{"title":"Not Our Regularly Scheduled Programming: Integrating Feminist Theory, Popular Culture, and Writing Pedagogy","authors":"A. Gold","doi":"10.5406/FEMTEACHER.26.2-3.0156","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“I wouldn’t pay for that class.” That was the response offered by a male acquaintance when I described my composition course: one that situates feminist and queer theory as a lens through which to view, analyze, and discuss contemporary television. I brushed off his remark. In fact, I would have dismissed it entirely as a bit of casual or unconscious patronizing if not for a similar conversation several weeks later with a female acquaintance. She assured me that though she had loved a similar class at her Ivy League college, she couldn’t imagine “wasting her parents’ money” pursuing such topics and instead opted for a more practical route in engineering. Though anecdotal, such comments point to larger issues with which those of us in the humanities are all too familiar: the delineation of “serious” and “frivolous” studies or of “employable” and “unemployable” majors. These comments perhaps attest as well to the rise of the “neoliberal university” scholars have adeptly described: an increasingly corporate, market-driven academy, in Brenda R. Weber’s neat assessment, “where students can prove to a potential employer that they qualify as good workers” and where “professors . . . who aim to address complex social and intellectual issues are often met with hostility and/or denigrated as liberal or old-fashioned” (128). Of course, this denigration is not new. Cultural studies scholars have long discussed the problems the field faces in defining itself as a serious area of study, and they have renewed our sense of its centrality (Barker; Couldry; Grossberg, Nelson, and Treichler). Still others have queried and fortified the specific role of popular culture in the classroom (Alvermann, Moon, and Hagwood; Buckingham; Buckingham and Sefton-Green; Giroux). Most important, we have come to understand that the issue that has plagued cultural studies and much of the humanities—the presumptuous designation of “proper” and “improper” subjects of inquiry—re/ produces the central concerns of feminist, Not Our Regularly Scheduled Programming: Integrating Feminist Theory, Popular Culture, and Writing Pedagogy","PeriodicalId":287450,"journal":{"name":"Feminist Teacher","volume":"126 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Feminist Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5406/FEMTEACHER.26.2-3.0156","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
“I wouldn’t pay for that class.” That was the response offered by a male acquaintance when I described my composition course: one that situates feminist and queer theory as a lens through which to view, analyze, and discuss contemporary television. I brushed off his remark. In fact, I would have dismissed it entirely as a bit of casual or unconscious patronizing if not for a similar conversation several weeks later with a female acquaintance. She assured me that though she had loved a similar class at her Ivy League college, she couldn’t imagine “wasting her parents’ money” pursuing such topics and instead opted for a more practical route in engineering. Though anecdotal, such comments point to larger issues with which those of us in the humanities are all too familiar: the delineation of “serious” and “frivolous” studies or of “employable” and “unemployable” majors. These comments perhaps attest as well to the rise of the “neoliberal university” scholars have adeptly described: an increasingly corporate, market-driven academy, in Brenda R. Weber’s neat assessment, “where students can prove to a potential employer that they qualify as good workers” and where “professors . . . who aim to address complex social and intellectual issues are often met with hostility and/or denigrated as liberal or old-fashioned” (128). Of course, this denigration is not new. Cultural studies scholars have long discussed the problems the field faces in defining itself as a serious area of study, and they have renewed our sense of its centrality (Barker; Couldry; Grossberg, Nelson, and Treichler). Still others have queried and fortified the specific role of popular culture in the classroom (Alvermann, Moon, and Hagwood; Buckingham; Buckingham and Sefton-Green; Giroux). Most important, we have come to understand that the issue that has plagued cultural studies and much of the humanities—the presumptuous designation of “proper” and “improper” subjects of inquiry—re/ produces the central concerns of feminist, Not Our Regularly Scheduled Programming: Integrating Feminist Theory, Popular Culture, and Writing Pedagogy
“我不会为那门课付钱的。”当我描述我的写作课程时,一位男性熟人给出了这样的回答:这门课程将女权主义和酷儿理论作为一个视角,通过它来观察、分析和讨论当代电视。我不理会他的话。事实上,如果不是几周后我和一位女性熟人进行了类似的谈话,我会完全把它当作一种随意或无意识的屈尊俯就而不予理睬。她向我保证,虽然她在常春藤盟校也喜欢上类似的课程,但她无法想象“浪费父母的钱”去学习这样的主题,而是选择了一条更实用的道路——工程学。尽管是坊间传闻,但这些评论指出了我们这些人文学科的人都非常熟悉的更大的问题:“严肃”和“无聊”的研究或“可就业”和“不可就业”专业的划分。这些评论或许也证明了学者们所熟练描述的“新自由主义大学”的兴起:在布伦达·r·韦伯(Brenda R. Weber)简洁的评估中,这是一个日益企业化、市场驱动的学院,“学生可以向潜在雇主证明他们有资格成为好员工”,“教授……那些致力于解决复杂的社会和知识问题的人经常遭到敌意和/或被诋毁为自由主义者或过时的人。当然,这种诋毁并不新鲜。文化研究学者长期以来一直在讨论这个领域在将自己定义为一个严肃的研究领域时所面临的问题,他们已经更新了我们对其中心地位的认识(巴克;科尔迪;Grossberg, Nelson, and Treichler)。还有一些人质疑并强化了流行文化在课堂中的具体作用(阿尔弗曼、穆恩和哈格伍德;白金汉宫;白金汉和塞顿-格林;吉鲁)。最重要的是,我们已经认识到,困扰文化研究和许多人文学科的问题——武断地指定“适当”和“不适当”的研究主题——重新产生了女权主义者的核心关注,而不是我们的定期计划:整合女权主义理论、流行文化和写作教学法