Exposition
Theme A: Narcissistic Prelude
I would like to say, in a certain way, that higher ed teaching in prison creates a safe space for
conflict -- in that when I use the word conflict I don't mean violence. If you've got a better word
for that be my guest -- disagreement. Only with different emphasis: to disagree with someone.
I speculate that the class this fall was a "with" time amongst an ocean of "at" experiences people
are having in the penitentiary. An island of normalcy, or something, in which were just people
trying to talk with each other, and enjoying the differences.
There seems to be soo much "start and stop" in the prison, and using a syllabus that jumped from
one reading to another, oftentimes texts of very different emphases and moods, did not feel as
though it aided the "with". I think continuity of discussion is one of the more radically
humanizing aspects of teaching in prison, and I would design more of it into any future class.
Not to proliferate "start and stop"!
Teaching—not so much talking about what you learn, but how. Introducing some distinctions,
and then avoiding the two pitfalls on either side: unreflective content-driving, and the sectarian
side-taking. Both undermine conflict by reducing to one answer: "I'm neutral, memorize me".
Audible A (Don't read this)
Benefit to instructors: the students at Danville will likely force us to think of our subject matter
in "closer" proximity to practice. UI campus much more in privileged contemplation of theory.
(Also, our EJP students are closer in age to us.) Yes, campus students are relatively more
privileged. Look: there's no less privileged position to be in than to have your freedom taken
away. To be locked in a cage - prison is punishment. It is the opposite of privileging someone.
__________________
This page should take 4 minutes to read.
Perhaps mention that this presentation is structured in sonata form.
Exposition
Theme B: Foucaultian Prelude
Whiteboard continent:
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Theme A and Theme B, the voice of the University and the voice of Penitentiary.
I want to include some of the voices of the students I had in Danville.
"But, o! Rahhh-b. You can't.... represent them" (using the tattle-tale melody"
"You can't speak for someone else, it's problematic"
Theme within a theme.
But if I don't include their voice it's problematic! (Gregorian Chant)
I must then also report that I am inevitably mixed in whenever I try to present
the voice of a student in the Danville CC. (L. Rob Hubbarn)
I can't help it, my vocal cords are attached to my brainstem, and I can't disconnect them and just
say what would come out of a vocal cord that isn't attached to my heart and brain. Sentient Rob.
Draw a little cartoon bubble coming out of the building that is Danville above -- and say "yes, I
want to include this! Problematic as it may be.
________________________
Theme B is in fact a recapitulation of the representational dilemma faced by Foucault's Groupe
d'Information sur les Prisons and it's problematization by Gayatri Spivak in Can the Subaltern
Speak?
Enormous Footnote: Timeline of Foucault's prison work
(don't read it)
January 1971 - GIP formed
June 1971 - first booklet published by the GIP
post 1972 - media coverage wanes as the high-profile intellectuals are no longer involved
1975 - Discipline and Punish published in French
1975 - un-published Le Monde interview with Foucault
Foucault states that the intellectual mixes his/her voice with that of the prisoner
-->not only the intellectual
-->not only the prisoner's voice
1976 - GIP is still working, though complains of lack of attention
1977 - Discipline and Punish is published in English translation
1988 - Can the Subaltern Speak? is published, by Gayatri Spivak
2004 - Le Monde publishes the 1975 interview (above)
2008 - the article outlining the above is published.
In 1971, the GIP was presented as a conduit for the voice of the prisoner.
In fact they manufactured a booklet that suggested that this would be a new site
for the contestation of power, led by the newly found voices of radicalism in the
prisoners they seemingly neutrally asked, who were speaking for themselves.
-But was it so neutral?
If nothing else the prisoners had to be literate French-speakers, and it seems that
the booklet foregrounded a particularly radical voice with marxist background,
who echoed the very points that Foucault made in his introduction to the booklet.
-The press coverage foregrounded the names of Foucault, and later Sartre, and
Mauriac..
In 1975, Foucault admitted that the intellectuals were in fact influencing the discourse.
In 1984, Foucault dies. Deleuze reported that Foucault felt that the GIP achieved nothing
(reported in a 1991 book).
In 1988, Spivak challenges Foucault's work with the GIP on the basis of his point in
Archaeology of Knowledge that discourses shape subjects, rather than sovereign
subjects consciously and deliberately articulate their original thoughts.
Spivak says the intellectuals represented themselves as transparent.
In 1994, Adrian Howe (in Punish and Critique) says radicals must attend to their own
'ruses of power'.
In 2008, Cecile Brich goes a step further and calls the questionnaires out for re-inforcing
the dynamic of constituting self-monitoring subjects (like the pan opticon). She
presents the GIP as potentially just one more questionnaire
This 2008 piece uses text from Archaeology of Knowledge and Discipline and Punish to show
that Foucault himself was formulating how problematic it was to look at a subject as the
originator, neutral conveyor of one's own thought. And in discipline and punish, he seems to
show his awareness that the language of judge/lawyer is always going to be different than the
language of criminal/prisoner -- so his work with the GIP was reproductive of the assumptions
that he was trying to undermine through his theoretical work.
Development
Reflection
Reflection. Used as a means for evaluating education, in my own class "reflection" divided the
class into two groups. One group (about half of our class) was much more willing to reflect on
their experiences and thoughts, and the other half tended to write reflection papers as outlines on
the books themselves. My question about reflection is: does it help to pull people out of
themselves—the 'with' not only 'at' thing—does it help, for instance, to pull me out of only
thinking about my own ideas, my own conditioning.
Dialogue
Much of the learning and change that occurred in this class was in the dynamics between people
during the discussion, not in the so-called 'mastery' of content. So what did they say?
Buts
Problematical to include student voice.
Problematical to exclude student voice.
Any grey area about this -- showing how student voices cast doubt on the voice of the teachers.
Comparison: No Comparison
We consider this a common observation:
"Our students at Danville, surprisingly, outperform our students on campus."
One of our students told me he didn't find the comparison to be flattering. Not at all.
"We're in a totally different place than they are—for real!"
So I encourage us to consider what the comparison sounds like from our student side. An
undergrad on campus is typically 21 years old, balancing 15 credit hours, variously distracted by
social events, extracurriculars, possibly a part-time job -- many times an elective course (which
is what many EJP courses are) is selected with the hope it will be easy. EJP students are typically
at least 30-35 years old, with 0 or 1 other class, hardly any social stimuli (nothing in the form of
a party or hang-out to distract them from studying) TONS of downtime.
Connected thought: GPA for college students in prison may tend to surpass the GPA of those on
campus. Not sure what the average GPA is for a UI undergrad. My experience with the men in
my class was that they did everything I asked for, and they all received As and Bs for their
semester grade. Lowest was an 80% Well, none of them ever failed to do an assignment. When I
compare that to the Italian 210 class I saw on campus that same semester—people were
constantly failing to do the assignments (simply not handing in homework worksheets), missing
class, texting/emailing during lecture—my students in EJP always did the work, rarely ever
missed class, and there were no cel phones in class. So it makes sense if they get better grades.
It may go against our "instincts" as teachers, but we can't give Ds to people that do all the work.
Not to assume we understand our students <--This is Rob talking.
Fabian once told me my style of teaching in class reminded him of Jean Jacque Rousseau.
I had no idea what he was talking about.
That is to say: beyond agree/disagree represent/misrepresent there is just plain "huh"?
This is proper to any group of humans I've encountered.
There is no universal, neutral version of what it means to be human.
Sometimes all you can do is quote someone and be grateful for the variety of contributions,
not only to cite students for examples that further our stated goals.
So, teaching in prison: we can't understand our student's experiences.
(Could add the piece about Will's use of the banking method, versus dialog method, to illustrate.)
Recapitulation
Circle
In our final reflection, a few things stood out that hadn't been so crystal clear before. Almost all
of the participants in the class cited the fact that we sat in a circle and had discussion format, not
only lecture. Some described anxiety over how frustrating it would be to return to regular rowseating. Others spoke about how they initially didn't appreciate it but now prefer sitting in a
circle. A few described it as a metaphor for equality. One said it showed how respectful the class
was. Several pointed out that I (the instructor) was also within the circle like everyone else. In
the end, no one criticized the seating arrangement and almost every single person in the class
took a moment (or several) to describe why it was important to them that we sat in a circle.
Vernacular
Another language point: I want a distinction between "vernacular" and "bad writing" -- many of
my students used "street language" in their writing, or other forms of street talk, but in the
discussions amongst the teachers I mainly encountered a dichotomy between "good writers" and
"bad writers". The point is that there exists the potential to say "your writing is fine, and you're
using black English -- now let's develop your ideas further" and I found that some of my students
were responding to me as though I was the first person to tell them "You're using Black English,
which is not the academic standard today - you're not a bad writer, but you're using a form of
English that isn't the standard in schools today. I will accept it if you work on improving your
ability to express your ideas" ... that is, I had students that were suggesting to me that they hadn't
ever been told they were using a dialect of English which is rejected by the mainstream, they
mainly had been told they were "bad at writing" -- little change in language with HUGE
consequences. I found some of the most profound developments of the ideas of the class were
coming through the vernacular of the students. (*perhaps vernacular is a better word -- I realize
that "black english" is simplistic and there are other englishes and the whole thing can be used to
re-inforce deterministic conceptions of race -- help me find the best way of expressing this
point.) <--this also, to me, seems to break down the with/at dichotomy.
successful use of vernacular English
vs.
being a bad writer
("we have to have standards")
<--successful communication vs.
what do we want to hear
<--vernacular is a" standard"
Non-Neutrality
It is an error to think that there is a neutral way to teach about violence in prison.
It is an error to think that there is a neutral way to teach about racism in prison.
It is an error to think that there is a neutral way to teach about sexism in prison.
It is an error to think that there is a neutral way to teach about class in prison.
We call them students, we create this island of with, but then we leave and comparing our
language to the other language around, it must be clear that we are anything but neutral.
If we see them as "prisoners" they become invisible.
If we do see them as "prisoners" they become invisible.
Variety
The thing underneath all of this is variety. We increase the variety of what people are doing as
the mechanism for humanization of society, in a location designed to decrease the variety of
what people are doing as punishment. Add, you know, substitute your preferred word for
"variety". Add to the variety. Add. Variety is the main thing the underlies everything cognitive.
Fundamentally, the thing we represent at the prison is variety. That's inclusive of variety of
interactions, inside and outside of the classroom. To talk about it in terms of "variety" isn't
turning away from politics, because the politics of who has access to variety (i.e. unconstrained
by violence) -- that's variety.
And (sigh) ok, variety has it's relationship violents. But I'm coming on the side of increasing
variety because there's no violence in my system of education.
That is to say: I think teaching in prison can be a force for peace.
(Malik example if necessary -- rage -- will more variety come from violence or language?)