I have a theory: we spend more time and energy on teaching techniques and contextual information, because they mask and hide a student’s inability to engage emotionally with a text. We’d rather crowbar a fact about Shakespeare having a gammy toe during the writing of ‘The Merchant of Venice’ than place emphasis on how a student and audience engages with a text.
I am passionate about stories. I love them. I will tell
students how I love characters and how I am rooting for them to succeed. I
share my love of pre-conversion Scrooge. Or, how I love Mercutio’s attitude to
life. Or, even how I identify with Capulet – I have daughters who don’t do as I
ask them to.
I like, loathe, hate, despise, adore, idolise characters in
stories.
I think the emotional connection isn’t one we seek or utilise
in lessons. Let’s think how this has largely manifested in lessons: a tension
graph. Yep, a graph. I don’t know about you but when I am watching a play I am
not making a graph. A graph, sorry Maths, does not encompassing the gamut of emotions,
thoughts and feelings I go through. I need an etcher sketch for that.
We largely think students can articulate their feelings as a
readers. We think that they can do this without much support. It is the other
stuff that they need support on. Read students work and you’ll see they
reaction to a text is reduced to words like ‘tension, ‘ shock’ and ‘sympathise’.
I think writers are doing much more with texts than shocking, sympathising and
making things ooo a bit tense! Yet, their discussion is reduced to stock phrases
and occasionally might lead us to a discussion on the difference between
empathy and sympathy. We need students to talk better about their relationship
with the texts.
So, what do I see are the problems with addressing this in lessons?
[1] Time needs to be dedicated to discuss reactions
A cursory question is not enough. Students need to explore
what they feel and why they feel it.
[2] Over simplifying the reaction
Emojis might have use in sending a quick message, but they
don’t successfully convey what a person things or feels. A smile has so many
different meanings. Reactions need interrogating and exploring so we can
develop ideas.
[3] The student’s position as the audience
This is the tricky one, because it means moving the student
away from ‘entertainment’. A lot of a student’s reaction to a text is based on ‘interest’.
What interests them? That’s quite different from engaging with characters. We
need to move towards audience identification and audience detachment. Put the
student in the text. Not a silent observer.
[4]The plurality of audiences / reactions
For students, they seem there is a correct ‘reaction’ to the
text. That often causes them to doubt what they say for fear that it is wrong.
Students need to know that the writer did not write the play
/ text with their English teacher in mind. They way was written to appeal to a
wide audience. Therefore, the men in the audience might react differently to the
women. The young to the old. The parents to the children. The young men to the
old men. The plural notion of audiences is key for understanding what is going
on. I see some teachers introducing literary theory with some success. What if
it was as simple as teaching students to view how different parts of the audience
would react?
[5] The paradoxical states of emotion
Emotions are complex things. We can both like and dislike
something at the same time. There are family members that fit into that
category for me. These conflicting views and emotions are important.
Conflicting emotions are a key reaction to a text. We like this about them, yet
we don’t like that bit about them. A bit like real life really.
Emotions and reactions are nuanced. If we turn reaction to a like or dislike, we simplify the reaction and the process.
To help students with developing the discussion on the audience’s
reaction I have developed these steps to help develop their responses to the
text:
Step 1: Is it a positive or negative reaction the
audience has?
Step 2: What makes them have this reaction?
Do they recognise ….? |
A situation |
Do they understand…? |
A specific person |
Do they empathise with…? |
A dilemma |
An emotion |
Step 3: What word from these best matches the audience’s
reaction?
The audience ….
Step 4: Why does the writer want the audience to feel or
think this at the moment in the play?
…so that we ….
…to prepare us for ….
….to make us see ….
… so that we realise that …
I have made a little table to help with expressing these
ideas in discussions. Students are to have this with them when discussing the
text.
What is the audience supposed
to feel? |
positive |
negative |
|||||||
What makes them have this
reaction? |
recognise |
understand |
empathise |
||||||
What makes them have this
reaction? |
situation
|
person |
dilemma
|
emotion
|
|||||
What word best describes this
reaction? |
identifies
|
recognises
|
understands
|
||||||
supports |
champions |
admires |
|||||||
warms
to |
respects |
favours |
|||||||
sympathises |
empathises |
pities
|
|||||||
relates
to |
comprehends |
connects |
|||||||
hopes |
worries |
fears |
|||||||
Why does the writer want us
to feel this? |
so
that we |
|
|||||||
to
prepare us for |
|||||||||
to
make us see |
|||||||||
so
that we realise |
|||||||||
We live in a judgmental world. We make lots of judgments, daily. The problem we have is that those judgements have been reduced to polar opposites. We like or dislike. We RT or block. We need to have a greater understanding of our reactions. We are too quick judge. The problem that comes from this quick judgements is that we have reduced the opportunity for empathy. There’s no need to pity someone in snap judgement.
Pity needs time.
Empathy needs space.
Connection needs opportunity.
The classroom is key for this: pity, empathy and connection. That’s the power of books. That’s the untapped seam we need in the world just now. And, it is already there.
Let’s have a one big pity party!
Thanks for reading,
Xris
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.