that it's only a representation. It doesn't carry the weight of ABA's project. But let's think about Jane Addams -- a devoted Alcott "student" -- less than twenty years after Little Men, she opens her Hull House Labor Museum, and that very project and its attendant pedagogy centers on her ability to meet the "student" (the immigrant child and parent) on his own terms. Instead of imposing a standard curriculum, she enables the immigrants to learn and teach from their own knowledge, experiences, and pleasures. She provides them a space to undertake this learning and she has authorizes their use of it, but then she encourages them to further their learning on their own and with one another.
So I guess I'm thinking that we cannot and should not dismiss what appears to be utopian, because at least in this case we needed Alcott to plant the seed for pragmatic pedagogues like Addams and Dewey. Without a doubt, all of these thinkers recognize that this kind of teaching cannot happen in the classroom (and perhaps that's the mistake that ABA made, thinking that the classroom in 1836 could ever be a space of invention). That I'm willing to acknowledge.
4 comments:
I like this line of thinking, and this strong claim for the value of the "utopian" (not sure you'd want to actually use that burdened term in your dis, but maybe I'm wrong) aspect of the novel. You seem to be crafting a different line of argument for the efficacy LMA's novels, one that answers pragmatic/utilitarian objections with quite reasonable evidence that, in fact, these novels DID have pragmatic or utilitarian effects and outcomes.
Does this mean that LMA became more of an educational theorist who managed the difficult trick of putting her theory into a readily accessible form? Or is she simply offering practical advice that teachers such as Addams can then use as a type of "lesson plan" for her own pedagogy? I ask because while ABA was clearly invested in the "theory" of education, I'm curious what it is about LMA's transformation into novel form that awakens people like Addams (and apparently the profs at Rockford). Does this apparently utopian aspect of the novel carry with it the key to persuading and inspiring in ways that records of the Temple School and lectures could never accomplish? I would buy that. The only hitch is that road could, without caution, lead once again to the "LMA sets ABA to novel form" claim.
So you'll have to be careful with your exact claims. Unlike me, who can just ramble endlessly on here.
Aaron,
I just have to say that I began this blog with the ridiculous idea of picturing academic thought. A big, silly joke. I had no idea that instead I would get ready access to your brain. I can't thank you enough. It seems that this blog has become an alternative space of learnedness....just what i've been looking for..
p.s. I think that utopia may be just the word I'm looking for -- especially if we buy into Jameson's notion that the utopia is never ahistorical, but instead always a critique of the present from the perspective of the future....
I like the way this sounds, too, and it's been cool to watch your thinking evolve over the last few days. I'm guessing you are aware, though, that if you do go with "utopia" you'll have to really define and theorize it in your intro or chapter, and I feel like your argument about the novel, too, will involve some pretty heavy theory of the novel stuff...
and not necessarily for now, but in terms of the publishers, I know that they probably weren't making huge demands on _Little Men_, but I'm sure a quick email to the place where their archives are (Larry Buell was talking to Karah about it at Dartmouth) would give you a sense of how they were packaging _Little Men_ - what the ads for it were like, how they wanted it marketed, etc. Those concerns were most certainly being voiced... and I would bet you might find evidence to support your claim there - ie. that they were perhaps marketing it in ways that related in some way to pedagogy. Who knows, but it would be worth a look. Buell also said that the woman at Orchard House was full of good information and was worth emailing.
This is exciting.
No need for thanks...I agree with Maura, this is downright fun & exciting, discussing ideas and "watching" your thoughts evolve! Plus, it's great to have a place to "talk" and think, and maybe even have an insight or two. Beats my current occupation of studying for exams and collecting journal rejection notices.
Post a Comment