It's aQuestion ofFaith: Discourses of Fundamentalism ... - JAC Online

More documents

Recommendations

Info

344]AC theseprojectswere overwhelminglypositive,Lukehad difficultiesthroughout the term with respectto the goalsand assumptionsunderlying this assignment. Luke's groupinitiallyhaddifficultyagreeingon atopic. Although Tyler shared Luke's religiousbeliefs(andwasamember ofhisBiblefellowshipgroup),Margaret did not, and the three disagreedovereverytopic they discussed.Every topic Luke andTyler proposed(usuallyignoringMargaretuntilafterthey haddecided)involved notions of universal morals, which they felt quite comfortable generalizing to everyone. For instance,Luke and Tyler firstwanted to write about familyvalues, positingthat the lossoffamilyvalueswasresponsiblefordecliningmoralswithin the United States.Margaretwashesitantbutwillingto goalongwiththem. WhenI asked them how they would goabout definingtermslike"family,""values,"and"rna rals," Luke gotdefensive,saying"You're a1waysaskingusto definewhat wemean,always askingquestions"(Fieldnotes2-16-93).On the followingclassday,Imetwith Luke's collaborativegroup againto seeifthey haddecidedon atopic. They hadchangedit from familyvaluesto euthanasia. When I askedwhat researchquestion they were interestedin pursuingabout euthanasia,Lukesaid"theethicsofit"(lournal2-19-93). When I askedthe typesofeuthanasiato which hewasreferring,Luke said"allofit." Concerned that the topic wastoo broad, I suggestedthat the ethicsof euthanasia couldn't bedivorcedfrom the contexts inwhich it occursandthat they might find it useful to focus on a narrower topic such asliving wills. Luke replied that all euthanasiaisunethicalbecauseonlyGod hasthepowerto takeawaylife.Atthispoint I realizedthat onceagainLukeandI werenot simplydisagreeingoverthetypeoftopic heandhisgroupmembersmightuse;wewereclashingoverassumptionsofauthority andvalue.For Luke,valuesandknowledgearestable,unitary,universal,andrevealed by God. For me,valuesandknowledgearealwayschanging,multiple,partial, and contingentupon variouscommunitiesinspecifichistoricalcontexts.WhileI believe that thetopicofethicscannotbedivorcedfromspecifictypesofeuthanasia(and,even more narrow Iy, eachindividualcontext),Luke believesinuniversalcodesof ethics which canbeappliedineverycase.What I consideredapragmaticissueofchoosing asmallertopicwasrepresentativeofalargerissueoverwhoseassumptions about the nature ofethicswould bevalued. Equally problematic for Luke and me were our different conceptions ofthe purpose ofthis collaborativeproject. WhileI wantedstudentsto exploreatopic by highlighting multiple perspectivesandexaminingdifferentwaysthe issuehasbeen contextualized for differentpurposes, Luke found it difficult,ifnot impossible,to embracesuchgoals.For Luke,thereareclearcutpositionsthat onecantakeon every issueand thus aresearchpaper isan exercisein persuasion-in this particular case to prove that alleuthanasiaiswrong. BecauseLukeunderstandseuthanasiawithin the context of strict moral codesconcerning lifeanddeath, hecouldn't conceiveof writing from any position except that which denounces it. To present multiple perspectives isto acknow ledgeand legitimize their validity, a move that he was unwillingto makebasedon hisbeliefsaboutthe natureandauthority ofknowledge. To say that I found Luke's texts challenging to respond to would be an understatement. WhiletheoreticallyI viewtextsassitesformultiplereadings,open
Discoursesof Fundementalism 345 forcontestandinterrogation,Luke'sresponsessetinto sharpreliefmy investmentin having the texts read in the ways that I desired, and I felt especiallyvulnerable in responding to histexts. I didn't want to be accusedofbeingpoliticallybiasedinthe waysthat most ofthe students, includingLuke, feltteachersofthiscoursewere. At the same time, likeJody Swilky, I believethat teachers' responses should invite students "to analyze conflicting ideologies, sothey might begin to attain critical understandingofwhy they holdcertaincommitmentsandwhy they resistalternative waysofthinking" ("ResistingDifference"28).Thus,IwantedLuketo complicatethe waysthat hewasreadingthesetextsor at leastrecognizethat hisreadingsarepartial and situatedthrough the lensofhisfundamentalist assumptions. In respondingto histexts, then, most of my comments tended to be inthe form of questions, asking formore explicationor explanationofhisresponses.For instance,when Lukewrote that the writer of "Lot's Wife"wastakingatwentieth-century approach to abiblical story, I wrote, "Yes,I think you're right. Why do you think this writer took this approach?"In responseto Luke's paperon "ParaTeresa"that Teresa'sactionswere anattempt to deny"thefatethatwasinevitabIe,"Iwrote "Whatfateareyou describing asinevitable?"Next to his statement that the aimsof the two girlswere the same,I wrote "How wouldyou describetheseaims?"andinmy endcommentsIasked,"What doyou think abouttheconclusionwhen shesaysI respectyou andI callyou my sister? How doessheviewhersuccessinrelationto the other girl?"Ithought thesequestions might prove helpful to Luke asherevisedhispapersfor hisportfolio. Iwaswrong. Luke includedhispapersto both "ParaTeresa"and"Lot'sWife"inhisportfolio but hisonly revisionswerein spellingandcommausage.Surprisedthat Luke hadn't revised,especiallywhen he had saidin classthat hewanted an "A" in the course, I attributed hislackofrevisionto the other priorities in hislife.As agymnast, hehad aheetictournament schedule,andhewasalsoworkingon thecollaborativepaperdue atthe end0 ftheterm. However,Luke'sinterviewwith Mindyoffersperhapsanother reason why he did not reviseany of his responsepapers. In assessingthe ways that I respondedto histexts,Lukesaysthat my margincomments arebiasedbecausethey reflectmy own positions: She's supposed to be this unbiased grader. You present your viewpoints and the grade, not grade for the content of ideas, but for grammar and punctuation and development of ideas. That kind of thing. And, you know, I don't think she did that. She did that but she tended to giveyou hints and stuff in the margins that got you thinking-more alongwhat she wanted to hear. (3-16-93). Luke's viewthat textsshould beevaluatedsolelyon grammar andpunctuation and not on the content ofideasis,ofcourse,commonly shared.The dichotomy between form andcontent iswell-establishedincurrent traditionalapproachesto writing, and itiscertainlyaviewwithwhichmostofmy studentsagreed.Eventhough wediscussed the relationship between form andcontent inthe textsthat we readthroughout the term, Luke's prior assumptionsthat studenttextsshouldbereadandevaluatedsolely in terms of superficial features remained strong. But Luke's comments suggest another possiblereasonwhy hechosenotto revisehisresponsepapers.Luke'snotion
Page 1 and 2: It's a Question of Faith: Discourse
Page 3 and 4: Discoursesof Fundementalism 335 the
Page 5 and 6: Discoursesof Fundementalism 337 bib
Page 7 and 8: Discoursesof Fundementalism 339 wom
Page 9 and 10: Discoursesof Fundementalism 341 Chr
Page 11: Discoursesof Fundementalism 343 ver
Page 15 and 16: Discoursesof Fundementalism 347 Luk
Page 17 and 18: Discoursesof Fundementalism 349 exa
Page 19 and 20: Discoursesof Fundementalism 351 mea
Page 21: Discoursesof Fundementalism 353 Ber

It's aQuestion ofFaith: Discourses of Fundamentalism ... - JAC Online

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?