As I understand you there are three reasons you feel that this particular book is justified as a required reading for your AP European History students.
- They are mature enough
- Other teachers also require it
- The objectionable material the book covers is both true and relevant
(I will note, however, that while it must be permissable--we live in a free society, after all--I do not think it beneficial. Thoughts, ideas, and imaginings have real consequences that affect us all, and in my opinion, the too-candid descriptions in this book could be particularly harmful. Admittedly, this point rests on my personal opinion, and is, therefore, of no more or less import than anyone elses.)
To address your first point, maturity is not an issue, at least as far as I'm concerned. I would object equally if you required this reading of my grandmother (or yours, for that matter). I object to anyone being required to read such things.
Secondly, whether or not other teachers use the book in similar ways may help justify the action in the arena of public opinion. It does not, however, have any more significance than that. It's the same problem I've always had with ethics. Just because everyone agrees on a wrong action doesn't make it a right action. Morality is independent of opinion (that's a whole different discussion, I know.)
Finally, your last and most important point; that the material is both true and relevant. This point makes the most sense to me. I can't say whether or not it's true, but I really wouldn't be surprised if it were, and I trust your judgment and scholarship on this more than my own. Your case for its relevance to your subject is also convincing, although I think that the subject could be handled with more delicacy without sacrificing its effectiveness. The question to me is whether or not the truth and relevance of the information to the subject justifies its being required reading.
To clarify this, I must explain my exact objection more clearly. First, thoughts have real consequences. Second, a thought can't be unthought. Finally, communicating the thought successfully to another causes the thought to become an irrevocable part of him or her.
As to my first assertion, thinking a thought has physical consequences. At the very minimum it subtly rewires our brain, strengthening or weakening synaptic connections. At the other extreme, a thought can be the initial step in changes to the entire world, for our benefit or harm. Atomic bombs and solar cells both began as thoughts in someones' minds. Without the thoughts, neither would exist, nor would the consequences.
Second, a thought, once introduced into the mind, can never be fully erased. Although the thought may be forgotten, for a time it influenced other thoughts and actions, and therefore changed the thinker, for better or worse.
Finally, once I've successfully communicated a thought to you, you've thought it. If I write "pink polar bear," its too late for you to decide you didn't want to think about a pink polar bear. The thought is yours now, whether you wanted it or not. And what if the thought is not as innocuous as a pink polar bear. What if it's a truly horrible thought that will change your life forever in ways you never wanted. Genie back in the bottle, Pandora's Box, etc.
This brings me back to your final point about the truth and relevance of the passages in this book being sufficient justification for it being required reading. I think the real disagreement boils down to just how damaging we imagine the thoughts raised by the book to be. You consider the pungent descriptions of the exact nature of the Church's sexual misconduct to be so beneficial to your students' understanding of history that it outweighs the consequences of introducing the thoughts in the first place. I disagree.
So we are at an impasse. How can either of us prove that our opinion is correct?
So far, so good?
4 comments:
Interesting things in your post about the book, but my first thought would be that they aren't entirely applicable, because Manchester's material isn't really explicit. In fact, he really has a knack of drawing out mental images from suggestive or partial phrasings. If you were to show someone who had never had or witnessed sex a pornographic film, then those explicit images would surely be as you described-- they would have impact and would be there whether the viewer wanted them to be or not. But, if someone who had never had or witnessed sex were to read Manchester, I think a lot or all of it would fail to conjure up images. And if they were really young/naive, it would simply go over their heads with no impact at all. So, I think a lot of it is only vivid to people who "had been there" before, in one way or another.
And, in the words of another friend who read the blog and reply, "the details (in Manchester) are necessary to convey the true depravity of the situation."
So, not sure.
I suppose it comes down to personal judgment, which isn't a very satisfying answer to me. I've considered those passages carefully, and I still think it's too much and not needed to convey the depravity, with all respect to your friend.
I assume that you would stop short of illustrations for the passages in question, but even if another teacher didn't stop short of pictures the argument could be the same...it's true and relevant. The question remains; "what crosses the line."
Perhaps I'll start a new post on this topic, since it really applies to much more in our society than this book.
I think he cites a fourth reason for making students read the book.
4. History is boring. By inserting too many sexual details the students keep reading and history is no longer boring.
Dude, there are better reasons to read history.
However, that's just what I gleaned from his reply to you in the previous post. You don't have to take my advice as I am sure you know. I commend you for arguing the points you have brought up and I think they are very appropriate.
I am getting ready to teach AP Euro for the first time and have had some misgivings about the book. I assigned it as summer reading because the person before me met with the kids first and assigned it. I had to go with it. I have read about half of it and have found it extremely interesting and a vivid picture of social history for the time. As a student and a World History teacher, I often wondered just what kind of person Luther was and why he chose to go against the church in the way he did, and how impactful his actions were. To me it was just a bunch of clergy stuff that had no bearing. I am not Catholic, and am not particularly bound to idea of organized religion (although I am a Christian).
Now I truly understand and it's no longer just a "scholars and clergy" debate that I could not relate to. Luther had huge ***** to go against the papacy at the time, risking his life and standing up against a truly horrible situation. Most people (including me) never realize just how sleazy Rome had become and that the grounds of the Catholic Church were so unstable, it was absolutely bound to fall apart if someone did not do something.
Sorry for the long post, but having studied history for so long and only now have my eyes opened to the gravity of the situation...well, it's kind of a shame that I never knew it before. There are ways to get across to kids the gravity of the situation, but since I had never able to identify with the clergy and Luther's drive for change, I always have had a hard time conveying the real power of his actions.
I think Manchester is just trying to make an unforgettable point about this huge turning point in history. He ties together the transition from Medieval times to the Renaissance and helps the reader realize it didn't just happen in an instant.
Post a Comment