Response to Jarratt

Reading Jarratt I started to think why if so many scholars want to change the system (in general terms) they didn’t achieve it. Well, I think that it has to do with what Foucault states about power: there is no power without resistance. I think that instead of reading only the “resistance” in pedagogies such as feminist, cultural, critical, as something that failed (because the system is still there) we should read them as signs and products of their own historical time. Within their claims lays, I think, something that is as valuable as change and that in some way brings change: reflection. The fact that many scholars have been questioning what should be taught in composition courses, in my opinion, is not bad. It is a good sign that there is a lot of reflection going on in the field.
I liked the fact that Jarratt recognizes that “there are differences within “feminism,” and some of the essays recommended here write about women as though they were an undifferentiated group; some fail to make connections with other forms of social difference” (p. 117). I liked this in the same way I liked how Bridwell-Bowles accepted her limitations at the time of being in front of a class and even questioned why she was teaching. This shows that there is commitment and openness in these scholars, and I think that openness together with the closeness that sometimes comes with passion is what keeps the field moving.
Regarding the critiques that feminist pedagogy has received: I think that as teachers it is better to be clear with our students, and express our alignment with certain ideologies. Does this mean that we are trying to get students to like what we like or to think as we think? I don’t think so. The student who will follow the teacher’s game to get a good grade is still gonna do it whether the teacher is explicit about his/her ideology or not. And the student who will contest the teacher will also do it. Why play obscure games? Why not make it clear from the beginning? I do not buy the objectivity myth, and I think that my teaching should be coherent with this. As Jarratt states: “one of the strengths of feminist pedagogy is its relentless capacity for dialogue and self-critique, and its ability to read and listen rhetorically” (p. 117). I don’t know if I would call myself feminist, but I definitively agree with this quote. Being open allow us to be contested and by being contested we can reformulate our ideas. I think in general lines, Jarratt’s text acts out the core of many feminist theories: being not prescriptive (as the paternalist discourse) but opened to new possibilities.