First, thanks for giving me the opportunity to finish up my lil’ presentation today. I am an unabashed pomo-ist, so I was excited and felt it important to cram in that nugget of possibility to our continuing discussions. The nutshell (again) is that cultural studies (or perhaps the humanities in general) have gotten bogged down and stuck in this model of constant critique and criticism of cultural objects/texts. Nobody seems to deny that cultural objects are open to such critique, that there is a lot of unbalance and injustice contained within them, and that we humanities folk look to give “texts” of all sorts a good thrashing.

The question (as it has always been) is what is the best use of our classroom resources; and some would say, which practices enact real change in social practices and mindsets. Psychoanalytic theory suggests that fantasy is our individual construction of a pattern or meaning-making foundation which we need/crave in the face of postmodern loss of the subject, fragmentation, disconnectedness, info overloadedness, you name it. These fantasies are not always good for us, but at some level we derive enjoyment from them that simultaneously makes them stronger and makes us less amenable to change. This is a gross simplification of jouissance– but not as gross as simply thinking of jouissance as enjoyment. It is a contradictory enjoyment– a glue that holds everything together– it’s the feeling we shoot for in everything we do. It’s nice to think that we can have our students read critical tests, and have them critique social injustice, practices, or objects, and that through this process they will be liberated, empowered, or have their eyes opened. It has been my experience (and others writing in this area) that such tactics actually make our students strengthen their resistance and walls to such ideas– perhaps they will produce an essay that gives the instructor what they seem to want, but there is little change beyond the classroom or deep within the desires of the students themselves.

What I think is missing is the acknowledgment and subsequent deconstruction of this jouissance. If we’re going to teach with popular culture, I think we need to shift our focus to the enjoyment involved. And not in a “this stuff is fun, so let’s sneak it into the classroom under that guise” sense. And not in an attempt to elevate the “low” to “high” or to set up new hierarchies, or to expose them to the pop culture we think they should be watching. Rather, to interrogate what the enjoyment of culture is within the student, how it’s wrapped up in social practices and their social experiences, and (to modify a phrase from feminist theory), not only is the personal political, but that entertainment in this linked and digital age is essentially political.

So my question (per Sam’s request) is what (if anything) to do with all this? What kinds of assignments or practices can we use in our classroom, in reference to video gaming, that acknowledges jouissance without guilt or condescension and has our students analyze their attention and enjoyment to . . . well, to what end?

And now to wrap up with Shaffer. I like what Cat said about not “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” In other words, there is an incredible lot of Shaffer that I agree with and sounds really good. Especially getting students to learn by working on problems and solutions in real contexts (as opposed to stale formulas and complicated/abstract word problems). I also like the idea of emphasizing process knowledge over declarative knowledge. Yet, I’m still unnerved by the notion that this transference model shoots towards making our students better capitalists and workers. In many ways this goes back to classic debates– what is our job as educators? Are we here to give them job skills or something else? If job skills and job application is what most of them want (and this feels pretty safe to assume), who are we not to give it to them? I’m always for choice and options, so I wonder if a different Freshman Composition model might make this situation more tolerable. The model of learning community 106s seems like a chance to structure comp as a place where both students and teachers know that the pedagogy is in someway oriented towards job and major training. At least then everyone knows what they’re signing up for.