The Teaching of Everything is Wrong
I keep going back to my time as an English language/literature student, and my time teaching mathematics and economics.
As a student of literature, I was perplexed as to what to write about. I often ended up writing the Freudian interpretation of texts. But I always wondered what it was that I was to have said about a text that was not entirely boring, what I was to have said that would be … worthy of my time and the reader’s. And, that would not be a mere reporting of what happened in the pages of the literature in question. (I may have been missing something — something which I was missing. LOL)
When I have taught literature, I have tried to bring it to the the students: using contrapositives and a moral framework which is not self-evident; I have tried to make it valuable.
I feel that — especially in these days of sexual-miserableness –that the teaching of literature is a weird aggression. I cannot imagine any other motive for the desire to teach literature than one of oppression — the same goes for the social sciences, most particularly, psychology. (In the highly political atmosphere of 2015, I would think that ultimately all education is a micro-aggression.)
One of the things that I saw in my literary days and studies was the idea that ‘this was the thrust of the idea’. There was a great deal of appeals to authority … it was all a bit sad. There was carping at the edges but no one ever said: ‘I have no idea what this story means.’
The overall leaning of the humanities section was: it has been written, so it shall be done.
I fled the philosophy section on this note, staying in the humanities, largely because I was due to get out.
No one ever suggested that … as a contra-postive, to the argument that Oedipus was really important , the theory of Roger, the guy that ….
Granted I went to a third-rate college in the south ( which would mean average, a C) … but the noise and posturing was big.