Should swearing, and other paternalistic ploys that aim to increase student learning, be employed in the classroom?
As we have said in class, most things teachers do in class are slightly paternalistic (such as assigning readings, having tests, etc). If there were no "paternalistic ploys", there would probably be no point in attending class. However, I think swearing is different because it relies on shock tactics to entice students. I must admit this is a huge pet peeve of mine. A similar example of shock tactics is using sex to advertise a product. It may be true that "sex sells", but it doesn't make the tactics used to sell a product ethical (in other words, the ends do not justify the means). I feel similarly about swearing in classrooms. Although I am not morally opposed to swearing the way I am morally opposed to sexualized images of women in the media, I am uncomfortable with people trying to get my attention by trying to shock me. If anything, it sends the message that "this class is going to be so boring that I'm resorting to shocking you with curse words in order to get you to pay attention". I'm okay with teachers cursing sometimes out of habit, if they are speaking casually, and curse words are a part of their vocabulary. However, I'm less accepting of teachers cursing in order to get my attention. It makes me feel like they do not view me as an adult capable of paying attention simply because I want to.
Question: When (if ever) is shock value a good tactic to get people's attention?
I agree; treating students as if they are mature adults is an effective, nonpaternalistic strategy.
ReplyDeleteFair enough, but in what does such respectful treatment consist? Is using harsh language, in fitting reference to a harsh topic and as a way to focus attention on the seriousness of that topic, really the paternalistic choice here? Perhaps, rather, we might judge the rigid self-censorship of certain potent words as a way of talking down to students, and infantilizing them.
ReplyDelete