February 04, 2005
Teachable Moments
I am teaching the history of rhetoric class this spring (250 students) at Texas A&M.; Last Friday I lectured about Socrates. I remain amazed that philosophers and political theorists (the two groups of people besides rhetoricians who talk about Socrates today) continue to teach Plato's dialogues without discussing the historical context of Athenian democracy and Socrates' connections with the oligarchs who overthrew it. In the course of attempting to take the "high priest of the Church of Reason" (in Pirsig's happy phrase) down a peg or two, I described the prevalence of pederasty in the aristocratic circle in Athens. I showed them Jacques David's famous death of Socrates painting and pointed out that Socrates, though famously ugly, was "apparently irresistable to young men." At that point about 1/3 of the class erupted in a loud hiss (a conventional Aggie response, usually reserved for mentions of "t.u." (the University of Texas-Austin).
I simply smiled and shook my head, and went on. I don't feel good about myself for having let that "teachable moment" pass. It seems like the functional equivalent of listening to an ugly ethnic joke without saying anything to the teller. But what could I say? "Grow the f*** up!?" I work myself into a state of tension every class in straining not to come off as a "lib'ral," and being "fair and balanced," so if I "out" myself as a gay-lover do I ruin my credibility for the rest of the semester--credibility necessary if I wish to lead them (Leo Strauss-style) to higher truths? I don't know. Any thoughts? I should add that virtually all the hissers in questions were wearing military uniforms at the time (the Corps of Cadets).
Posted by jim at February 4, 2005 12:02 AM
Comments
Jim,
Your contextualizing statement, that you were teaching the history of rhetoric to an auditorium of 250 Texans, arrested my attention. I've found that it takes charisma and passion and peer pressure to get undergraduates to care about Socrates. I applaud you for the very effort.
My history class doesn't get past Augustine, so I have the luxury of setting up Socrates with the Mary Renault novel "The Last of the Wine." After we've read that and understood that pederasty was part of the education of athletes and soldiers, they got over it. But I had a class of 15 students from a (barely) blue state.
K
Posted by: kate at February 4, 2005 09:39 AM
Having grown up in a thoroughly Bible-belted (and I do mean belted) arena without having adopted all the popularized mantras I would suggest, from my own experience, that the "hissers'" ignorance is blissful for them. It seems much easier to fear/hate the unknown (especially when you've been told how bad that unknown is your whole life) than it is to understand it for what it is. It also seems to involve risking your status/safety with your circle to interact in any way with an outside circle (who may be just as fearful/ignorant of you).
I think it is admirable that you didn't just react as you felt like doing, though I understand why you felt like you missed a chance to talk about something important. What is harder than interacting with people where they are rather than where we think they ought to be?
Posted by: Joshua at February 6, 2005 01:12 AM
Hi Jim,
My thoughts, for what they're worth.
I just finished up Plato in my Rhetorical Theory/Tradition class. When discussing the Phaedrus, I very matter-of-factly explained that Plato and his contemporaries didn't distinguish between "homosexual" and "heterosexual"--that the categories themselves just didn't exist. We discussed the role that sexuality often played in the relationship between mentor and student, and that it was seen as an important part of the pedagogical experience. The Phaedrus, of course, provides a good discussion itself about whom these relationships serve. Anyway, we didn't discuss it at great length, but enough for me to kind of set a tone (one meant to render their 21st century American moralism irrelevant in the face of a time and culture so unlike their own). I mostly received bemused, but curious looks. Then again, there are only 40 of them, so they didn't have the safety of numbers from which to hiss. And Georgia is SO much more tolerant than Texas! ;0) Anyway, point is that by approaching it in a non-judgemental "historically-situated" way, it allowed me and my opinions to stay out of it. Though, truth be told, I don't so much mind if they hear my opinions about homosexuality. Good for 'em, I say.
Christine Harold
My thoughts, for what they're worth.
I just finished up Plato in my Rhetorical Theory/Tradition class. When discussing the Phaedrus, I very matter-of-factly explained that Plato and his contemporaries didn't distinguish between "homosexual" and "heterosexual"--that the categories themselves just didn't exist. We discussed the role that sexuality often played in the relationship between mentor and student, and that it was seen as an important part of the pedagogical experience. The Phaedrus, of course, provides a good discussion itself about whom these relationships serve. Anyway, we didn't discuss it at great length, but enough for me to kind of set a tone (one meant to render their 21st century American moralism irrelevant in the face of a time and culture so unlike their own). I mostly received bemused, but curious looks. Then again, there are only 40 of them, so they didn't have the safety of numbers from which to hiss. And Georgia is SO much more tolerant than Texas! ;0) Anyway, point is that by approaching it in a non-judgemental "historically-situated" way, it allowed me and my opinions to stay out of it. Though, truth be told, I don't so much mind if they hear my opinions about homosexuality. Good for 'em, I say.
Christine Harold
Posted by: Christine Harold at February 8, 2005 08:41 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment