The Future of Aural Skills in Universities and Conservatoires

by Paul Fleet,

AHHE Associate Editor for Music

Hello again.  My first blog highlighted particular upcoming music conferences, and in keeping with this I wanted to report to you my thoughts from a recent Aural Skills Pedagogy Symposium that was held on 7th April 2017 at the Royal Academy of Music, London.

Colleagues from Universities and Conservatories from the UK, Europe, and North America came together at this one-day symposium to present and listen to papers under the themes of how we teach, assess, use technology, and embed aural skills. A full listing of the papers and their presenters can be found at http://www.ram.ac.uk/research/research-events/aural-skills-pedagogy-symposium.

All delegates (regardless of whether they were from a University or Conservatory) recognised that one of the biggest difficulties facing educators of aural skills is that the topic is often side-lined in music education itself.  A typical example many will recognise is when the student informs you of their prior ABRSM practical exam preparation: they spent months on the scales and pieces, and only two weeks before the exam did their tutor run through some examples regarding the aural part of the assessment.  It was felt that aural skills should not be separate but integral to the training of musicianship.  This may seem obvious but it is often not the case in our curricula, much to the disadvantage of our students.  For an interesting empirical study on the advantages of singing through a melody before playing it on an instrument see Chie Ohsawa (2009) ‘The Effect of Singing the Melody in the Practice of the Piano’ https://www.academia.edu/4516450/The_Effect_of_Singing_the_Melody_in_the_Practice_of_the_Piano

We similarly collectively recognised at the symposium that we should be completely transparent in our assessment of aural skills; making sure that we put the theory of the skill firmly within the place of its practice.  To assess transcription skills in an intangible space (such as a request to the student to write down a string of non-sequential intervals) is to send them on a fool’s errand that is neither useful in the real world (I can happily state that in my professional life I have never had to work out a string of intervals that was not grounded in a melodic or harmonic context) nor to the understanding of the music itself (Kent Cleland, Jena Root, and Simon Parkin all spent time within their papers showing how the association of the tonal-familiar was the key to progression in the acquisition of complex listening skills).

For someone like myself who is active in the field of embodied music theory strategies (watch out for my article ‘Rethinking the Guidonian Hand for twenty-first century Musicians’ in the second issue (first volume) of the Journal of Popular Music Education this July) what became apparent was the distinction between those who Kodály and those who Kodon’t [sic].  It would have been a surprise to have been at a conference on aural skills and not have the Kodály method mentioned.  However, it was interesting to hear that whilst the aforementioned distinction I made (somewhat in jest) is in place, it is not as clear cut as those who have undertaken the specific solfège training and those who have not.  There are various ideas and techniques that use the body without instrument to ‘play’ the sound being heard (for example, the idea of air guitar) and thus check and reinforce the connection.  It is hoped that many of these ideas will form articles in a dedicated issue of a targeted journal for wider dissemination.

One of the most reassuring pieces of information emerging from the day, and particularly for those of use who do not have perfect / absolute pitch, is that the golden arrow of aural accuracy is not something that stays with that person for the whole of their life.  Intriguingly, and as Gary S. Karpinski pointed out, those with perfect pitch discover that their recognition begins to be ‘out’ by an increasing distance from middle-age onwards (from about a semitone rising to a minor third higher than that of the sounded pitch).  If ever there was a convincing argument for why all musicians should undertake regular aural skills training it is that the skills of relative pitch can be deployed when the gift of perfect pitch is lost.

The value of going to conferences is known and clear but it is often worth reminding ourselves of this fact as the pressures of academic life invite us to commit more time to internal responsibilities and activities.  To help, might I remind us all of the JISC Musicology list that can deliver details of such conferences, requests for papers, and so on straight to your inbox and help promote discussion across the musicology community.  If you haven’t already joined then all you need to do is send the one line: ‘join musicology-all firstname lastname’ to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk to begin the interaction.

Until soon, Paul

AHHE Associate Editor for Music

@DrPaulFleet

 

 

 

Translating Theatre: an update by Margherita Laera and Flora Pitrolo

by Margherita Laera and Flora Pitrolo, University of Kent

 

A few months ago Jan Parker wrote a blog [TRANSLATING THEATRE: ‘FOREIGNISATION’ ON STAGE] about our AHRC-sponsored project entitled ‘Translation, Adaptation, Otherness’, following her attendance of our symposium on theatre translation in October 2016. The project asks how theatre in translation can communicate linguistic and cultural difference without flattening it or over-domesticating it. A video gallery from the symposium is visible here

The project has come a long way since our symposium and since Jan Parker’s reflections. Having edited our project documentary (https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=at8SsTI9I3E) we are now re-imagining our summer workshop series as an interactive archive, forthcoming on www.translatingtheatre.com. We have also begun work on our special issue of Studies in Theatre and Performance (due to be published in the summer of 2018), which allows the team of scholars and translators who took part in the initial phase of the project to reflect more deeply and more carefully on the experiences of attempting strategies of ‘foreignisation’ on stage.

‘Foreignisation’ is not a binary term in clear-cut opposition to the term ‘domestication’. In fact, both terms encompass a range of possibilities performed through, within and contextually to translation, which are ascribable to much more than purely discursive strategies. The questions we posed – which regarded how Venuti’s ideas on ‘foreignisation’ might be applicable in and useful to theatre and performance – were carefully addressed beyond the sphere of the textual, stretching into choice of text, casting, acting techniques, accents and other aspects of performance and of its aesthetic and cultural framing. We deliberately chose texts from Spain, France and Poland that would sit on the margins of both the translated corpus from those languages into English, and that would challenge standard practices in contemporary London theatre (more on this here).

The project’s directors and performers attempted to purposefully re-elaborate their process design, their acting techniques, and their very style of performance in order to invent something other to what they are used to but also other to their received ideas of ‘Spain’, ‘France’, ‘Poland’. In every step of the process we questioned defaults, stereotypes and go-to positions in order to discover whether we could perform an ‘Other’ space – the space we called ‘translation’ and the space we also called ‘the theatre’ – that could exist outside of the discursive and imaginary limits implicit in the mere fact of decoding out of one linguistic and cultural system and recoding into another.

Therefore the project’s first phase responded precisely to what Parker singles out as ‘research which engages with all the interrelations of the theatre studio as a multifaceted translation “exploratorium”’. We attempted to ‘test’ the idea of ‘foreignisation’ where it had seldom been tested before, namely in theatrical texts and theatrical practice: as Parker rightly points out, ‘“effect/affect/identification” in the theatre work more complexly than delivering an awareness’, and indeed we deployed the theatre as a medium in order to transfer the ‘awareness’ of the other into the sphere of embodied knowledge – the knowledge of the rehearsal room – where encounters and experiences are performed rather than explored through conjecture only.

To employ a methodology such as practice-as-research is to willfully push at something that appears obscure, and to accept the imperfect and exploratory nature of that searching; it is also to keep oneself open to finding something other than what one might have expected or planned for, and to accept that the process will probably lead to more questions than answers. Many of the questions we uncovered in the rehearsal room address the very core of what it is to perform, and not only of what it is to perform a translation: in this sense, a paradigm borrowed from translation studies is having a second life in theatre studies in our current research, and we are still working on singling out how the two disciplines, crafts and ways of knowing can productively both enrich and destabilise each other.

The questions we are asking now have to do with performative strategies that might complicate, enrich and supplement discursive and non-discursive strategies. How can performance and mise en scène communicate linguistic and cultural difference to a live audience? The answer to these questions clearly depends on the context in which one is performing and spectating. We are aware that we are asking that question in London in 2017 and our chosen strategies might not apply to other contexts. The project’s special issue of Studies in Theatre and Performance seeks to further investigate these matters, which have generated – and we hope will continue to generate – a rich conversation across fields.

Nothing to see here

Karen J Leader

(Art History class at Mount Holyoke)

 

The photograph reproduced above drives me bonkers. Every time I see it, I have a conniption. Why, you might ask. It seems innocuous; playful and inoffensive. A cute youngish looking man mugs for the camera while a group of adoring young women watch him and smile. Judging from the surroundings they appear to be in a museum, or gallery. But rather than looking at art, he is clowning and they are giggling.

It is not just the image that sends me into paroxysms, it is the use to which it was put. In 2014, then-President of the United States Barack Obama took his turn taking a potshot at the humanities, choosing art history as his target. His comment predictably drew the ire of academic types, who did what they do best, and wrote well-crafted responses. (Full disclosure, I was among them, with my colleague Amy K. Hamlin. You can read it here.)

Scott Jaschik, the editor of Inside Higher Ed wrote a perfectly respectable example of such a riposte, complete with quotes from experts. A worthy entry into the debate, it generated quite a comment thread, and was shared on social media. The article was illustrated with that stupid image. Because it was shared, the image kept popping up, taunting me with its glib posing.

Why on earth was this utterly unserious image selected by a picture editor, or perhaps by the author himself, as a good choice to accompany an article trying to argue for the value of art history? (Full disclosure, I did not ask the author, because I didn’t want to risk yelling at him, e-mail style: what were you thinking dude?!)

The image infuriates me in part because it says nothing about crucial skills of discernment, critical thinking, or cultural and historical specificity that are the hallmarks of art historical study. In fact the works of art huddle in the background (a figure in one of them seems to stare back with the same disapproval I’m expressing here. So does one of the students, disgusted with the shenanigans and ready to look at some art already.)

This photograph does more than convey a lack of seriousness or rigor in an art history class’s confrontation with works of art. It actually reinforces a damning stereotype of the discipline: that it is elitist, only suitable for posh girls, here offered by central casting from the campus of Mount Holyoke. Reinforces, I say, because the stereotype is not only evergreen, but has enjoyed a resurgence. Google “art history posh.” I’ll wait.

The class argument, insisting that the humanities disciplines must be available to all, is crucial in debates around higher education of course. Thankfully, it has been made by some very smart people, and will be the subject of a future post.

For now, can I just suggest that picture editors, when choosing which image will best illustrate an article, ask an art historian for heaven’s sake?

 

#ArtHistoryEngaged

Author Biography

Karen J. Leader is Associate Professor of Art History, and Faculty Associate in the Center for Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Florida Atlantic University. Her activities on behalf of art history and the humanities can be found here. You can follow her on Instagram and Twitter @proftinkerbell.

 

 

 

 

‘Intercultural university models for the 21st century’- Editor’s introduction

WINDS OF THE SOUTH

Intercultural university models for the 21st century

By Manuela Guillerne, Marie Curie Research Fellow at the Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra

Winds of change are whistling through social, political and cultural institutions, all over the world, and universities in particular. It may well be said that in the 21st century these have been in the eye of the hurricane since they had unquestionably become the locus of knowledge par excellence of modern nation-states and, therefore, where the national elite of rulers was formed, the national scientific and cultural references of the past, present and the future, were devised, refined, delivered and finally where national identity was energized. In sum, in global times, the University is reflecting the crisis of the Nation-State.

Europe started this century with the launching of the Bologna process, which aimed “to create a coherent and cohesive European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by 2010”, and it seemed that, once completed, the scene would have been set up and would remain stable for quite some time. In fact, it fulfilled, within the deadline, its main objectives: – “adopt a system of easily readable and comparable degrees; adopt a system with two main cycles (undergraduate/graduate); establish a system of credits (ECTS); promote mobility by overcoming legal recognition and administrative obstacles; promote European co-operation in quality assurance; promote a European dimension in higher education”. These accomplishments have certainly brought innumerous benefits for higher education in the name of its internationalization and in the form of networking. Furthermore, it broke down innumerous frontiers and if, on the one hand, it homogenized often carelessly of national epistemological traditions, cultural uses and local relevance, on the other hand, it opened up a wide horizon that started to long for farther and away from Europe. In addition, the design and implementation of an EHEA and the development of the idea of a “knowledge economy” has carefully been observed by the governments of other regions in the world and inspired the creation of some governmental and non-governmental policies, e. g. in Latin America. The mirror-like reflecting images between universities in Europe and in the Americas offer an interesting field for colonial and postcolonial analysis.

The universities which started in the Americas in colonial times were often organizations which transplanted the models from their mother institutions in Europe, formerly under the umbrella of the Church and later of the Nation-State. Despite its national symbolism and identity, the University has been described by several authors as a “colonial” institution per se both in its essence and history and, in fact, university models expanded from the North to the South, both within Europe and from Europe to overseas. However, it should not be ignored the a posteriori reverse influence from North America to Europe (North-North) and nonetheless the currently starting influence from South America to Europe (South-North). This justifies the interest that this special issue on “Winds from the South: Intercultural university models for the 21st century” is thought to raise among the AHHE readers. Furthermore, globalization has had an impact in the role, life and image of universities worldwide, which has been described as a loss of their identity, more specifically of their cultural and national ethnic identity, in some cases, their tradition. This is why the experience of the intercultural/indigenous universities is worth considering today because they are adequately considered to be ethnically grounded.

AHHE Special Issue Winds of the South: Intercultural university models for the 21st century

Winds of the South: Intercultural university models for the 21st century
Editors: Manuela Guilherme Gunther Dietz

 

Introduction – Winds of the South: Intercultural university models for the 21st century by Manuela Guilherme Gunther Dietz

This issue of Arts and Humanities in Higher Education focuses on innovative initiatives which are emerging in different Latin-American university contexts as well as a few other experiments in traditionally established universities. Sometimes these initiatives are newly created higher education institutions that are rooted inside indigenous regions, in other cases conventional universities start to “interculturalize” their student population, their teaching staff, or even their curricular contents and methods. Despite certain criticisms, community leaders frequently claim and celebrate the appearance of these new higher education opportunities as part of a strategy of empowering ethnic actors of indigenous or afro-descendant origin.

Articles

Interview with Boaventura de Sousa Santos
by Manuela Guilherme Gunther Dietz

Local resignifications of transnational discourses in intercultural higher education: The case of the Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural in Mexico                                                                                                   by Laura Selene Mateos Cortés Gunther Dietz

Is the interculturalisation of Chile’s universities a real possibility?
by Guillermo Williamson

Displacement and revitalization of the Nahuatl language in the High Mountains of Veracruz, Mexico
by Carlos O Sandoval Arenas

Knowing the other/other ways of knowing: Indigenous feminism, testimonial, and anti-globalization street discourse
by Isabel Dulfano

Llama herders and urban elites: Interdisciplinary readings of early colonial narratives in the Americas
by Christine D Beaule, Benito Quintana

Intercultural doctoral supervision: The centrality of place, time and other forms of knowledge
by Catherine Manathunga

English: Shared Futures conference programme 5th-7th July

 

English: Shared Futures Conference

THE STUDY OF ENGLISH LITERATURE, LANGUAGE AND CREATIVE WRITING IS AN IMPORTANT AND DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE.

‘We will celebrate the discipline’s intellectual strength, diversity and creativity and explore its futures in the nations of the UK and across the world.’ http://www.englishsharedfutures.uk/

Organized by the English Association and University English and supported by the National Association of Writers in Education, the Institute of English Studies and the Higher Education Academy.

Wednesday 5th July

11.30 – 12.15  Registration

11.30 – 12.30 English Association Welcoming/Mentoring Session

12.30 – 1.45 Panel Sessions

  1. Shakespearean Futures 400+
  2. Advocating and Promoting English Studies (Early Career Academics – ECA)
  3. B/Orders of Standard English: Registering Linguistic Difference in the Academic Writing Classroom
  4. Investigating English: Translating Linguistic Research for the Secondary English Classroom
  5. Digital Humanities: GIS and English Studies
  6. Book Parts: Flash Panel
  7. HEA Roundtable: Who We Are
  8. Place Writing: People, Partnerships and Pedagogy; or Impact, Exchange and Policy
  9. Teaching 21st Century Genre
  10. Contemporary Women’s Writing: Archiving for the Future (Contemporary Women’s Writing Association – CWWA}
  11. Women Who Dare (National Association of Writers in Education – NAWE)
  12. Feminist Pedagogies, Feminist Classrooms
  13. Beyond Story – An Examination of the ‘Authentic’ in Fiction and Poetry

2.00 – 3.15 Plenary – Literary Biography: Andrew Hadfield, Kathryn Hughes, Hermione Lee

3.30 – 4.45 Panel Sessions

  1. The Discipline of English and the Work of the Humanities (University English – UE)
  2. Literary Salon: Bernardine Evaristo
  3. Social Justice and Literature
  4. Making it New: On the Future of Modernist Studies British Association for Modernist Studies – BAMS)
  5. Teaching Genre Fiction Writing (NAWE)
  6. The Concept of Storyworld in Relation to the Impact of New Technology on Writing Practices
  7. HEA Teaching Surgery
  8. Useless Articles: English and Instrumentalism
  9. Knowledge About Language and Linguistics in the Classroom
  10. Contemporary Women’s Writing: Apocalyptic Narratives (CWWA)
  11. Contemporary British Tragedy / Symptoms at the Surface: On Postcolonial Critical Reading / Immersive Poetics
  12. Poetics of Feminism
  13. Literary Societies in Action: Creativity, Engagement and Learning

5.00 – 6.15 Panel Sessions

  1. The Discipline of English and the Work of the Humanities (UE)
  2. Literary Salon: Elleke Boehmer
  3. Publishing Roundtable (ECA)
  4. Making it New is the Oldest Trick in the Book: On Current Modernist Studies (BAMS)
  5. Readings from US and Australian Poets (NAWE)
  6. Contemporary Critical Perspectives: Looking Back, Moving Forward
  7. Reshaping Reality: Creative Work in Progress
  8. Eileen Myles and Mobilities of Form
  9. Creative Work (CWWA)
  10. ‘trans-‘
  11. Martin Luther King in Newcastle
  12. Gender, Sexuality and (Un)doing English
  13. Goldsmiths’ Writers

6.15 – 7.30 Drinks Reception

Thursday 6th July

9.30 – 10.45 Panel Sessions

  1. The Borders of Irish Literature (British Association for Irish Studies – BAIS)
  2. Virtual Collegiality: Putting the ‘Social’ Back into Social Media (CWWA)
  3. Flight Paths in English Studies: Searching for Lines of Consistency in Learner Activity from 11 to Postgraduate (and Beyond
  4. Open Voice Session (ECA)
  5. Cross-Pollination: Music, Railways, Publications and Productions
  6. ‘The Past is My Present to Your Future’: Capitalizing on the Linguistic Heritage of the North East
  7. After Brexit: Life without Erasmus (NAWE)
  8. When you don’t have a choice: teaching CW for the Open College of the Arts without the benefits and dangers of workshops
  9. Teaching Excellence Framework Workshop (HEA)
  10. Delivering English: a roundtable of subject leads and department heads
  11. Renaissance Outreach (Society for Renaissance Studies – SRS)
  12. Closed Circles? English Literature and the Return of Canonical Exclusivity
  13. Why Shakespeare Now? (British Shakespeare Association – BSA)
  14. Literature and Cultural Politics in the Long Eighteenth Century

11.00 – 12.15 Panel Sessions

  1. Writing Shared Futures:  African American Literature and Racialisation (British Association for American Studies – BAAS)
  2. Contemporary Women’s Writing and Book Publication Workshop (CWWA)
  3. Towards a Theory of Poetry Writing Development
  4. Close Reading and Queer Reputation-Building
  5. At the Borders of Globalisation
  6. Tomorrow’s English Today
  7. Don’t Give Up Your Day Job: Preparing Creative Writing Graduates for Lifelong Careers (NAWE)
  8. Creative Writing, Knowledge and Emancipatory Strategies
  9. The Future of the Victorians: Neo-Victorians (British Association for Victorian Studies – BAVS)
  10. PhD Network: Alternative Futures: 70/30 (NAWE)
  11. Audio-Visual Romanticism
  12. Contemporary Fiction, Method, Manifesto: Towards a Response
  13. Sharing Shakespeare’s Language (BSA)

12.30 – 1.45 Panel Sessions

  1. Literature, Science and Inbetween (British Society for Literature and Science BSLS)
  2. Publishing and Contemporary Women’s Writing Workshop (CWWA)
  3. From A Level to HE: Reading
  4. PhD Students Teaching Workshop (ECA) [Numbers limited, pre-booking required]
  5. On Reflection: Voice and Medium in the Reflective Component of Practice-Led Research
  6. Competence Modelling and English Literature
  7. Ethics in Creative Writing and Life Research (NAWE)
  8. Academics and Engaged Publics (British Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies)
  9. The Future of the Victorians: Digital Curation (BAVS)
  10. Global Futures
  11. Romanticism, Mutability and Mobilite
  12. Poetry Reading by US, UK and Australian Poets (NAWE)
  13. Multi-Cultural Textualities I
  14. CWWA meeting

2.00 – 3.15 Plenary – Language and the Problem of Female Authority, Deborah Cameron

3.30 – 4.45 Plenary Sessions

  1. Defining the Contemporary (Contemporary Studies Network)
  2. Literary Salon: John Mullan
  3. From A Level to HE: Writing
  4. Barriers to Access (ECA) [Numbers limited, pre-booking required]
  5. Creative Writing in Higher Education
  6. Public Linguistics and Impact
  7. Poetry: Form and Experiment Workshop (NAWE)
  8. Renaissance Literature Beyond the Canon (SRS)
  9. Integrating English project and Poetics and Linguistics Association
  10. Literature and the New Cognitive Science
  11. Romanticism and the Stigmatised: Transnationalism, Migration and Trauma
  12. The Environmental Humanities: Changing Ecologies, Persistence and Possibility
  13. Multi-Cultural Textualities II
  14. Employability and English Studies

5.00 – 6.15 Panel Sessions

  1. HE for Our Time (Institute of English Studies – IES)
  2. Literary Salon: Dinah Birch
  3. The Living Archive: Archives and Contemporary Poetry
  4. REF for PhDs and Early Career Academics (ECA)
  5. ECAs and PhDs in an Age of Anxiety (ECA)
  6. Englishes: Writing and Thinking in Multiple Voices
  7. Grassroot Feminist Novels of Sixties England / Celebrity Culture and Corruption in the Indian Graphic Novel Legends of Halahala / John Donne
  8. Sharing Futures Across Primary, Secondary and University Education (BSA)
  9. What Do We Do When We Analyse Texts? (Poetics and Linguistics Association)
  10. Divided by a Common Language: Creative Writing Discourse in the US, UK and Australia (NAWE)
  11. Romantic Liminology: A Roundtable Discussion
  12. The Environmental Humanities: The Interdependent Present
  13. Getting Ready for ‘The Modernist Party as Pedagogy’: A Critique of Role-Play in the Teaching of Modernism
  14. Harold Rosen Lecture

Friday 7th July

9.30 – 10.45 Panel Sessions

  1. HEA Fellowship Workshop
  2. Shared Subject Knowledge? English Across School, University, and PGCE
  3. The Past, Present and Future of Postcolonial Literary Studies
  4. BAME Roundtable (ECA)
  5. Paper Nations: Building a Creative nation for Young Writers (NAWE)
  6. Writing Workshop: The Poem as Witness: War and its Aftermath
  7. Sexual Harrassment
  8. What is the Industry Standard for Digital Research in English?
  9. Epic Transformation? Developing the English Curriculum at University
  10. Anglo-Saxon Futures I
  11. Neo-Victorian Mortalities
  12. Researching Living Writers
  13. Renaissance Literature: New Pedagogies (SRS)
  14. Wild Laughter: Performing Life/Staging Biography

11.00 – 12.15 Panel Sessions

  1. External Examining/Calibration (HEA)
  2. Teaching Through Imitation
  3. Career Development Workshop (ECA) [Numbers limited, pre-booking required]
  4. Shared Futures for Literary Theory I
  5. Writing for Health (Newcastle Centre for the Literary Arts)
  6. Shared Responsibility: Auto/Biography and the Ethics of Representation
  7. Contemporary British and American Poetics: the Trans-Atlantic Avant-Garde (Centre for Contemporary Poetry)
  8. Broadcasting English
  9. Englishes Online
  10. Anglo-Saxon Futures II
  11. Beyond the East/West Divide: Bangladesh as Travelling Culture in Monica Ali’s Brick Lane
  12. English Studies and Careers: Opening a Conversation
  13. Renaissance Literature: New Perspectives (SRS)
  14. National Literatures and New ‘Englishes’: Writing from Wales

12.30 – 1.45 Panel Sessions

  1. How to Grow an English Student (Common English Forum)
  2. Academics in the Classroom: How Can Universities Deliver English Outreach for Schools
  3. The Future of English Studies I: Periodisation (ECA)
  4. Shared Futures for Literary Theory II
  5. How Can Creative Writing for Therapeutic Purposes Support People to Improve their Mental Health
  6. Reflections on Time and Place: the Creative Writing PhD in Historical Fiction
  7. Hometowns and Influences (NAWE)
  8. Literary Research and Teaching in the Age of DH
  9. Literary Criticism in an Age of Radical Politics
  10. Awake and Present: a roundtable on why contemporary literary studies matters (British Association for Contemporary Literary Studies)
  11. Migrant Stories
  12. Stella Benson and I Pose / Ellen Terry and the Archives
  13. Reading (IES)
  14. Writing (out of) Wales

2.00 – 3.15 Plenary – Creative Writing, Lemn Sissay

3.30 – 4.45 Panel Sessions

  1. Diversity in Teaching and Learning (NAWE)
  2. Literary Salon: Marina Warner
  3. The Future of English Studies II: English Studies in Ruins? (ECA)
  4. Story as Medicine: Creative Writing Workshop
  5. Creativity and Research in the 21st Century (NAWE)
  6. Crossing Borders in the Nineteenth Century: Genre and Time
  7. Across the Great Divide: the Scientific Humanities and the Future of Digital Discipline
  8. Transnational Scholarship and the Digital Edition
  9. Difficult Identities: How the Academy and Literature Must Do Justice to their Own Complexity
  10. Music as Literature, Literature as Music
  11. Scholarly Editing in the 21st Century
  12. Migration and Borders

Hail and Farewell from Jan Parker, AHHEjournal Editor-in-Chief 2001-2016

Hail and Farewell from Jan Parker, Editor-in-Chief 2001-2016; continuing Founding Chair of the international research group and network

Arts and Humanities as Higher Education

 

Dedicated to those who made the journal happen:

Prof.s Lorna Hardwick and Elle Chambers, founders of the Higher Education Research Group in 1992: an international network of leading discipline researchers advocating for the Humanities as transformatory and the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) Arts subject centres they helped to set up and advise and who became the original UK Editorial Board

Prof. Mary Huber, Carnegie Academy for the Improvement of University Teaching, Prof. Kate Stimpson, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Science at New York University & former President of the Modern Languages Association (MLA) and Prof. Sean Brawley, founder Australasian Editor, now Head of Department of Modern History, Politics and International Relations, Macquarie University

And Sara Miller McCune, founder of Sage, who in 1997 approached us in HERG, proposing that we turn the Humanities & Arts International Network newsletter and website and the collected papers of the annual conference ‘Innovations in Teaching and Learning in the Humanities’ into the first Sage Humanities journal.

Ab Initio!

In the late 1990s when I was finishing my Higher Education Research Group inspired monograph on ‘teaching dialogic texts then and now’: Dialogic Education and The Problematics of Translation in Homer and Greek Tragedy, I was invited by Cornell’s Society for the Humanities to be part of the Writing in the Disciplines Cornell Consortium.

WiD’s mantra informed this journal’s mission statement: that you do not ‘do’ research and then ‘write up’ but rather that you transform as you write the discipline. What we needed to transform Humanities HE was transformative Humanities writing and this, the first international Arts and Humanities HE journal, to publish in: a journal for essays about innovations in disciplinary meaning-making and significance-highlighting processes. So,

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education seeks to:

  • Publish high quality, peer-reviewed articles that bring critical research to the fore and stimulate debate.
  • Serve the community of arts and humanities educators internationally, by publishing significant opinion and research into contemporary issues of teaching and learning within the domain. These will include enquiries into policy, the curriculum and appropriate forms of assessment, as well as developments in methods such as electronic modes of scholarship and course delivery.
  • Publish articles characterised by profound thought about both the interface between research and teaching in the subject in question and the transformational purposes of a higher education.
  • Promote re-conceptualisation of arts and humanities disciplines in ways that reflect, and reflect upon, teaching.

How have we done in fulfilling these objectives?

We have published international leaders’ exemplary essays (e.g. vol. 13.1-2, 2014 writings from and inspired by Arendt, Attridge, Barnett, Bhabha, Clarke, Deegan, Derrida, Evans, Heaney, Kanter, Mandela, Moltow, Ndebele, Nussbaum, Stimpson, Strathern, Tagore, New Voices and Editors).

And special international Issues on Teaching Literature vol. 6.2 (2007); Modern Languages vol. 10.2; Religion vol. 10.3 (2011); Digital Humanities vol. 11.1-2 (2012); Creative and Performing Arts vol. 12 2-3 (2013) and Reflective Conservatoire vol. 15 3-4 (2016).

With fora on Civic Engagement, Public Value of Arts and Humanities’ Research, Theorising Practice, Masculinities, CASTL & SoTL, Digital Storytelling and the forthcoming Special Issues on Tuning History; Dialogue in Theology & Philosophy, Narrative Medicine & Critique as a Signature Pedagogy in the Arts and Humanities, we have covered every and multiple Humanities and Arts disciplines.

And with State of Urgency: The Humanities in South Africa, vol. 15.1 (2016), A Humanities Manifesto for Europe & the forthcoming South American Intercultural University Models, we have published contributions from every area of the world.

So it is left for me to give happy thanks for the past and very best wishes for the future to the new Editor, Jan MacArthur, a great supporter of the journal since discussing the ideas which were to become her 2013 book Rethinking knowledge within higher education: Adorno and social justice.

And to give heartfelt thanks to the founding Editorial Board for 15 years of service:

Derek AttridgeYork University, UKRon BarnettInstitute for Education, UKRandall BassCenter for New Design of Learning & Scholarship, Georgetown University, USAMichael BérubéPennsylvania State University, USAAlan BoothUniversity of Nottingham, UKChrissie BougheyRhodes University, South AfricaRosi BraidottiUtrecht University, The NetherlandsJim ColemanUniversity Council of Modern Languages, Open University, UKSteven ConnorRegius Professor, Faculty of English, University of Cambridge, UKBrett de BaryCornell University, USAMarilyn DeeganDigital Humanities, King’s College London, UK Simon GoldhillCentre for Research in Arts, Social Science and Humanities, University of Cambridge, UKLorna HardwickThe Open University, Milton Keynes, UKPoul HolmDirector, Humanities Research Centre, Trinity College, Dublin, IrelandJonathan HolmesCreative and Performing Arts, University of Tasmania, AustraliaStanley N. KatzDirector, Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, United StatesBen KnightsTeesside University, UK Sherry LinkonGeorgetown University, USAAlan LiuEnglish Department, University of California, Santa BarbaraJohn Bosco LourdusamyIndian Institute of Technology Madras, IndiaPeter MandlerUniversity of Cambridge, UKDavid PaceIndiana University, USAOtto PetersFernuniversitat, Hagen, GermanyStephanie PittsDepartment of Music, University of Sheffield, UKKate StimpsonNew York University, USAPatrik SvenssonDirector, HUMlab, Umeå University, SwedenDavid TritelliAssociation of American Colleges and Universities, USAJohn UnsworthDirector, Illinois Informatics Institute, University of Illinois, USAPeter ValeChair of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, South AfricaGeoff WardPrincipal, Homerton College, University of Cambridge, UK

Jan Parker, University of Cambridge, December 2016

Teaching French History: An IHR Roundtable by Andrew WM Smith

ssfhlogo_right

 

Time is at the heart of what we do as historians, and how we teach our students. Daily, we’re confronted with a wide array of past presents and expired futures. Conceptually, our teaching is also committed to a belief in the future, and the urgent need to help students mobilise and develop the skills learned studying the past as they move beyond the classroom. In forging this link – or in engaging students enough to forge it themselves – teaching French history is both a particular privilege and a challenge.IHR_logo_128px

These challenges were the subject of a roundtable we held at a recent workshop on ‘Teaching and Research in French History’ held at the Institute of Historical Research in January 2017. Organised by Chris Millington, and funded by a British Academy Rising Star Engagement Award, this workshop built on another held last year, which explored ‘Teaching History in the 21st Century’. There, we’d sought to bring high school teachers and university lecturers together to help bridge the expectation gap between A Level and undergraduate study (both for students and for teachers). This time, we took that process one step further, seeking to bridge the gaps in our own experience.

Our roundtable at this conference was a somewhat rare opportunity for a conversation about teaching between those still finishing their PhDs (and those that just had) with a supportive community of Early Career Researchers (mostly 5 or so years on from the PhD).

One of the main subjects for discussion at the roundtable will be familiar to anyone that teaches the history of lands beyond this rainy island: how do you teach foreign language primary sources to resolutely Anglophone students? Published, translated source collections are scarce and so whilst we shared tips and compared notes on our favourites, we needed to look further. So we gazed enviously across the Rhine at the riches of ‘German History in Documents and Images’ (GHDI): curated, translated sources of varying types that cover whole periods with pertinent introductions. Oh, for a francophone equivalent!

Yet the object of our desire, we realised, lies mostly within our reach. We all work in archives, we all bring our research into our teaching, and we all translate (whether for use in our teaching, or for publishing with those that blanch at foreign tongues). We can’t perhaps dream in the same scale as our Teutonic colleagues, though we can collaborate more and more openly as young scholars. We discussed how wonderfully well-intentioned online syllabus collections can frighten off precariously employed post-docs, and how we’d been reluctant to contribute the sources that we’d personally translated and curated from archival documents. While we were open and supportive of collaboration and collegiality, we are also forced to defend our every asset in a competitive job market. As the idiom goes: why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Yet, if the tumult of contemporary politics had seemed to hollow out a belief in the future, we affirmed that our actions as researchers should seek to build new bridges, and that we ought to create new opportunities for sharing and collaboration in our own profession.

From here, we began to talk about what other sorts of sources that people used in their teaching, and what sorts of issues this raised. Film screenings are wonderful ideas, though it can be difficult to pitch these to students. One brave soul told how he’d had students sit ashen-faced through all four hours of The Sorrow and the Pity, but others professed that they’d consciously steered themselves towards screenings that would be more instantly accessible. To ensure that screenings promoted active learning and not simply entertainment some described breaking films into sections to be presented with framing commentary; others produced instructive handouts for students to take specific notes; others still asked students to review films the following week (both in their own words, and drawing on published reviews). Novels, plays, and music offered similar opportunities and challenges, suggesting different forms of emotional engagement that could enliven the pasts to which we address ourselves.

Performing snippets of plays or – heaven forfend – singing to students all seemed like useful ways to take learning beyond the page and encourage them to embody the past. So too did the use of objects suggest ways to elicit mutual story-telling and serve as anchors for complex discussions. How much more vibrant a discussion of the barricades of 1968 when we can pass a cobble stone around the room? Or, we might run our fingers across old coins to illustrate the quick march of regimes, comparing the symbolism of Republics and Empires as they rose and fell. Magazines too provided an engaging, tactile means of flicking through the past, and we discussed presenting printed copies of archival material to similar effect (where a departmental printer could become a samizdat press). Throughout this discussion, the focus was not on accumulating artefacts nor relying on storied museum collections at elite institutions, but on thinking of ways that material objects that we collect or create could serve as thematic gateways to the issues that we teach.

Well aware that those issues need be bound to our research, we also discussed how to proceed when, as PhDs and postdocs, we need to parcel together teaching posts across different institutions (and eras). The balance of finding ways to satisfy teaching agendas of departments and also appealing to students is a delicate one indeed. We looked at how using even one primary source from our own research in a broad survey course could be a liberating experience that helped establish a bridgehead for our work within tight teaching constraints. Likewise, the internet offers opportunities to access source collections which could enable students to establish their own bridgeheads: publishing blogs, reports and projects based on topics that matched our inherited learning outcomes. Pointing classes towards the GHDI, the Old Bailey Online, or many other archival repositories could encourage them to take up their role in the creation of knowledge and establish portfolios for future work. Focussing on the process of research, and looking to communicate beyond the academy allows us the opportunity to make the teaching of history an education with the future firmly in mind.

The most pressing theme throughout our discussion was the need to ensure students acted as producers and not consumers. Whether it be through engaging with different types of sources, sparking a new engagement through the use of objects, or by letting students become researchers themselves, the ultimate goal was to emphasise the agency of those in our classrooms and lecture halls.

What, then, is the trick to teaching French History? That’s a difficult question, but for our part it lay in navigating the pressures of precarity, forging supportive networks, and ensuring that historical thinking is a force for progressive action.

Andrew WM Smith, February 2017

 

The evil of banality: Arendt revisited by Elizabeth Minnich

Elizabeth Minnich-Evil Cover‘Is our ability to judge, to tell right from wrong, beautiful from ugly, dependent upon our faculty of thought? Do the inability to think and a disastrous failure of what we commonly call conscience coincide?…. An answer, if at all, can come only from the thinking experience, the performance itself, which means that we have to trace experiences rather than doctrines.’ (Arendt, 2003: 159, 167)

Introduction

In an interview, a man who worked as a killer-of-Tutsis thinks back to a particular day during the three months of the Rwandan genocide. He remembers one of his many victims: ‘Me, I knew this old man by name, but I had heard nothing unpleasant about him. That evening I told my wife everything, we did not discuss it, and I went to sleep’ (Hatzfeld, 2005: 22). The killing was a job, not a vendetta; it was nothing personal; working hours pretty well contained it. The killers could sleep well and, next day, continue their work. For many years, I have been asking myself, how could they do it? What was going on in the minds of those whose job it was to kill, to colonize, in the Third Reich, Armenia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo—too many times and places? What were they thinking when they faced their victims, among them acquaintances, friends, unthreatening strangers, and workers they saw every day? How can people enslave, exploit unto death, rape as an act of war and genocide, and traffic in children?

It is a very old and always searingly new question to which there are many responses. Two of the most basic conclusions to which I have come are these: no great harm to many people could ever be perpetrated if distorted systems had to rely on sadists to do it, nor would great good affecting many people happen if we had to depend on saints. And: people who are not thinking are capable of anything. I have learned that when systems go bad, when the extraordinary becomes ordinary, it does not take a Hitler, an Idi Amin, a Jeffrey Dahmer, a Charles Manson. It just takes a practiced conventionality, a cliche´d conscience, emotional conformity, susceptibility to small-scale bribery by salary, goods, and/or status, a sense of isolation, and distrust of the reliability of others that works against taking a differing public stand. It just takes, that is, much of what in better times keeps a society provided with reliable and ambitious workers, status-anxious consumers, polite neighbors, agreeable team players, and citizens who make no waves: an ability to go along thoughtlessly, to play the game. These are challenging things to say or ought to be. I have worked as an educator on the college and university level for more than a few decades and have come to believe that education may be our last, best, and perhaps—given the record of other social, economic, and political institutions, most assuredly including religious—our only hope of making Never again anything other than a tragically failed cry of the heart.

Hannah Arendt’s ‘banality of evil’ and the evil of banality

In the late-1960s, I returned from a Fulbright fellowship to teach and to study classic Indian dance (Bharat Natyam) in Gujarat, India, to graduate work in political science and theory at the University of California, Berkeley, and then philosophy at the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research, where the first course I took was Hannah Arendt’s ‘Political Experiences of the 20th Century.’ Those were stormy, fascinating, and irregular times. I wrote my first paper for Arendt asking, how could so many deeply idealistic Communists in the early days have failed to see, and to stop, what was happening as Stalin took power? It was extraordinarily difficult, I had to realize, to think outside of the ways they had for so long thought, and to question what they had believed so fully that it had given meaning to virtually all moments of their daily lives. They were not blinded ideologues, they were people who needed to make sense of things, as we all do, who found it exceedingly difficult to do so if everything they had believed in, figured out, lived by was implicated, now, in violently negating its own premises and promises. In short, they were in extraordinary circumstances, horrifying ones, but I no longer found them unusual.

Reflecting on Arendt’s work and its early reception by good people who were deeply pained, I thought that perhaps it would have helped had she spoken first of ‘the evil of banality,’ a phrase she never used, rather than ‘the banality of evil.’ The evil of banality has haunted my thinking ever since, as has Arendt’s use of ‘thoughtlessness’ to describe what was most extreme, most striking, about the man on trial in Jerusalem.

So, whatever else I have been doing, studying, teaching and writing, I have continued to try to get in close to what people caught up in extraordinary events as perpetrators, as resisters, as immediate observers were thinking. I have worked in Academe, where the emphasis is more on knowing, interpreting, testing, theorizing than it is on just trying to understand. But I have increasingly felt that understanding what perpetrators and those who resisted them thought they were doing, how they made sense of it all, was the single most morally pressing question I could ask about human beings, creatures and creators of meaning that we are. But, while the individual is finally where moral responsibility lies, it is also important to emphasize that all the many systems within which we live our lives matter a great deal.

Read more http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474022213513543

Elizabeth Minnich-Evil Coverhttp://amzn.to/2k8NrDW

 

 

Highly Personal Exceptional Visions…

Karen J Leadertrump-berger (1)

I admit to being unusually disarmed by the pairing of a film still of the young and brilliant John Berger (1926-2017) with a distinctly unflattering photo of the then president-elect of the United States, Donald J. Trump. A clickbaity move by Salon, the pairing draws us academic types in through our own mourning of the recently deceased Berger, the first “celebrity” death of the new year. Instantly recognizable from his iconic BBC series “Ways of Seeing,” the long-haired art historian with rock-star looks jumps out from beyond the grave, warning us of the mystifications inherent in the analysis of images, which occlude evidence of exploitation, oppression, objectification, or class struggle. The keen edge of every sentence, the razor blade he uses to “cut up” a Botticelli, these are fresh in our grieving minds, having re-watched the series or reread the book, to forestall the feeling of loss, despite his long life, well lived.

How do we see Mr. Trump through Berger’s eyes? The mugging, shrugging, unserious and shockingly incurious reality TV star billionaire exudes artifice. The presence of the American flag pin (was it made in China like most of his products?) clings to an expensive but ill-fitting suit. The fake tan and comb-over bespeak someone utterly lacking aesthetic discernment.

The colliding of the two works into one banner image accompanies art writer Noah Charney’s meditation on “Why art history might be the most important subject you could study today.” Charney, reflecting on Brexit, the near axing in the UK of the art history A-Level exam, and the American election of Donald Trump, turns to Berger as a provider of armor against fake news in visual form: “He is the most overt of art historians who taught us how to see differently. That is about as good an argument as I can think of for why art history is an important field of study, and a good antidote to the narrow-minded, horse-blinder mentality that plagues many politicians and American citizens, and perhaps even certain presidents who need not be mentioned.” Touting the interdisciplinarity of art history, and its relation to optics, psychology, and a multitude of other fields, Charney suggests that the visual acuity demanded of art history fosters an ability to “open one’s mind to alternative viewpoints.”

OK to be fair, the visual pairing of these two figures is completely, and utterly incongruous, to the point of absurdity. The two men share a photoshopped field, a pale blue background unifying their space, and jockey for positional hierarchy. Mr. Trump in the foreground shrugs, smirks and squints, his demeanor is evidence of the emptiness of his utterance. Mr. Berger wins. You can see it in his eyes.

The designer who crafted the above banner chose his Berger image carefully. The eyes are animated, the mouth shaped around a brilliant utterance. And of course, there is the caption, freezing the exact moment from “Ways of Seeing” that these words are spoken. Those who know the series or the book, recognize that Berger’s description of “their own highly personal and exceptional visions” is not a compliment to the artists, it is the language of mystification. It is verbiage as interpretively slippery as Mr. Trump’s use of “tremendous” or “terrific” or “beautiful” or “best;” empty rhetoric that masks ideological obfuscation. Mr. Trump describes a “beautiful” wall, which in reality is an ugly barrier to keep out brown people. He brags of an electoral victory that was huge. It was not.

My colleague Shaoni Bhattacharya has already launched the conversation here at AHHE about how we might utilize our research to borrow some of the successful tactics of the ascendant authoritarians: “Charismatic leaders, as some might say Trump is, know how to tap into the primeval human mind. An emotive message switches on brain pathways that are hard to reverse with straightforward facts later…Add to that the power of groups – being persuaded that you are a member of any type of group – can cloud individual judgment, however smart you are, and it’s hard to overturn emotionally-seeded opinions.” Emotional appeals seem unserious, and playing to the passions is the domain of the demagogue. And yet linguists and others have for years been saying to personalize the message, to tell stories. So Bhattacharya might be worth paying attention to, especially in the realm of the visual.

The censorship of images usually stems from the belief that they bypass the rational mind. In the nineteenth century caricatures, a newly caustic form of criticism in France, met particularly harsh restriction from the censor’s scissors. Seen to speak directly to the eyes and emotions, and thus incite violence, caricature, as a visual medium, threatened power. In our visually saturated 21st-century, with the world coming to us through our devices and our screens, in an almost inescapable barrage, what has the power to speak to our eyes, open them to alternative viewpoints, allow us to separate the fake or falsified from the witnessed, the testimonial? Art history can help hone and refine our discernment, but also trains us to recognize, beyond the what, exactly how images mean.

A poet, novelist, screenwriter and art critic, Mr. Berger’s vision was exceptional, his writing often highly personal. In an essay called “On Visibility” Berger wrote: “Not to say that behind appearances is the truth, the Platonic way. It is very possible that visibility is the truth and that what lies outside visibility are only the ‘traces’ of what has been or will become visible.” In the image above Berger is coming into visibility, staring us down and compelling us to look, to hold the gaze, to refuse to look away. Watch this space.

#ArtHistoryEngaged – you can follow the author on Twitter @proftinkerbell.

References:

John Berger, “On Visibility” (1977-78) in The Sense of Sight: Writings by John Berger (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985), 219.

Shaoni Bhattacharya, “The Brexit/Trump Phenomenon: Why did they happen, and what are the ramification for arts and humanities higher education?” Arts and Humanities As Higher Education (December 7, 2016.) http://www.artsandhumanities.org/uncategorized/the-brexittrump-phenomenon-why-did-they-happen-and-what-are-the-ramifications-for-arts-and-humanities-higher-education/

Noah Charney, “The art of learning: Why art history might be the most important subject you could study today” Salon (January 15, 2017) http://www.salon.com/2017/01/15/the-art-of-learning-why-art-history-might-be-the-most-important-subject-you-could-study-today/

Author Biography

Karen J. Leader is Associate Professor of Art History, and Faculty Associate in the Center for Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Florida Atlantic University. Her activities on behalf of art history and the humanities can be found here. You can follow her on Instagram and Twitter @proftinkerbell.