This is an entry in a series of guest blog posts in which members share teaching strategies and reflect on classroom experiences. In the following post, Kevin DeLapp of Converse College shares his experiences using chinoiserie to prepare students for approaching Chinese philosophy. Find all of the posts in this series under the category In the Classroom.

When I teach classical Chinese philosophy, one of the pedagogical hurdles I encounter early in the semester is the fact that students often harbor a variety of assumptions which shade their first encounters with the primary sources. Many of these assumptions are recognizably “Orientalist”, in the sense popularized and critiqued by Edward Said.[1]
 
It’s typically not the case that students are intentionally antagonistic toward classical China. They’re there voluntarily (it’s an elective course) and are genuinely excited to learn about the subject. But many of the assumptions they bring to the primary sources are drawn from random popular and contemporary depictions of ancient China. (And, at least at my institution, this course might be their one and only class on anything having to do with China, so there are few other mechanisms I can rely on to mitigate against such assumptions.) For this reason, initial interpretive efforts can easily slide into what Martha Nussbaum has dubbed the two “descriptive vices” of studying foreign cultures: chauvinism, which can play out in terms of viewing the Chinese material as primitive and pre-philosophical; and romanticism, a generally more receptive stance, but one that nevertheless projects upon the material a condescending innocence and exoticism.[2]
 
How to confront these biases? Starting the class off by moralizing about Orientalism tends to be confrontational and alienating. And having them read a bunch of hermeneutic theory (such as Said or Nussbaum) is intimidating and diverts precious time from an already crowded syllabus. Instead, as a more engaging way of foregrounding these questions of cross-cultural interpretation, I’ve turned to artworks from Europe’s early modern encounter with China—a genre that certainly had its own share of chauvinism and romanticism. The orientalist biases evident in these artworks tend to strike students as obvious in a pedagogically useful way: once they recognize the cultural distortions at work in the art, they can better recognize and avoid their own hermeneutic pitfalls. In this way, the use of such artworks exercise helps instantiate Confucius’s advice to learn even from poor examples: “When walking with two other people, I will always find a teacher among them. I focus on those who are good and seek to emulate them, and focus on those who are bad in order to be reminded of what needs to be changed in myself” (Analects 7.22).[3]
 
Toward this end, within the first week or two of the term, I devote part of a class period to showing them several different representatives of chinoiserie—a movement that swept the arts and fashions of seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe, and aimed at imitating what its European practitioners took to be “Chinese” aesthetics (“chinoiserie” is just French for “Chinese-y”). Much of this genre is innocent, even playful. (That’s another pedagogical advantage of the exercise: it’s visually fun and interactive.) The overwhelming majority of Europeans had very little direct knowledge of China, and so it became a convenient entity upon which to foist fantasias and idylls. Chinoiserie appealed to rich Europeans’ desire to present themselves as worldly, curious, and esoteric. At the same time, by monetizing and aestheticizing stereotypes about another culture, these artworks conditioned a damaging hermeneutic in which contemporary American students can still find themselves derivatively in the grip.
 
As an example, I have my class consider a variety of chinoiserie images such as these two vases, which decorated the rooms of Madame de Pompadour, mistress to Louis XV, at Versailles.
​













​

This semester at Yale-NUS College, I was a member of an instructional team responsible for teaching a course in our Common Curriculum: Philosophy and Political Thought (PPT). Perhaps unusually for many schools, the first exposure to philosophy that students have here at YNC is decidedly not Eurocentric. We begin with Chinese philosophy, move to Greek and Roman philosophy, and conclude with Indian philosophy. This course runs for two concurrent semesters: the first focuses on ancient and medieval thought, the second takes us up to the modern era. The instructional week begins with an opening lecture, which all first-year students attend, and then there are two seminar meetings, attended by smaller groups.

As one of the skills we focus on as a teaching team is close reading, I decided to assign students a weekly annotation. I used a platform which I’ve used before: Classroom Salon (CS). The CS platform is online and freely accessible, thanks to Carnegie-Mellon University. In this blog post, I’ll explain how CS works, how I use it for my class, and evaluate its pros and cons.

​Students sign up for a free CS membership. This then lets them sign up for “salons” which are collections of videos, texts, and PDFs that they can annotate. In addition to the annotating ability, they also have the chance to comment on annotations. The idea is that this keeps the text (or video) central, unlike in discussion boards, but it allows students to engage with each other’s analysis. (See screen shots below.)

​The platform allows instructors to download data for analysis into a spreadsheet, as well as to view analytics online. You can see, for instance, for a particular document, how often students are contributing, and who is contributing most. You can view conversations individually, rather than all of them at once next to the document. You can also look at analytics for a single student, such as which documents she’s contributed to most often, and how long her comments are, how many times she’s replied, and so on. This makes grading easier, if you decide to grade annotations (more on which later). It also gives you a sense of which students are really engaging with the texts.

In my class, I assigned my students a shorter section of our text each week that they had to annotate. Initially, the assignments were very open, and then we talked about what kinds of annotations they were making. The requirements were simply that they made three comments, asked three questions, and then gave replies to two of their classmates’ comments and two of their classmates’ questions. In addition, there was a thematic question each week that they replied to in a few sentences. As the semester went on, the students set these questions to prepare the class for the short discussions they each had to lead.

​Depending on what the focus of their papers were (there were three course-wide paper assessments, each focusing on a different skillset), I adjusted the kinds of annotations they were required to perform. For instance, when we began to focus on argumentation, I asked them to identify reasons for claims, ask questions about how reasons were related to each other. The annotation process became pedagogically valuable when we came to reading some Indian commentaries on the Bhagavad Gītā—they were already familiar with the ways in which one might analyze a text, and they could understand what the commentators were doing.

Their last paper focuses on evaluation of arguments, with the possibility for some comparison between philosophers and traditions. I am asking them to select one text to annotate from the last three readings, based on which they will write their paper on. The goal is for them to see how writing a paper evaluating arguments from a text still begins with the close reading skills they learned early in the course.

The CS annotations have allowed me to do a number of things with in-class time. First, I sometimes have students talk about a conversation thread that occurs on the Salon. We can assess both the text and its arguments as well as the discussion students have about it. Second, I can see where students are having confusion—CS constructs a heatmap to show where the most comments are on a text.  If there is a widespread misunderstanding, I can decide how to address it before seminar begins. Third, I have assigned in-class short writing assignments which extend the work they’ve done on CS.

I will definitely use CS for one more semester, since I think it will take a few trials to work out all of the bugs in my use of it in the class. It has had some tangible benefits for me and the students. It has allowed the quieter students to feel confident about their voices. A few students have expressed to me that knowing others also have questions helps make them feel less worried about not knowing. CS is not only an incentive for them to do their reading, but it gives me confidence that they have read a section closely. I can see the kinds of reading they are doing and see where there are common misunderstandings—for instance, students all using “circular argument” in a certain (incorrect) manner, and agreeing among themselves that a philosopher is committing this fallacy.

The downside of CS is that it is labor-intensive. While the platform has a a lot of analytics you can use for assessment, it has some limitations. There’s no way that I can see for it to be automatically plugged into Canvas or Blackboard to generate a score. The raw data can be overwhelming if you aren’t comfortable with spreadsheet manipulation, and sometimes the breakouts of individual students and document analytics are unclear. There were times when the count of replies listed on the summary didn’t seem to match the count from the data download. Finally, students also cannot see the answers they write to the thematic question, which I found limiting for sparking conversation.

​Too, while the students sometimes enjoy the experience of annotating, as the semester goes on it becomes more a task to be completed perfunctorily. To my mind, six annotations of one’s own and four on other annotations is not a lot—especially since in the course of reading, students ought to have formulated at least six responses to the text internally. However, not all students share this feeling. Next semester we will have more conversation about how many questions good readers have as they go along. Finally, as you might suspect, setting up the assignment with points per annotation requires me to do a significant amount of grading weekly.

Next semester’s plan is to tie the annotations more closely to writing assignments and class time. This takes into account some of the feedback I got from students about the platform (I gave them a survey tailored specifically to CS). While most of them rated the use of CS highly, some saying that it “revolutionized” their reading, and it impacted how they approached reading in other classes, quite a few of them found it disconnected from the classroom. While it is inevitable that, in a class with significant reading, not all of the reading will be discussed in class, I think I can use the CS annotations more skillfully. Here’s my plan:

• ​Students individually annotate assigned text between Friday and Tuesday. At least three annotations, one must be a question. They will not see their peers’ annotations until after this period—this is another feature to the platform which I only used once or twice, but students found valuable. Students then respond to classmates’ annotations Wednesday and Thursday: at least two responses, one must be to a question. They will see everyone’s annotations at this point. CS is graded weekly for completion, due midnight Thursday. Unless five annotations have been completed, zero points will be awarded. (This relieves me of the significant grading burden.)
• Going beyond the minimum requirements in CS will help their overall participation grade. As part of their participation grade, each student chooses one most “productive question” from CS to raise for class discussion in Friday seminar. A randomly-chosen student shares the question to open Friday discussion. That student will explain (1) why they selected the question, (2) what their answer to the question is, and (3) what they think of other answers (if any). As well, each week students will have homework assignments, which I will frequently plan in connection with the CS annotations. Finally, this semester I will engage with students on CS, joining the conversation to answer a few questions or nudge the conversation forward.

We are excited to share the conference program for the most recent Meeting of the STCP, held July 23 and 24, 2015, at Drake University (Des Moines, Iowa). 

July 23, 10 to 2: Panel Presentations

• Jeremy Henkel A Buddhist Theory of Moral Sentiments?
• Aaron Creller Interdisciplinary Bookending: Using Questions to Integrate Inquiries in Cross-Listed Comparative Courses
• Amy Donahue Teaching Asian Philosophies and Religions Decolonially
• Kevin DeLapp Cultivating the Impossible Black Tulip    

​Lunch Break 12 to 1:30

• Sarah Mattice Religions or Traditions: Problematizing the Category of 'Religion' through Field Work in China

2 to 3: Special Session on The Comparison Project with Tim Knepper

3:30 to 5: Keynote Session with Jennifer McCrickerd

• The Science and Psychology of Learning: Understanding How Our Students (and We) Learn

July 24, 9 to 12:30: Workshops

• Teaching Tactics with Sarah Mattice and Aaron Creller
• Syllabus Design with Amy Donahue and Jeremy Henkel
• Teaching Religious Texts in Translation with Gereon Kopf

1:30 to 3: Keynote Session with Erin McCarthy

• Contemplative Education and the Practice of Comparative Studies

3:30 to 5: Keynote Session with Ben Lukey

• p4c Hawaii and the Development of Inquiry-Based Teaching in Philosophy and Religion Classrooms

The STCP is grateful to Drake University's Center for the Humanities and the Wabash Center for Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion, located at Wabash College and fully funded by Lilly Endowment Inc., for their generous support, which has made our conference possible.

I just got back from a great summer teaching workshop sponsored by the Wabash Center for Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion, and I want to let the STCP community know about resources that the Wabash Center offers. The session I attended was part of the 2014–15 Workshop for Pre-Tenure Religion Faculty at Colleges and Universities. This workshop series is geared toward pre-tenure faculty teaching classes in either religious studies or theology. But those in comparative philosophy who teach in a combined philosophy and religion department, who teach courses on Asian traditions for a religion department, or who teach courses that are cross-listed with a religion department, can check with the Wabash Center about their eligibility. Between the participants and the facilitators in the workshop I attended, four of us were specialists in Asian traditions--some with backgrounds in religious studies, some in philosophy, and some in philosophy of religion. As you might imagine, all of us had considerable overlap in the types of classes and course content that we teach at the undergraduate level. One of the best parts of the workshop, for me, was getting to learn about how colleagues in religious studies teach the material that I also cover in my philosophy classes.

The workshop offered meetings on designing syllabi, developing assignments, assessing student work, and sharing teaching tactics. My time there was amazingly productive and rewarding, and I still have two upcoming sessions in 2015 to look forward to. I hope this brief blog post will encourage others in the STCP community to consider the teaching resources available through the Wabash Center. You can learn more about the workshops they offer here, as well as grants here.

We had an enriching, informative, productive, and fun time at the STCP's inaugural meeting at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville, Feb. 28-March 1, 2014. It was so valuable to gather together with other teachers in the field of comparative philosophy, to share ideas, discuss common problems, and brainstorm with each other about possible strategies and solutions. I think we all came away feeling invigorated about our work as teachers and optimistic about implementing many new ideas in our classrooms.    

We began our first symposium panel with with a presentation by Jeremy Henkel (Wofford College), "Structuring Introductory Comparative Philosophy Courses: Around Topics or Traditions?" Jeremy talked us through a persistent problem for comparative philosophy teachers--Do we organize our syllabi around topics (identity, metaphysics, etc.) or around traditions (Greek philosophy, Buddhism, African philosophy, etc). Too often our choices for topics are dominated by terms of discourse set by the Western canon. That said, our choices of traditions too often obscure the diversity that makes neat categories such as "Buddhism" questionable. Jeremy presented a variety of approaches to mediate these problems, centered on his ideas for organizing a new world philosophy textbook.

Our morning symposium continued with Aaron Creller's (University of Hawai’i at Mānoa) "Introducing the World: Making Time for Islamic and Chinese Material Alongside the Western Canon." Aaron presented several well-designed course modules, designed to allow professors to easily slot sessions on Islamic or Chinese philosophy into introductory philosophy classes.

Our next presentation was by Andrew Lambert (Western New England University) on "Integrating Chinese Thought and Debates in 'Western' Philosophy." Andy offered a range of creative solutions to one of the problems brought up in Jeremy's presentation, the issue of using topics from Western philosophy to organize all class material. Instead of using common themes from Western discourses (e.g., mind-body dualism, utilitarianism vs. deontology), Andy suggested a variety of organizational strategies on themes such as tradition, ritual, family, and guanxi 關係, which are rooted in the Chinese tradition but flexible and broad enough to organize a variety of philosophical material.

Our final presentation by Paul Carelli (University of Northern Florida) provided strategies for "Teaching Ancient Greek Philosophy as a Non-Western Tradition." As Paul reminded us, classical Greek culture is in many ways as remote from us today as any one contemporary culture is from another. He offered strategies for reinvigorating our approach to teaching Socrates in the undergraduate classroom.

We reconvened on Saturday with our second symposium session, which started with Amy Donahue's (Kennesaw State University) "Sidestepping Colonialist Pitfalls in Comparative Philosophy Classes." Amy walked us through material by the Subaltern Studies Group that questions the Eurocentrism of historical narratives and the construction of so-called classical periods across world cultures. This deeply problematizes the role of comparative philosophy teachers in transmitting these histories and "classical" texts to students. Amy discussed with us constructive approaches to dealing with these issues.

We continued with Sarah Mattice (University of North Florida), "But Do They Know It's February in China? And Other Questions of Authority and Culture in the Comparative Classroom." Sarah helped us look at the difficult position that comparative philosophy teachers sometimes find themselves in, i.e., occupying the role of cultural representative for a variety of cultures and traditions. Sarah organized her talk around various questions students have asked her, each of which help problematize students' assumptions as well as teachers' responsibilities.

The last talk was my own "What's in a Name? Contextualizing the Colonial History of Comparative Philosophy for Students." Much like Amy, I raised issues of Eurocentrism in the portrayal of histories, cultures, and traditions. And much like Andy, I wanted to think through alternative categories for organizing class material.

We were fortunate to conclude our inaugural meeting with a second session led by Erin McCarthy, focused on mindfulness strategies that teachers can use to manage stress and promote wellbeing while seeking to maintain a healthy work-life balance within academia.

Our meeting was punctuated by several great meals at local restaurants and ample time for conversation and sharing. For making the first STCP meeting possible, we would like to thank the Florida Blue Center for Ethics at the University of North Florida, the UNF Asia Council, the Drake University Center for the Humanities, and Drake's Office of the Provost. We are already looking forwarding to planning the 2015 gathering. In the meantime, we'll soon be posting materials from the first meeting to the website, as well as building the content under Resources for Teachers. 

Aloha from the STCP!

Blog post by Leah Kalmanson (Drake University).