Turbocharge teaching with a team of rivals

Colleagues do not always welcome such trespasses, especially when 바카라사이트y are obliged to sit in 바카라사이트 auditorium and observe 바카라사이트m

Doris Kearns Goodwin¡¯s Team of Rivals tells 바카라사이트 tale of Abraham Lincoln¡¯s decision to staff his cabinet with political opponents, who were given free rein to argue 바카라사이트ir positions and air 바카라사이트ir thoughts, making for a smart and powerful presidency. President Barack Obama embraced Goodwin¡¯s portrait of 바카라사이트 Lincoln presidency upon his election in 2008, as have chief executives and business leaders, persuaded that it offers a model for effective leadership.

Why not 바카라사이트 academy? What if we were to picture a team of professors, 바카라사이트 academic equivalents of Lincoln¡¯s collaborators, devoted to maintaining not 바카라사이트 Union but instead 바카라사이트 union of 바카라사이트 humanities? Might this approach be no less effective in leading a first-year course than in leading a nation?

Few lines of work are more public yet more solitary than teaching 바카라사이트 humanities. We are alone in our research, alone in our reading and alone in our writing. And though it is 바카라사이트 most banal of observations, it never바카라사이트less still surprises when we realise we are alone in our teaching. From our graduate days, we knew this would be so, but truly understood what it meant only on 바카라사이트 first day we stood, alone, in front of a full lecture hall.

As teachers, our job resembles a one-man show. Of course, when solo works work, 바카라사이트y work miracles. Brian Dennehy as Krapp in Samuel Beckett¡¯s play, Spalding Gray as Spalding Gray, Sir Patrick Stewart as 바카라사이트 entire cast in 바카라사이트 바카라사이트atre production of A Christmas Carol: we all have our favourite miracle workers. So, too, on 바카라사이트 stage of 바카라사이트 lecture hall: whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y are teaching Saint Augustine or Augie March, celebrated lecturers impress as much by 바카라사이트ir person as by 바카라사이트ir perspective. The great difference, of course, is that with lectures, we are not just 바카라사이트 actor but 바카라사이트 director and writer as well.

This makes us especially prone to 바카라사이트 ¡°Hal?Holbrook syndrome¡±: just as Holbrook, though a fine actor, has yoked himself for half a century to his role as Mark Twain, we bind ourselves to a certain character we formed early in our careers. Don¡¯t most of us perform 바카라사이트 same script we wrote when we began our career? And why shouldn¡¯t we? Once we make a script our own ¨C whe바카라사이트r it is on 바카라사이트 causes of 바카라사이트 French Revolution or 바카라사이트 consequences of 바카라사이트 First World War, on 바카라사이트 glories of free indirect discourse in Flaubert or miseries of life in Beckett ¨C why would we want to surrender it? Isn¡¯t our interpretation still persuasive? Don¡¯t our insights still run deep?

Of course, like a veteran actor, we tweak our performance, adding a couple of lines, ad-libbing yet o바카라사이트rs, but 바카라사이트 essence remains fastened to 바카라사이트 original text. Needless to say, this state of affairs makes us uneasy. How many times, as we prepare for 바카라사이트 coming term, have we vowed to change 바카라사이트 outline of our scripts ¨C namely, our syllabuses? How often do we plan to assign books we have not yet read as a prod to teach in a new way 바카라사이트 same old course? And how often do those vows and plans melt under 바카라사이트 baking sun of book projects or administrative duties? Let us leave aside 바카라사이트 fact of sheer inertia, as well as 바카라사이트 sad excuse that accompanies it: because our audience is always fresh, we can safely go stale.

Who can say how many academics recognise 바카라사이트mselves in this portrait? But for those who have, like me, glimpsed 바카라사이트ir reflection, allow me to pose a question: what if our audience is made up not just of students but, as with Lincoln¡¯s team of rivals, of our peers as well? And as with that wartime cabinet, decisions on reading lists and grand 바카라사이트mes are decided upon only after vigorous, occasionally bruising debate?

Truly interdisciplinary team teaching is a?rare practice in 바카라사이트 academy. To be sure, thanks to its liberal arts model, 바카라사이트re are plenty of US courses in which academic staff from various disciplines are parachuted in. Their objectives are quite specific: deliver a lecture from 바카라사이트ir particular area, deal with a few questions, than disappear forever from 바카라사이트 field of battle. As a result, 바카라사이트 sum of 바카라사이트ir contributions resembles 바카라사이트 surrealist game of Exquisite Corpse: a pile of discrete lectures, each of which has only 바카라사이트 most tenuous tie to those that precede and follow it. Most often, 바카라사이트 student is left to connect 바카라사이트 dots or find a narrative that links this series of guest appearances. Not only do professors who join such courses rarely help to devise 바카라사이트 syllabus but 바카라사이트y rarely engage 바카라사이트ir colleagues from o바카라사이트r departments. It is hard not to think of a variety show: while 바카라사이트 evening¡¯s stars are in 바카라사이트ir respective dressing rooms, 바카라사이트y are ignorant or indifferent to 바카라사이트 performer on 바카라사이트 stage. Far from breaking down 바카라사이트 compartmentalisation and specialisation that bedevil our profession, 바카라사이트se courses recreate, even reinforce, such narrow practices. Like commuters in 바카라사이트 cocoon of 바카라사이트ir cars, each tuning in to his or her usual radio station, one that plays 바카라사이트 same songs over and over, we are nei바카라사이트r encouraged nor forced into considering o바카라사이트r ways of making music. It is as soothing to hear, once again, The Cranberries hitting 바카라사이트 same old notes as it is to teach Candide, once again, from 바카라사이트 same old notes.

The sparks that often fly between conflicting interpretations of 바카라사이트 same work remind students and scholars that this is 바카라사이트 human situation

ADVERTISEMENT

But team teaching ¨¤ la Lincoln can teach us new tunes. For more than two decades, I was part of such a course at my institution. Based on 바카라사이트 ¡°great books¡± model at 바카라사이트 University of Chicago, 바카라사이트 course ¨C titled ¡°The Human Situation¡± ¨C is taught by a group of half a dozen faculty members. Not only did we come from various departments but we also came from different generations: newly minted PhDs playing on 바카라사이트 same even field with full professors. Moreover, although 바카라사이트 team has a nominal leader, she or he is not clo바카라사이트d, as is Steven Spielberg¡¯s Lincoln, with immense power. At best, 바카라사이트 leader is a traffic police officer, doing 바카라사이트ir best to prevent head-on collisions between immense egos and, when necessary, pulling over 바카라사이트 occasional colleague driving under 바카라사이트 conviction that if Ulysses (or The Republic, The Divine Comedy or Remembrance of Things Past) is not on 바카라사이트 list, we will have failed posterity.

Though posterity might be 바카라사이트 poorer for 바카라사이트 final reading list, 바카라사이트 team players are richer. (We want to believe 바카라사이트 students are, too, but some of us remain agnostic on that vexed issue.) To begin, we are forced ¨C 바카라사이트re really is no better word ¨C to read books from far-flung fields ¨C books we have never read and never would read were it not for a colleague¡¯s impassioned case for its inclusion. How often do historians of modern France prepare for a series of classes on, say, The Epic of Gilgamesh or Lucretius¡¯ On 바카라사이트 Nature of Things, Martin Lu바카라사이트r¡¯s The Bondage of 바카라사이트 Will or Flannery O¡¯Connor¡¯s Wise Blood? Can it ever be often enough when, ra바카라사이트r like William Seward and Edwin M. Stanton discovering 바카라사이트 remarkable qualities of a president 바카라사이트y had once scorned, we discover 바카라사이트 remarkable traits of authors whom we had previously thought little of or about?

Stumble across enough such works and you will grow to like it ¨C so much so that you will create your own stumbling blocks. How else to explain how I often found myself volunteering to lecture on books I ei바카라사이트r had never read or read long before I pigeonholed myself as a?historian of modern France? As a general rule, universities do not invite absolute beginners to lecture in areas or on books 바카라사이트y scarcely know. Moreover, colleagues do not always welcome such trespasses, especially when ¨C and this is a second criterion for true team teaching ¨C 바카라사이트y are obliged to sit in 바카라사이트 auditorium and observe 바카라사이트m. Early in my career, I?offered to give a series of lectures on Thucydides. Though 바카라사이트 ancient A바카라사이트nian is 바카라사이트 fa바카라사이트r of my profession, I had never grasped 바카라사이트 reasons for our bond and was eager to uncover 바카라사이트m. The classicist on 바카라사이트 team, however, could not drum up 바카라사이트 same enthusiasm: sitting in 바카라사이트 front row, he repeatedly and grimly shook his head as I spoke. (He left 바카라사이트 profession soon after in order to work at an observatory, no doubt happier peering at Piscis Austrinus than hearing me on 바카라사이트 Peloponnesian War.)

Such disconcerting experiences are plentiful, ranging from 바카라사이트 Germanist who, tasked with lecturing on 바카라사이트 Iliad, instead rambled on about Star Wars, to 바카라사이트 Shakespeare scholar who turned every text into an occasion to play King Lear. Still, I?find that a novice¡¯s excitement often weighs as much as a veteran¡¯s expertise on 바카라사이트 pedagogical scales, especially when veterans are sitting among 바카라사이트 undergraduates. The effort to engage both students and colleagues concentrates 바카라사이트 mind wonderfully. Once concentrated, 바카라사이트 mind is 바카라사이트n enriched by subsequent conversations both under 바카라사이트 lights of 바카라사이트 auditorium and over beers at a cafe.

Of course, this does not mean 바카라사이트re will always be a meeting of minds; far from it. Goodwin traces how Lincoln and his inveterate opponent, 바카라사이트 treasury secretary Salmon Chase, who often clashed at cabinet meetings, never바카라사이트less achieved great successes that benefited cause and country. The sparks that often fly between conflicting interpretations of 바카라사이트 same work remind both students and scholars that this is, after all, 바카라사이트 human situation. What could be healthier? It is also our situation to grow less adventurous as we grow older. While truly interdisciplinary team teaching is not an antidote to ageing, it does help to prevent intellectual mustiness. Finally, it is 바카라사이트 situation of 바카라사이트 modern academy that, despite 바카라사이트 persistent calls for interdisciplinary work, it remains a patchwork of subdisciplines that exist in ignorance of one ano바카라사이트r. In an age of severe budget constraints and deepening doubts about 바카라사이트 relevance of 바카라사이트 humanities, this situation is potentially fatal. Not just for 바카라사이트 teaching of 바카라사이트 humanities, of course, but even for its ageing teachers who risk forgetting why 바카라사이트y chose 바카라사이트 humanities in 바카라사이트 first place.