Some Humanists Should Not Go to Prison
SOME HUMANISTS SHOULD
NOT GO TO PRISON
The title Why
All Humanists Should Go to Prison is
ambiguous and ironic, a good match for the argument Alex Tipei made in The Chronicle of Higher Education,
September 25, 2018. Tipei is a liberal
idealist who wishes to convince academics that "humanists can at once help
reimagine the prison as a space of reform and reaffirm the humanities as a
relevant mode of learning." Her
argument is provocative. It reminds us
that outmates can learn a great deal
from volunteering to teach inmates, can learn what the art of teaching
might be in the panoptical confines of a jail or prison. Nevertheless, Tipei fails to specify which
humanists are fit to have face-to-face conversations with inmates.
We know that a
substantial number of humanists have difficulty in communicating their expertise
to outmates in public settings. Ought we not have second and third thoughts about how
effectively they might communicate with incarcerated adult women and men, how effectively they might teach traumatized or nihilistic juveniles. How many privileged humanists have the compassion, juice, humility, and
patience that is a prerequisite for intervening in the lives of the imprisoned?
It is reasonable to guess that few of
them have these qualities, and they ought
never darken a prison door, unless they have committed acts that warrant their
being inmates. Tipei's vision is blurred
by the thick smoke of good intentions.
Tipei fails to account for diversity in how prisons,
especially for-profit prisons, are administered and for the fact that the
American criminal justice system is predicated on desires to punish rather than
desires to rehabilitate. It is merely
romantic (and truly safe) to associate volunteering to teach in a jail with the
debatable "reimagining" that colors the humanities. Volunteering
entails risks, including the risk of empathizing with inmates as one struggles
to help them enhance their minds.
Tipei lucked out in
being able to teach "a master's level theory and methods course" in
Indiana Women's Prison. A more typical
scenario entails teaching basics in writing, reading comprehension, science,
mathematics, and social studies (the five sections of the HiSet Exam inmates
have to pass in order to obtain high school equivalency) and reassuring inmates that their minds must not be
wasted. Thus, there is a greater need to
cultivate hope and mastery in the fundamentals of learning than to invest
energy in academic theorizing. Praxis
matters. There is a greater need to say
to imprisoned students "I refuse to
allow you to fail yourself." There are exceptions, of course, especially
in federal prisons that house many of our nation's intellectuals.
Tipei's pondering "questions concerning technology and
pedagogy" is valuable at a time when fit humanists should apply the
pedagogy of the oppressed to reduce the damage effected by American systems of
criminal injustice. But I must emphasize that only fit humanists who can employ
the habits of the heart with brutal honesty
and absence of bad faith should "go to prison." The other humanists should remain in college
and university classrooms and help entitlement-afflicted outmates to have
epiphanies about their unspoken status as inmates of a different kind, about
their reluctance to acknowledge that their nation is an existential prison, a
space of panoptical confinement.
Jerry W. Ward, Jr. September 25, 2018
Comments
Post a Comment