Page 53 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 53
r. šribar ■ study in the virtual class: doings of feminist pedagogy ...
the same manner. Besides, I try to interpret my experiences sincerely
and in a dignified manner;
- suggesting that the students define their location at the intersection
of social divisions, and survey their pre-existing knowledge of the re-
search subject in the introductory part of the seminar or exam essay;
besides, students are inspired to articulate a strategic plan to improve
a social issue (“policy paper”) in the conclusion of the essay;
- expressing an emotional charge when I feel it while theoretically
confronting systemic and structural discrimination and exclusion;
I typically explicitly relate such a display of emotions to the need for
active citizenship;
- conceiving grades as a structural must, and trying to put more ef-
fort than usual into the descriptive evaluation of the students’ work.
When possible, I discuss together with the students their aural and
written deliveries according to the pre-formulated criteria, and de-
cide on each grade; and
- using certain themes with every study subject to formulate the basic
epistemic framework needed; such thematic involvement is in line
with the feminist knowledge and usable in every discipline, at least
when studying humanities and/or social sciences.
Certain epistemic issues brought to light by feminist lenses restruc-
ture our perception of teaching and research. The following conceptual-
isations are the crucial theoretical tools I use to expose in all my lecture
courses.
- “Partial objectivity”, “situated knowledges”, subject/object relation,
and “positioning” (Haraway, 1999, pp. 298–309; Vendramin, 2009,
pp. 64–66) in the study and research processes; these concepts are in
opposition to thinking “traditional” objectivity and universal truth
as epistemic facts.
- The knowledge–ignorance relationship, and the taxonomy of igno-
rance (Tuana & Sullivan, 2006; Šribar, 2015, p. 50) and by analysing
ignorance as a produced socio-cultural and political phenomenon of
knowledge (science included) become transparent. The deconstruc-
tion of knowledge and ignorance implementing governmentality,
capital, and gender perspective.
- The deconstruction of unjust socio-cultural hierarchies, academic
institutions included; I consider hierarchies/axes of social divisions
to be social constructions, which are the main structural and ideo-
logical/mental obstacles to the possibility of thinking human equal-
ity and equity.
51
the same manner. Besides, I try to interpret my experiences sincerely
and in a dignified manner;
- suggesting that the students define their location at the intersection
of social divisions, and survey their pre-existing knowledge of the re-
search subject in the introductory part of the seminar or exam essay;
besides, students are inspired to articulate a strategic plan to improve
a social issue (“policy paper”) in the conclusion of the essay;
- expressing an emotional charge when I feel it while theoretically
confronting systemic and structural discrimination and exclusion;
I typically explicitly relate such a display of emotions to the need for
active citizenship;
- conceiving grades as a structural must, and trying to put more ef-
fort than usual into the descriptive evaluation of the students’ work.
When possible, I discuss together with the students their aural and
written deliveries according to the pre-formulated criteria, and de-
cide on each grade; and
- using certain themes with every study subject to formulate the basic
epistemic framework needed; such thematic involvement is in line
with the feminist knowledge and usable in every discipline, at least
when studying humanities and/or social sciences.
Certain epistemic issues brought to light by feminist lenses restruc-
ture our perception of teaching and research. The following conceptual-
isations are the crucial theoretical tools I use to expose in all my lecture
courses.
- “Partial objectivity”, “situated knowledges”, subject/object relation,
and “positioning” (Haraway, 1999, pp. 298–309; Vendramin, 2009,
pp. 64–66) in the study and research processes; these concepts are in
opposition to thinking “traditional” objectivity and universal truth
as epistemic facts.
- The knowledge–ignorance relationship, and the taxonomy of igno-
rance (Tuana & Sullivan, 2006; Šribar, 2015, p. 50) and by analysing
ignorance as a produced socio-cultural and political phenomenon of
knowledge (science included) become transparent. The deconstruc-
tion of knowledge and ignorance implementing governmentality,
capital, and gender perspective.
- The deconstruction of unjust socio-cultural hierarchies, academic
institutions included; I consider hierarchies/axes of social divisions
to be social constructions, which are the main structural and ideo-
logical/mental obstacles to the possibility of thinking human equal-
ity and equity.
51
