Thread by @PaulWHankins

In my COMM 594 class, we are considering "conflict management" theory. In my discussion post, I cite connections to THE CRUCIBLE. Classmate, Kristi, responds: "It's pretty nifty how conflict management theory can be just a stone's throw away from literary analysis." New Idea. Go.

In interest of #DisruptText, we might miss that the text had already been disrupted as many are: by being innately disconnected from other possible "truths." This is one of the dangers of "covering" titles and texts. And one of the reasons for standards asking two or more texts.

Kristi suggests the Elizabeth Proctor we see in Act IV demonstrates what Omdahl and Fritz (2006) call "cognitive reappraisal" as a means of symbolizing her character's presence as a means to "characterize and sustain resilience." Whether Miller knew this or not isn't essential.

What is essential (and revealing) here is that, in seventeen years, I had never thought to pair text regarding conflict management theory to THE CRUCIBLE. This is how we might #DisruptText in bringing in more (thought not to be) connected content area into the book. Deeper look.

Part of the problem of canonized literature is that it only provides a "look back." And this can frame the book and its characters as a source of folly. Worthy of shame. And blame. What is missing are the the ability to "look in" and to "look forward" if we must cover the canon.

In order to #DisruptText, we can look, too, to disrupting the response to that text. Classic: How does John Proctor fit the descriptions of Aristotle's "tragic hero." Thirty responses come back to show you what any reader of the play would know with a little "front-loading."

Disrupted Response/#DisruptText example: Consulting and citing one or all of Omdahls social discourses in "The Role of Emotion in Problematic Relationships in the Work Space," analyze the thoughts, words, and actions of a character and the impact of these upon self and others."

With this "looking back to look in" we can use one text to explore more deeply another. Both are "disrupted" from their moorings as "literary canon" and "contemporary theory." They work together as one to center the deeper parts of a character to be explored/measured against.

In my head, having quickly explored the social discourses against what I know of Parris, Hale, and Danforth, we can bring in "conflict management theory" to disrupt those called to "keep the peace" and uphold the "sacred purpose." We move beyond analyzing John Proctor.

Challenging Question (for me too). For how many years have we read THE CRUCIBLE and kept John, by reflection and analysis, in the "cross" hairs even though he is seemingly delivered to self and in the eyes of his God within the play? It's September. Time to exhume Proctor again.

I think this is what my tangential (and heartened) participation within #DisruptTexts has been about since it was introduced. Not to replace literature, but to really investigate WHY this literature. If it's all look back and no look in or look forward, yes, it's suspect to me.

A fundamental piece, as I see it, of #DisruptTexts, is literature within a classroom is not a sort of effort to convert all users to My Pillow. But, to afford readers (those thinkers and dreamers and doers) a place to see and to explore and to talk and to push and. . .disrupt.

Consider a scenario wherein a teacher brings a text he, she, or they "love." They've "loved" it for years. What is the dynamic in the room now when the young people do not reciprocate this love? Or use love languages to express appreciation? Quiet shame? Relationship disrupt?

The big edu-mantra right now is to "Know the Why." Too many times, our focus (and what we seem to know or believe is on What (X).

X=It's on the List. X=We have a class set of these." X=We've always read this book in _____ grade."

Where is the wh(Y)?

Watch: "The treatment of X reveals Y suggesting Z." This is a thesis stem that will work all day. In #DisruptTexts, if the X is what we've listed above, the book never really mattered, did it? Y (issues) presenting after X has been nailed down means teaching eclipses learning.

It's a longer conversation around THE CRUCIBLE, but it is almost time for this play to resurface in many classrooms. From a group wherein teachers are contemplating building an "escape room" for the book, this is a suggested clue (give me another tweet to present it, please):

"Alone in a village of ghostly white, the weight of the whipping added to her fright; the trouble of the house falling on her back, she spends the play wrapped in black. Who is she?"

Who sees a problem with the puzzle here? And our need to really push. . .disrupt. . .the text?