Interesting, Tony Michael, that I read these initially as questions I
wondered if I'd have to nerve (bad manners?) to ask my students on the
first day of class! Then I heard you position yourself as instructor and
_target_ of these questions ... I guess I would be willing to answer all of
the above, with some degree of honesty, since none of the questions would
have short or simple answers and any answer would be a part-truth. Now what
would such an opening day exercise do to the tenor of the class thereafter?
I think also about the power asymmetry. For me to ask students these
questions is more threatening than for them to ask me, other things
definitely not being equal. But by and large as my subculture defines these
matters, these are the sorts of questions you answer _mutually_ with
someone; you exchange, you build and ratify trust. They belong in a way to
the local cultural basis of the _friendship_ relationship, rather than the
student-teacher relationship. I do not expect my students to treat me like
a friend, and vice versa. If I befriend a student, that is in addition to
the primary relationship, and as we all know, sometimes in inevitable
conflict with it (again because of the power asymmetry).
I also hear another agenda, of course, in your questions: the issue of
taboo categories of diversity vs. acceptable categories. It is the
invisible memberships that can become the subject of taboo, because their
revelation has power: social class, sexual orientation, religious and
political positions, etc. Those that are revealed by more patent means
decouple from the power relations of the secret, the revealed, the taboo.
Likewise our personal opinions of one another (attractive? troublemaker?
boring?) participate in the political economy of secrecy, intimacy, etc.
What happens in a class at the end of week three when everybody candidly
says exactly what they really think about everybody else (instructor
included in both directions)? what happens in _any_ social group that does
not have restrictions on the appropriacy of such revelations?
Last bit. Professionalism vs. personalism in teaching. Secrecy about many
of these matters is a norm of professionalism, a burocratic ethic that aims
at levelling. I try to treat all my students the same -- and so I rule out
diversity at the same time I rule in equality. Color-blindness is not the
same as empathy with people of color. Professionalism as a stance makes
things go more smoothly, and it actively supports existing institutional
power relations (which in turn support class and race and gender and ...
power relations). Personalism is appreciated by most of the people on the
less-powerful side of these relations. There is a reasonable amount of
research on education that seems to show this. Act professional with
middle- to upper-middle class students (especially males, non-gay students,
North-European subcultural groups, etc.), and get personal with the
respective Others -- appears to be a good recipe for effective
student-teacher relationships. The model of course assumes the teacher is
male, middle-class, non-gay, etc. I am not sure the reverse cases have been
as carefully considered, and they are the ones that got this discussion
started, and the ones you are problematizing with your provocative
get-acquainted questions.
JAY.
PS. I do think that instructors have an obligation to reveal those features
of their personal background and intellectual-personal opinions that seem
most relevant for allowing students to judge their likely biases in regard
to the subject matter being taught. Just how far one goes with this depends
on one's theories of relevance. Which may differ, of course, from students'
views of such matters. Another conundrum.
---------------------------
JAY L. LEMKE
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
---------------------------