It seems as though every chapter I read in Mark Bauerlein's book, The Dumbest Generation, follows the same pattern, as far as my reactions to it and my feelings about it. He usually makes some pretty interesting points with some at least moderately convincing arguments. He also, though, always makes arguments that just rub me the wrong way, and backs them up with further arguments that are flawed or seem ludicrous to me. But I guess that's the nature of reading highly biased literature of any sort, whether you agree with the author's main premise or not. Chapter five was no exception.
First of all, I want to state that I totally agree that creativity, originality, and truly great works of art, literature, music, knowledge, and so on require a firm understanding of Bauerlein's capital-T "Tradition" and history. Could Marx have written what he did without a knowledge of Aristotle? Could Napoleon have nearly created a world empire without studying Alexander the Great? Could Ibsen have written A Doll's House without an understanding of Shakespeare? I have no doubt that Andy Warhol studied Rembrandt, that Alexander Grahm Bell was familiar with Leonardi Da Vinci, or that Spielberg venerated De Mille. And because I'm both a freak and a nerd, I know that Bob Dylan tried to emulate Woody Guthrie, that Frank Miller holds Will Eisner as the golden standard of sequential storytelling, and that there's hardly a cartoon writer alive that doesn't admire and study the work of Chuck Jones, Tex Avery, and Matt Groening.
There, I think I've fulfilled my name-dropping quota for the next year or so.
My point is that you need to know the norms and the rules and the traditions in order to break them or transcend them in any original way. Where I disagree with Bauerlein's argument, however, begins to really take shape on pages 191 through 192. At that point in the chapter he begins to argue that teens and "twixters" need a firm understanding of history and Tradition in order to make sense of themselves, their lives, and their time period. Instead, all they do is read pop-literature and stuff on the Internet.
My first question to pose to the class: Am I the only one who gets a craving for a candy bar whenever Bauerlein uses the word "twixter?"
My second question: Is contemporary literature really that damaging to one's understanding of one's contemporary self, surroundings, and peers? If the whole objective is gaining an education of the present society and getting a firm grasp on one's own personal realities, it seems to me that being exposed to works of literature, art, music, philosophy, et cetera that were written during and about the time in question could only help develop that knowledge. Even using Bauerlein's examples against his own argument, surely the artists, writers, thinkers, and activists in the 1960s were inspired by their contemporaries, who helped them understand the situation that both they and the world were in. Dylan read Ginsberg, Lennon and McCartney listened to the Rolling Stones, and all the activists familiarized themselves with the ways of Kennedy, King, Malcolm X, and others. There I go again, though.
Is it possible to form a strong, stable, and complete understanding of oneself and one's times through contemporary work alone? Bauerlein clearly says "no," but I'm not so quick to conclude one way or the other. Furthermore, is the stuff being written now (mostly on the Internet) by our contemporaries about our present lives and circumstances sufficiently different from the stuff written in and about the Sixties that we can argue that the same rules don't apply today? Has technology's democratization of language and publishability made the works of our contemporaries less useful for self-exploration and greater understanding than those of yesteryear?
I'll make my next point less verbose, since I feel like I've written a bit much already. On page 188, Bauerlein comes to the conclusion that classes that are centered on the student (as opposed to a lecture-style class, where the professor/teacher is the center of attention and focus) result in less motivation and less interest. I ask you to think about this, and share what you come up with in class... If you'll allow me to draw a parallel between Bauerlein's instructor-oriented classes and lecture class like, say, Psych206; and then another parallel between his student-centered classes and a class like our Junior Sem. Think of all of the lecture classes you've taken at Allegheny, and then think of all of the seminar, discussion-based classes you've had. Which ones do you remember more fondly? And, using one of Bauerlein's own measures, which ones did you skip more frequently?
Comments (1)
I really enjoyed your last comments on classrooms and teaching styles. I am in an Environmental Psychology class and we often talk about classroom setting and learning. A lot of studies show that face-to-face discussion classes with teachers on the same level as students actually helps in productivity of students and participation of students in class. In my opinion, lecture classes are less interesting and do not encourage students to participate actively.
I agree with you in thinking that this part of Bauerlein's argument is a bit off.
Posted by Maggie Bodenlos | April 17, 2009 11:43 AM
Posted on April 17, 2009 11:43