Phi Beta Cons alerts us to some goings-on a few hours to my north. The widely respected department of English and Comp Lit at the U of North Carolina is hosting a lecture next week. Entitled “Desarrollando Nepantler@s: Rethinking the Knowledge Needed to Teach Mathematics” (and by the way, isn’t the po-mo, po-co typographical eccentricity of Nepantler@s — meaning, I presume, people located in a post-colonial hybrid space — just precious? It makes me want to pinch someone’s cheek — in a press brake.), Prof. Rochelle Gutierrez will
argue[…] that a model of knowledge needed for teaching mathematics and addressing equity involves political knowledge. An important component to developing this political knowledge is being able to recognize multiple realities (Nepantla), developing conocimiento [or as we Evil Anglo Colonialists(TM) call it, “knowledge” — Prof. M] with students, becoming comfortable with uncertainty, and seeing tension as a means to birth new knowledge.
Really? “Becoming comfortable with uncertainty” in the math classroom? (By the way, what has any of this to do with English or Comparative Literature… you know, the department under whose auspices this lunacy is being passed off? Shut up, they explained.) Unless you’re Kurt Godel or someone of that ilk, or a character in certain works of fiction, I have to suspect that won’t end well — for that matter, even if you are one of those people, I’m betting it won’t end well. But of course, Gutierrez informs us of the need for this approach, explaining that
the achievement gap is a social construction, that equity in mathematics means much more than mere access to a rigorous curriculum, and that teaching is a negotiated practice (with students, parents, and others). [My link — Prof. M]
You see? We arrogant Conquistadors of Calculus insist on such ridiculous strategies as wanting to make sure that math teachers actually, well, are able to do mathematics, when what’s really needed is an openness to other realities (presumably realities in which there is no quadratic formula). Admittedly, we Pizarros of the polynomial haven’t always had enormous success with our approach lately either, but at least we’re trying to look at the subject at hand (or at fingers and toes, apparently.)
And let us not doubt Prof. Gutierrez’s expertise in these matters. After all, we’re informed that she “is PI [principal investigator, for you non-academics] on an NSF grant that seeks to understand what it takes to develop high school mathematics teachers who engage their students in rigorous mathematics and are committed to social justice.” Honestly, I’d settle for half of that, but it probably isn’t the half Gutierrez wants. And is it any surprise at all that she has a dual appointment in both education and identity studies? Didn’t think so.
After all, to put something this goofy together, it takes a combination of advanced degrees and prestige schools. Do the math.
Professor Mondo 
Professor Mondo – I think you are perhaps misinterpreting the point here. First off, some technical matters: the use of the @ in Nepantler@s is not as precious as you think it is, at least no more precious than using the “he or she” convention in the English language to encompass the different genders. I would imagine that you yourself have probably used this convention on occasion in your own writing. In any event, the use of the @ is really nothing more than a term that encompasses both the “o” indicating the masculine gender and the “a” indicating the feminine gender in one fell swoop. If you ask me, I think it is a much better solution to this problem of grammar than the cringeworthy practice of gender inclusiveness in the English language that is most often reflected in the use of the gender-inclusive third person plural (“they,” “their,” “them,” etc.) when the third person singular (“he, him, his” or “she, her, hers”) is required. To wit: “Everyone who buys into theories of post-colonialism or cultural hybridity needs to have their head screwed back on.” It’s just easier and less cumbersome to make this grammatical mistake for the purpose of full gender inclusion in the sweeping claim, than it is to write either the grammatically-correct but gender-exclusive “his” or “her” (or “his or her”) in the sentence. In Spanish, the use of the “@” resolves that problem much more neatly and efficiently, if you ask me, instead of writing something like “Nepantleros/as.”
Also, I couldn’t discover where anyone imputed any kind of “Evil Anglo Colonialist” charge against you or anyone. Can you show me where that came from? Or is this just another one of those instances of conservatives digging up bugaboos where there are none?
Anyway, I think your interpretation of “conocimiento” is a bit off the mark. While it does imply a kind of knowledge, it’s more the kind of knowledge that comes with being acquainted with something or someone (i.e. I “know” that person.) as opposed to that kind of knowledge we normally associate with conceptual understanding, which would more likely elicit the use of the Spanish word “entendimiento” (i.e. I know the Pythagorean theorem). So I think the proper understand of the phrase “developing conocimiento with students” really means a process of becoming acquainted with students, both in terms of understanding what environments and cultures have shaped them and how they learn things and in terms of forging a pedagogy rooted in a learning solidarity with students. At least that’s how I interpreted this aspect of Professor Gutierrez’s argument as presented in the brief abstract summary of her lecture theme.
Finally, as far as your settling for half of the “rigorous mathematics/social justice” combo, I would simply refer you to the movie “Stand and Deliver” — which is usually a favorite of conservatives. It’s a perfect example of what I think Prof. Gutierrez would be arguing. In that movie, which is based on a true story, Latino high school kids from particularly difficult environments excel at rigorous mathematics because of their professor’s commitment to social justice as well as his success at developing a “conocimiento” with them such that he could motivate them to learn in spite of the challenges of their environments.
The good is not the enemy of the better; and it seems to me that your reflexive opposition to anything that smells of cultural/identity studies might just mean you are settling for the good and sacrificing the better simply out of spite.
First of all, Huck, I’m glad you’re visiting and commenting — don’t be a stranger.
I’m also more than happy to accept your clarification on conocimiento — chalk it up to the translation I found via an online source (Spanish isn’t one of my languages.) While I find your explanation of the @ in Nepantler@s interesting, I still find the typographical eccentricity malignantly cute, rather like the tendency of forum participants at the CHEto use hu as a pronoun. And when combined with the sense of location implied by @, particularly in regard to the word’s root as a reference to a hybrid/”nowhere” space, I say it’s spinach.
To the larger point of your reading of the abstract, I’ll freely cop to extreme skepticism about identity studies — not least because I see them as essentialist in nature; ethnicity is not monolithic, nor is it destiny. (As for cultural studies, I suspect that my practice thereof has much more in common with D.W. Robertson than Raymond Williams.) As such, I think my fondness for Stand & Deliver (although I haven’t seen it in years) comes from Escalante’s refusal to hold his students to a lower standard — the “soft bigotry of low expectations” that too often seems to be the result of identity-studies-as-special-pleading. He wanted his kids to learn math — period.
If all you — and/or Gutierrez — are saying is that an effective teacher/rhetor attempts to approach a class/audience on its own terms, I’m fine with that (as would be Aristotle). However, if that’s what’s being said, that’s just good teaching, and attempts to clothe it in some rhetoric of social justice (itself a term that gives me the willies) are mere frippery. Good teaching is social justice.
Thanks for dropping by! And welcome to the blogroll.
Thanks, Professor Mondo. I am one of those liberals who is always looking for conservative voices that are reasonable and challenging. I, like you, work within the confines of the ivory tower. I lament that there aren’t more conservative voices in my milieu, so I seek them out where I can. I will most definitely be a regular visitor to your blog.
As you may have discerned by now, I am one of those area studies types, though I wouldn’t call myself a pomo or cultural studies adherent within the area studies field. I do find ethnic/identity studies as academic fields to be fascinating and valid in their own rights simply because people do find meaning in ethnic identity and I think it’s worth trying to understand what this means.
But, really, the use of the @ in this context is really nothing more than a combination of the letters “o” and “a” as an expression of gender inclusion. I have to say, though, that your whole interpretation of the @ as meaning “at” in terms of situational and spatial hybridity really tickles me because it’s absolutely the kind of textual interpretation that I would expect any post-modernist, critical theory scholar to make. You are quite adept at playing that game yourself!
As for the movie, Escalante’s success with his students was not only that he wanted his kids to learn math (not even that he taught math well), but also that he made sure those who couldn’t believe his students could be good at math because they were Hispanic students from the rough side of town, those who thought his students’ success on the AP exam must have derived from cheating, would not succeed in using ingrained stereotypes to perpetuate an injustice.
As for the frippery of clothing good teaching in some rhetoric of social justice, I would just ask you what I should then make of your claim that good teaching is social justice? That’s not “clothing” good teaching with the rhetoric of social justice, that’s “infusing” the two notions as one. Therefore, I must assume that the willies you get when thinking of the terminology of social justice must be willies of the wonderful kind.
Re: @: It’s funny — when I took a course in post-1966 theory during the Ph.D.years, it was no secret that I had little use for it, and even that I found much of it pernicious. However, we closed the term with a sort of theory quiz show (a la Jeopardy.) I won, and may have set a record score. The irony wasn’t lost on any of us — I told my professor it was a case of “Know your enemy.” But sure, I can play that game. In some respects, I’m sure I bear the scars of the late 80s “Theory Wars” when I did my M.A. (which I discuss here: https://profmondo.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/how-twigs-get-bent-canons-and-other-intellectual-artillery/).
I think your approach to identity studies sounds interesting and productive — there’s a difference between being aware of one’s heritage and essentializing it. I’m entirely supportive of it in an “equity feminism” sort of way (if you’ll allow the analogy) — it’s when it becomes “gender feminism” or (alternately) becomes simply an opportunity for special pleading that it tends to veer off into Crazytown. Unfortunately, I’ve seen so much of that over the years that I now approach the entire region as a sort of fever swamp — I may find solid ground along the way, but I’m still gonna wear waders and make sure my shots are up to date.
Meanwhile, the teaching/social justice business just struck me as a fun phraseology. The reason social justice gives me the willies is because I don’t think justice requires a modifying adjective. As for me, I think if I expose my students to good literature and good ideas, and if I can get them to recognize that this stuff (e.g., the 7 Deadlies) is still a useful way of understanding the world, I’m doing my job. I’m not teaching as part of an effort to engage in the political agon — I’m teaching because I love good reading and good writing, and I want my little chunk of it to survive another generation, regardless of the recipients’ backgrounds.
Don’t be a stranger!
Pingback: “What Did You Do During the Occupation, Daddy?” | Professor Mondo