Story Lines

"Education is about learning to live in a world community, about communicating and questioning and listening." -Rachel Cook, "Beyond Tolerance"

Everyone has lines - these sentences we repeat, maybe varying them slightly each time - that help us to make sense of our lives, of who we are and what we do and why we do it.  One of my own is in reference to why I was an English major.  I explain that I believe that a liberal arts education - as an undergraduate - is invaluable, that we should not be forced to select a career-oriented major at such a young age, as we are only beginning to figure out who we are and what we enjoy and are good at.  I go on to emphasize the studies of history, religion and literature as the most valuable content areas.  And ultimately, I explain that I chose to study literature because I felt that I would delve into more of the content of religion and history through the study of literature than I would delve into the content of literature and religion if I were to study history, or literature and history if I were to study religion.  Of course the study of religion requires an historic context; in fact, it IS historic context.  And of course a study of history will involve religion; the majority of conflicts between men were over religion.  But would the study of religion or history introduce literature? Other than textbooks, and in the absence of a very innovative instructor, I would assert not.  But literature would inevitably introduce me to history - to histories, actually; to histories of nations, of families, of individuals, and of religions.

This is how my line goes, and it is a portion of the explanation of what led me to where I am now, as I study and prepare to be a teacher of literature.

Rachel Cook clearly understands this.  When she says, "education is about learning to live in a world community, about communicating and questioning and listening," it is clear that she recognizes that education is not about memorizing facts and figures; it is not about being able to prove one's ability to memorize facts and figures by reciting them accurately, without the use of props or aids to assist memory, on a test or quiz; it is not about reading for retention or to fill a well with artifacts.  Rather, she recognizes that it is about "learning to live in a world community," or, as I translate, learning to be a human.  This is done by studying the history of how other humans have lived, and examine where their mistakes and their ingenuity led them, and to reflect on who we are - as individuals and as communities - in our current world, and to be always aware of how we could be better.  Isn't it?  Isn't this clearly the goal of education?

When her students think she is a history teacher, I have to laugh.  First I laugh because I think, of course she is not a history teacher - she is not testing them on facts and figures; she is not having them regurgitate dates and events.  And then I laugh because of the irony of what she is teaching them, and how it applies to my snap judgment here.  She is teaching them to be open and accepting, to not be fearful of - and thus judgmental of - otherness.  And I am praising that type of teaching, even as I am guilty of judging the otherness of another class format - one of which I really know very little.  So maybe my own mind is closed a bit, and I have said since the start of this class that I want to be an open-minded teacher - so that closure is unacceptable.  But it is there, so just as Cook's students, and my students, and all students, must learn to accept things initially unfamiliar and thus uncomfortable, so must I.

BUT, at the same time, I stand behind my "line," my standardized explanation of why literature.  I do so because of the limitless nature of a good novel for teaching what Cook here desires to teach:  how to be a good human in a changing world, a solid citizen in a world community, a curious and interested individual committed to contributing to the betterment of our society, both locally and globally.

And Cook is correct - tolerance is not a helpful word.  Dissecting language, the power of language, is a part of what our students can take away from us, and her slashed out presentation of the word"tolerance" (along with the other of the word "silence") is an excellent way to model that for her students.  She explains so well what tolerance is, so I needn't reiterate.  Tolerance is a level above disdain, it is a forced acceptance. Why would we teach this?  If we teach understanding, by encouraging students to delve into the cultures of the world literature they encounter, by assigning the roles on the role sheets in literature circles, by tasting food, hearing music, watching film and in all ways immersing ourselves into an unfamiliar culture - all the while maintaining awareness of the single quality that transcends otherness and binds us all:  humanity - and the resulting attitude of our students is one of tolerance, we have failed.  Miserably.