“That’s the language of the market, not the classroom.”
The above quote was from an audience member of a panel
discussion on teaching comparative religious ethics at last November's Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion. This particular rejoinder was directed at a panelist who
wondered aloud how exactly one was supposed to quantify student progress in the
area of “becoming a more constructive citizen.” In my notes I wrote “write something about this between
comps.” So here goes:
The language of the market is the language of the classroom.
Can we not look at the goals and objectives stated in our syllabi as
anticipated profit? Can we not
cast rules, regulations, positive and negative reinforcement as market
interactions and governing interventions?
What is the drastic difference between writing assignments and
labor/production? What is the
difference between reading assignments and consumption? Is there really a disconnect between
earning a certain grade in a course and acquiring some form of capital in the
social, cultural, economic, academic sphere? Why the resistance to evaluating the product of our own
labor in measurable terms?
Perhaps if we avoid talking about our own labor in
measurable terms, we can convince others that the work in which we are engaged
is, indeed, immeasurable, unquantifiable…perhaps…sacred(completely set apart due to a perceived intrinsic goodness)?
Perhaps by positing that our own work is
something wholly different from and – indeed – opposed to the measurable,
quantifiable, and profane we are engaged in the process of cordoning off our
own sections of the social sphere and making our workplace safe from critique…and
certainly free from exploitation, desire for profit, and all the other mean
things associated with labor and the market. This is, after all, the classroom!
Just some thoughts.
Thanks for reading.
