It's a Question of Faith:Discourses of Fundamentalism andCritical Pedagogy in the Writing Classroom

AMYGOODBURN

In the pastdecade,the discoursesofcriticalpedagogy(Giroux,Kincheloe,McLaren,Simon)haveshapedthe arenaofcompositionstudies(Berlin& Vivion,Bizzell,Fox,Hurlbert & Blitz,Knoblauch& Brannon,Shor).Ascompositioniststurn to writingpedagogicsthat explorehowissuesofdifferenceshapepeople'slives,manyhavebegunto examinehow socialconstructsofrace,class,gender,sexualorientation, andsoonaccountfor thewaysthat studentsreadandwrite abouttexts.Whiletheseconstructsareclearly important for students to examinein terms of their personal and socialidentities, there is another difference that usually remains invisible: the role ofreligiousidentity. Giventhe important rolethat religionplayswithin U.s.culture(withthe majority ofU .5.citizensdescribingthemselvesasreligiousinsomeway),it's surprisingthat sofewcriticaleducatorshavedealtwith the implicationsfor howstudents' religiousidentitiesoftenconflictwith the assumptionsupon which criticalpedagogyispremised. Although criticaleducatorscallfor pedagogicsthat privilegeandproblematizestudentexperience,theemphasison issuesofrace,classandgenderoftentimes doesnot nameor accountfor religion,aconstruct which intersectsandenvelopsthesecategoriesinmany students' lives.AsscholarssuchasAnn Berthoff,BethDaniels,andJamesMoffett havenoted, this lackofdiscussionabout religiousidentityiscertainlyironicgiventheimportanceoffaithandspiritualityinearlycriticaleducators' work (such asPaulo Freire). Even worse, when students' religiousidentitiesarediscussedwithin the literatureofcriticalpedagogy,it isusuallydescribednegatively,oftentimesasanimpediment to beovercome(Kincheloe).

I believethisabsenceofdiscussionaboutthe roleofreligiousidentitywith respectto critical writing pedagogics has left teachers who espouse critical principlesunprepared to addressstudent resistancerooted in religiousbelief.One ofmy mostpainfulexperiencesasacriticalteacheroccurredwhen I found myselfconstantly inconflictwith astudent namedLuke inan intermediate-levelcollegewriting coursefocusedon issuesof differencein U .5.culture. 1In this essayI examineone type ofreligiousidentity-that ofChristianFundamentalism-and profileLuke's oral andwritten responses as a means of illustrating how his reliance on fundamentalistdiscourseplayedakeyroleinproducinghisresistanceto assignedtexts,to thecourse's

334JAC

statedgoals,andto my authority astheteacher.Itwasonlythrough examiningLuke'sresponses in terms of fundamentalistdiscourse that I began to understand andappreciatehispositioninmy classroomand,further,waschallengedtoquestionsomeofthe assumptions undergirding the discoursesofcriticalpedagogyinwhich I hadplaced so much faith. Basedon my experiences, I suggestthat Luke's responsesforeground two problems with the absenceof discussion regarding the role offundamentalistdiscoursewith respectto criticalwritingpedagogics.First, ithasleftteachersrelativelyunpreparedforstudentswho resistreadingandwritingabout issuesofdifferencedueto fundamentalistbeliefs.Teacherswho areunawareofthepossibleinfluencesoffundamentalistbeliefson studentwritingandreadingcanoftenmisreadtheir students' responses. Secondly,it hasallowedcriticaleducatorsto overlook acommon threadbetweenthediscoursesofcriticalpedagogyandfundamentalism:thelanguageof socialcritique. By ignoring the similar roles of socialcritique in thediscoursesofboth fundamentalistsandcriticaleducators,criticaleducatorsoftenmissopportunitiesto findareasofcommongroundwith fundamentaliststudentsandleavetheir own assumptions about the methods and goals of critical pedagogyuninterrogated- indecidedlyuncriticalways.

Myinterestinexploringtheconnectionsbetweendiscoursesoffundamentalismandcriticalpedagogycameabout quiteby accident,whileIwasconductingresearchfor my dissertation at alargestate university in three sections of English 300-anintermediatecollegelevelwritingclassfocusedaroundissuesofdifferencewithinU.S.culture.' InitiallyI soughtto examinehow studentsandteachersnegotiateauthoritywithin writing coursesfocusedon issuesofdifference.Although Iwasateacherwhosupported criticalwritingpedagogies,I cameto this projectbelievingthat students'voiceswereabsentfromthe literatureon criticalpedagogy,andI wantedmy researchto focuson students' descriptions and understandings of their experienceswithincourses based around critical pedagogicalprinciples. I chose English 300: "TheAmericanExperience"becauseit fulfilledthisuniversity'sdiversityrequirementbyaskingstudentsto readandwriteaboutnonfictiontextsintermsofrace,class,gender,and other socialdifferences. During the term I studied one of my own classesasateacher researcher and two other English 300courses asa participant observer,selectingsectionstaught by teacherswho alsoespousedcriticalpedagogicalgoals.Inaddition, I hired an undergraduate, Mindy, to be a participant observer in myclassroom and to interview my students twice throughout the term about theirexpenences.

At the term's end, I assessedmy attempts to be a"critical"teacher asafailure.Evenbeforethe term began,I knewthat studentswereoftentimesresistantto takingEnglish 300 because of its diversity focus. Students often describe this classas"politicallycorrect" and saythat they needto adopt the politicsofthe instructor inorder to pass. Asone student told the participant observerin my class,"One of myfriends,when hetook thisclass,hejustfakedeverythingthat hewrote about. He justliedabout everything" (Mindy'sJournal 1-14-93).BecauseIhad taught this courseseveraltimes, I wasprepared for students who didn't liketo discussor write aboutissuesconnected to racismor sexismor homophobia. But nothing prepared mefor

Discoursesof Fundementalism 335

the way that students in this particular classresponded. Asthe term progressed, ablock of seven students (out of 18)who identified themselves as "ConservativeChristians" started to make their resistancevisibleandvocal:they sattogether in acluster oftwo tables,they dominated classdiscussions,andsomeofthem refusedtoreadorwrite about assignedtexts. Asateacher, Iwasfrustrated by my inability toconnect with these students, and I wasangrywith the waysthat they treated otherstudents in the class. As a researcher, though, I was intrigued by these students'responses to classdiscussionsand assignedreadings, particularly in terms of thegroundsofauthority upon which they assertedthemselves.At semester'send,bothMindy andIdiscussedthewaysthat religiousdifferenceseemedto playanimportantpart in how the students had responded to the course assignments and to me.' Inattemptingto writeabout thiscourseformy dissertation,then, Ibeganto exploretheliteratureoffundamentalismandtoconsidermorefullywhy fundamentalistdiscourseseemed to be more powerful and attractive for many of the students than thediscoursesof criticalpedagogythat I had initially hoped to enact.'

My own consciousnessregardingthe term "fundamentalist"emergedinconcertwith the 1994politicalelectionandpublicdiscourseabout the risinginfluenceofthe"ReligiousRight" inAmericansociety.Popular newsmagazinessuchasNewsweekand Timeandtelevisionshowssuchas48Hourshaveallprofiled,invaryingdegrees,the riseof"fundamentalism"withinU.S.culture.Within academiccircles,MartinE.Marty andR. ScottAppleby's FundamentalistProject-a multi-million dollar, six­year,six-volumestudycomparingfundamentalismsaroundtheworld supportedbythe American AcademyofArts andSciences-reflects how scholarshavebegun toattendto fundamentalistbeliefasameansofinterpretingsocialandpoliticalbehavior.Whileaslateasthe 1960smostfundamentalistseschewedpoliticalactionassecondaryto the goalsofmissionaryconversion,recentlyfundamentalistdiscourse-throughthe politicalpower ofthe ChristianCoalition andthe conservativethink tankswithwhich it isallied-has shapedthe U .5.culturalandpoliticalscene.And whileschoolcurriculum hashistoricallybeenasiteofcontest overdifferentreligiousbeliefsandvalues,increasingly,fundamentalistshavenamedschoolsasaprimarysiteforpoliticalaction. Indeed, debates about the role of religiousbeliefin public education havebecomealmostmainstream,with proposedconstitutionalamendmentsto legitimizegroupprayerintheclassroom,callsforvouchersto fundstudentenrollmentinprivateChristian schools,andcurrent lawsuitsinstatessuchasAlabamato allowChristianreligiousactivities,suchasBiblereadingandthe postingofthe ten commandments,within K-12publicschools(Kaniiner).It's not surprising,then, that students' textsandresponsesreflectandproducethis largerculturaldiscourse.But giventhat manyoftheseactivitiesaresupportedby Christiansandotherswho donot namethemselvesasfundamentalist, using the term "fundamentalist" asameans of understandingbehavior iscomplicated.

In its historical sense Christian fundamentalism describes "a coalition ofconservative, predominantly Calvinist, Protestants that emerged from within abroader, more ecumenicalevangelicalculture inthe latenineteenth century" basedon the fivefundamentals of faith (Bendroth 4). Basedon the 1895Niagara Bible

336]AC

Conference, the fivefundamentals of faith, which separateheretics from believers,include 1)the virgin birth ofChrist, 2)substitutionary atonement (Christ's death aspayment for human sin),3)the bodily resurrection of Christ and the supernaturalreality of miracles,4)inerrant Scripture (without factualor scientificerror) and 5)dispensational premillenialism (theliteralSecondComing of Christ) (Bendroth 5).But this historical definition iscomplicated by the fact that the term "Christianfundamentalist"within U.S.culture oftenconjuresimagesofpeoplewith narrow orextreme attitudes. And in itscontemporary sensethe term "fundamentalist" isusedmore broadly to includegroupsofpeopleforwhom religiousbeliefconstitutesanall­encompassing personal and socialidentity and who perceivethis identity asbeingthreatened by secular socialforces. AsMarty and Appleby suggest,this notion ofperceivedthreat isessentialfor understanding fundamentalist responses:

Feeling this identity to be at risk in the contemporary era, they [fundamentalists] fortify it bya selective retrieval of doctrines, beliefs, and practices from a sacred past ... to serve as abulwark against the encroachment of outsiders who threaten to draw the believers into asyncretistic, areligious, or irreligious cultural milieu. (3)

In defining Christian fundamentalist discourse within this essay, then, I am notreferring to adescription of practices0 r institutio nalaffiliations,but rather to asetofguidingassumptions,whatKathleenBoonedescribesinTheBibleTells1bemSo:TheDiscourseofProtestantFundamentalismas"atendency, ahabit ofmind, rather than adiscretemovement or phenomenon, ...abody ofdiscoursearisingfrom beliefin thesole authority of an inerrant Bible" (10)and what Joseph Kincheloe names as"anabsolutistviewofreligiousauthority, theliteralnatureoftheBibleasaninfallibletext,andthe centrality ofaconversionexperienceon the road to the salvationofthe soul"(50).In my class,the seven students who described themselves as"ConservativeChristians"belongedto severaldifferentchurchesanddenominations,but alldefinedthemselvesasholding "true" Christian beliefsthat were more authentic than thoseofother students and feltthat they werethe only oneswho were "saved."Regardlessof whether students named their beliefsasfundamentalist or not, their discoursesseemed powerfully shaped by these common tendencies or habits of mind. AsBendroth suggests,the discourseoffundamentalismhasbecomeincreasinglypromi­nent becauseof"[i]ts powerful languageofalienationand itscritique ofmoral laxityin the wider culture" (5).It isthis powerful languageofcritiquethat I wishto explorefurther by profiling the writing of Luke, the student who seemed to be the mostresistant in my English 300course.

Luke: A Case StudyA 19-year-oldsophomore majoring in English, Luke was amember of the men'sgymnastic team and a Christian Fellowship Bible group on campus. Withoutquestion, one of the most important issueson Luke's mind washisfaith. Describinghimself asan Episcopalian Christian in astudent survey, Luke's religiouscommit­ments surfacedin the classin many ways. During classdiscussionsabout readingsonmulticultural issues,he often pulled aNew Testament from his backpack to cite

Discoursesof Fundementalism 337

biblical authorities whom he feltwere relevant to the topic at hand. His papers alsoreflected his interest in writing about and sharing his religious beliefs:for the firstassignment,which askedstudentsto tracethehistoryofoneoftheirbeliefs,Lukewroteanarrative describinghisconversionexperienceandhissubsequentviewsof lifeafterdeath. Severalofhisinformal responsepapersto assignedreadingssharedhisreligiousbeliefsaswell, usually in opposition to what he considered the secular and contro­versial issuesin the texts. Almost allof Luke' soral and written responses reflectedafundamentalist discoursethat motivated hisresistanceto classassignmentsand theoverall goalsof the course throughout the term.

From the firstday,Luke madeitclearthat hewasopposedto readingandwritingabout issuesofdiversity. In addition to marking "disagree"to asurvey of statementssuch as"1believe issuesof diversity should be addressedin university courses" and"1enjoy classesthat deal with issues of diversity," Luke hinted at his religiousconvictions inwriting about hisinitialattitude to the class:"my attitude toward thisclassis1hope the material isdiscussed in an unbiased manner and not assumed tobe correct, such asthe theory of evolution" (Survey 1-5-93).Usingthe theory ofevolution asanexampleofhow curricularknowledgecontradietshisreligiousbeliefs,Luke suggeststhat being"unbiased"meansacknowledginghisreligiousconvictionsasequally valid in relation to other views. Given that evolution isone of the mostcontestedand highlydebatedissuesofschoolcurriculum for fundamentalists,Luke'scomments, in retrospect, arenot that surprising. Still,asateacher,1didn't realizethatLuke's comment foreshadowedthe strugglesover "secular"knowledgeand religiousbeliefthat were to motivate his resistancethroughout the term.

One of the most visiblesitesofLuke' sappealsto religiousauthority canbe seenin his response papers to assigned readings. To illustrate the ways that Luke'sresponseswere shapedby hisreligiousdiscourse,I present two ofhisresponsepaperswhich illustrate hisnegotiations with the texts and my goalsasateacher in assigningthem.

Biblical Authority and Revisionist ReadingLuke's first responsepaper waswritten in responseto Kristine Beatty's poem "Lot'sWife." This poem offersarevisionist readingof the biblicalstory of Lot's wife, whoturned into a pillar of salt after looking back at the judgment of Sodom andGomorrah.' The narrator ofthe poem describesthe dailydutiesofLot's wife-bakingbread, raisingchildren, and tending to sickneighbors-as 0 pposed to her husband,who spendshis lifein contemplation with God (whileLot "struggleswith the Lord...shestruggleswith the housework"). The narrator suggeststhat Lot's wifedoesnot"regret the sacrifice" of turning into stone because her definition of sacrifice isdependent on relationswith her community rather than with God. Studentsreadthispoem inconjunction with two other essaysabout the limitingnature ofgenderroles.

This poem seemedespeciallyappropriate forthe unit, 1thought, becauseitoffersarevisionistreadingofhow men andwomen' sworkhas beentraditionally valuedandit suggestspossibleconsequences in making such judgments. 1envisioned studentsengaging in an intertextual conversation among the two essays and this poem,

338]AC

critiquingor comparingthe "theories"offeredabout genderrolesin the essayswiththe narrative examplein the poem. Preparedfor the possibilitythat somestudentsmight not know the biblical story of Lot and therefore have no context forunderstandingthe poem, I gavethem abriefplot summarybeforehandandreferredthem to the biblicalcitation. What I wasnot preparedfor, however,wasthe hostilereception that the poem receivedby studentswho were the most familiarwith thestory. Luke's responsepaper wasrepresentativeofthis group. Presentedhere in itsentirety,Luke'spaperfocusessolelyon thepoem,separatefromtheothertwo assignedessays:

Responseto "Lot's Wife""On the breast of the hill, shechoosesto be human, and turns, in farewell-and never

regretsthe sacrifice.UThis poem by Kristine Batey (sic)is really kind of naive when consideredby an Old

Testamentstandpoint. How canshesaythat Lot'swife"neverregets(sic)the sacrifice"?Thewoman wasturned into apillarofsalt. Allthrough the poem, the author makesit sound likeGod issomealoofcharaeterthatcanpronouncejudgement(sic)onsomeoneatanytime. God,in the Old Testament,wasafriendto Lot's familyand to anyone who calledon hisname. ItwasGod who sentthe two angelsto warnLot andhisfamilyabout the impendingjudgementon SodomandGomorrah. It wasnot somealoofGod that remainedquietwhilehisdisciplewaskilled.

The poem takes an event that happened thousands of years ago and tries to give ittwentieth century logicandunderstanding.Backinthis time,there wasno placeforawifetoquestionherhusbandorto disobeyhimin anyway. Thispoemtakesastandpointthat isverysympathetic to Lot's wife. The factstillremainsthat shewaswarned not to look backafterfleeingthe judgementof God. Shelooked backandpaid the consequencefor her action. Ipersonallydonot believethat shelookedbackout ofcuriosityto seethe judgementofSodomandGomorrah. Shedidnot obeythecommandofGod givenbythe angelsandpaidthe cost.Thispoem istrying to look attheeventthrough the eyesofatwentieth century woman not awoman who livedthousands ofyearsago.

Furthermore Lot's wifehad been livingwith him for years and wasfamiliarwith theworkings ofGod. Shemay havedoneallthe thingsthe poemdescribes,shemayhavesaidallthe goodbyes.but they aretrivialthings when comparedto the plansofGod. In the closinglinesofthe poem,the author makesLot'swife'sactionsout to be"good."Obviouslythey werenot goodbecausethey went againstwhat God hadtold them to dowhichwasnot look back.Yau cannot justifylookingbackandthereforebreakingGod's commandby nostalgia.

Clearly this poem triggered apowerful responseinLuke. While I had envisionedstudentswouldcritiquethepoem,I thought theywoulddosoonthebasisoftheothertwo essaysandthediscussionswehadthroughout theterm. ButLuke'sreadingmakesno mention of other texts or discussionsabout socially-constructedgender roles.Instead, Luke relieson his own authority asaBiblicalscholar to read-and resistreading-the poem in waysthat I had not envisioned.

Upon first readingLuke's response, I immediately wasstruck by the way hedifferentiatesbetweenthe pastandthe present. AsMarty andAppleby note, oneofthe tenets of fundamentalist discourse isareachingback to the past, either realorimagined,oforiginalconditionsandselectingor retrievingfundamentaltruths fromthat past inorder to thwart the changingpresent (3).One ofLuke's maincriticismsisthat the story ofLot's wifeisbeingread"through the eyesof atwentieth century

Discoursesof Fundementalism 339

woman not a woman who lived thousands of years ago." This emphasis ondistinguishing between past/present isalso reflected in the phrases "Old Testamentstand point, " "twentieth century logicand understanding," and "Back in this time."Arguing that the tale can only be understood within the context it waswritten, Lukecallsany other reading naive.

Luke's resistance to arevisionist reading of this biblical story isunderstandablegiven how he views the authority of biblical text asthe literal and unmediated wordof God, an authority of meaning that must remain stable and unified across time toensure that all readers can accessthe same moral creeds. Rather than retrieving thismoral from the story ofLot, Luke argues,the poem (and,by implication, the narrator)"takes a standpoint that isvery sympathetic to Lot's wife." It is this standpoint-asituated reading from a "modern" perspective-that Luke cannot accept. Usingphrases that reflectLuke's attempt to convey an "objective" perspective-"the fact stillremains" and "Obviously"-Luke suggests that those who "impose" twentiethcentury logicarenaive. His statement "You cannot justify looking back and thereforebreaking God's command by nostalgia" refersnot only to this specificpoem but alsoto Luke's overall philosophy ofhow biblical texts canbe read. Readingtextsthrougha revisionist lens is dangerous, Luke suggests, becausesuch readings are used to"justify" actions that conflict with God's will. If the Bible's textual authority isdestabilized, God's authority isequally open to interpretation-and revision.

Given Luke's perspectiveon the authority ofmeaning within biblicaltext, it's notsurprising that he does not mention the other two articles that were assignedon thisday. What I first attributed to possible laziness on his part (perhaps he hadn't readthem or just didn't feel like taking the time to write about them) could also beattributed to the fact that, for him, the Bible is the sole source of authority forinterpreting allother texts. Incorporating ideasfrom the articlesto interpret the poemwould have led him to the same downfall asthe narrator of the poem, atwentiethcentury "stand point" that might have justified readings contradictory to God'sintentions. Luke might have used biblical authority to critique the "secular" essays,but he chose instead to focus on the objectionable reading that the narrator offers.Although Luke 0 bviously does take an interpretive stance to the poem, he viewshimself ascorrecting and informing the narrator's naive and nostalgic perspectiverather than adopting an interpretive position himself As Boone suggests,fundamen­talists do not view texts asoffering multiple readings-there are correct or incorrectreadings of atext and those with moral authority have the ability to discern whichreading is true (20).

Luke's resistance to the author's revisionist reading might be subtly directed tome aswell. AsKincheloe notes, students with fundamentalist assumptions often viewteachers asthe enemy, secularhumanists who attempt to destroy faith by underminingreligious authority. Kincheloe saysthat ministers and parents often warn students toremain ever vigilant in fending off such attacks to their religious values (50).Luke'sconcluding statement, "You can not justify looking back," could be interpreted asareminder to himself or asawarning to me-the one who has selected the poem tobegin with-that he will not succumb to what he views asthe heretical reading of a

340jAC

biblical text. The relationship between teacher and text isespeciallycritical forstudents with fundamentalist beliefsbecausetypically it isan authority figure-aparentor minister-who transmitsthe inviolableandunmediatedword ofGod fromtheBible.Textsother than theBiblearealsochosenon thebasisofthe moralmessagesthat they convey. For ateacherto askastudentwith suchfundamentalistbeliefstoreadatext which contradictssuchauthority isespeciallyproblematic.

Luke's fundamentalist beliefsalsoshapethe wayshe examinesgender issues.While I initially chose "Lot's Wife" as illustrative of some of the gender issuesdiscussedin the other two readings,for Luke genderisaconstruct that issubsumedor evenerasedunder the largerrubricofreligioussalvation.For instance,Lukerefersto the wife'sdailypracticesas"trivialthingscomparedto the plansofGod." BecauseLukeassumesthat themost significantrelationshipinawoman's lifeisher individualrelationship to God, followedby her relationship to her husband (whom shemustobey), he isunable to conceiveof the gendereddistribution andvaluingofwork asasignificantissue.Indeed, the only placewhereLukeevenraisesthe issueofgenderisinhisstatement "therewasno placefor awifeto questionor to disobeyhim inanyway." The hierarchy of God, man, and then wife affords no value to valorizing"women'swork" inrelationto individualsalvation.Luke'sdiscoursegivesprecedenceto religiousidentity over gender.

Fundamentalist discourse alsovaluesindividual salvation over communityaffiliation.GiventhatLukeviewsindividualsalvationaseveryperson'smainpriority,it isnot hard to seewhy hewould beunwillingto considerthewife'sresponseto thepagan community in positive terms. David Bleichsuggeststhat the ideologiesofindividualismandreligiousvaluesoftenwork to promote sexism(orat leastveiltheideologieswhich support it)becausesalvationrequiresindividualactsin relation toGod, not others. AsBleichnotes:

In religiousthinking,the individualsoulisanultimateunit that makesthe doctrineofsalvationpossible, There areonly two socialcategoriesin religiousthought-the singlepersonandthetotal human race. Salvationdependson an individualact-of confession,of contrition, ofdeclarationof faith" for example.(168)

Luke's readingof the wife's actionscanonly beconsiderednegativebecause,in hiseyes,sheprivilegeshuman connection overGod's wilLWhileone couldarguethatthe wife's actionsof caringfor her community embodiesGod's willto loveothers,Lukereadsher actionsthrough thebiblicalauthorityhehasbeentaught,anauthoritywhich condemnsthewife.Allissuesofdifference,likegender,aretemporal andthussecondaryto eternalsalvation.Thus Lukeresistsreadingthe wife'sactionsasshapedby genderbecausehe feelsthat shehadanequalopportunity, viaher relationshiptoLot, to be "familiar with the workings of God." Grounded in notions of biblicalauthority, hierarchicalrelations,andindividualsalvation,Luke'sdiscourseconflictedwith the waysthat I hadimaginedandexpectedhimto respondto "Lot'sWife."Thecomplexwebofauthority relationsinwhichLuke'sreadingwaspositionedoverrodemy rather simplisticassumptionthat studentswould readclasstextsprimarily fromtheoretical definitionsculledfrom the other two texts.

Discoursesof Fundementalism 341

Christian Salvation and Cultural AssimilationBecausethe subjectof "Lot's Wife"isreligion, it iseasyto seehow Luke's religiousdiscourseshapeshisreading. But hisfundamentalistbeliefsinfluencednot only hisreadingof this poem but allofhisresponses,evenon topicsthat might seemwhollydivorced from religion. The secondresponsepaper by Luke seemsquite differentfrom that of "Lot's Wife"and, at first reading,doesnot appear to be influenced byfundamentalist discourse at all. Yet examining the language and assumptionsundergirding Luke's text illuminates how for Luke, all lifeissuesare interpretedthrough afundamentalistlens.

Inthisresponsepaper,Lukewrote aboutthepoem"ParaTeresa,"whichpresentsthemes of assimilation, schooling, and identity . Written in English and Spanishthroughout (withtranslationsin accompanyingfootnotes),the poem describestheChicananarrator' srelationshipto anotherChicanaclassmate,Teresa,who refusestoadopt the norms of the white culture's schools. The narrator, on the other hand,choosesto assimilateand adopt the valuesystemof the schools. At the end of thepoem, the narrator sayssheunderstandsandrespectsthe rebelliouspath Teresahaschosen and callsher" my sister."

Upan firstreadingLuke'sresponsepaper,I thoughtthathehadmisreadthepoembecausehe describesTeresa'schoiceas"acceptingthe culture of the white people."ButasIreadit againandagain,Ibeganto seehow Luke'sfundamentalistassumptionsinfluencedhow hereadthispoem. Indeed,thewayherespondsto thispoemissimilarto his responseto "Lot's Wife":

Response to "Para Teresa"The poem by InesHernandez isavery goodportrayal ofthe livesoftwo young minority

children whoseviewsof lifeandhow to succeedinaprejudice(sic)world weresodifferentyethadthe samegoalin mind. The poem isastory about two girlswith two opposingviewsaboutgrowingup. One girl[Teresa]decidedto takethe approachofacceptingthe culture ofthe whitepeople. Shedyedher hair,put on make-upetc.to makeherse1fmorelikeherwhite friends.Thisshe hoped would gain her the respect andthe security of being awhite person.

The other girl,the author ofthe poem, took the perspectiveof amore passiveresistance.Amore subtlerefusalto changeher own ways. Sheopposedthe prejudiceandunfairnessrightunderthe nosesofthe very peoplewho wereresponsiblefor it.This attitude, alongwith doingwell in school, addedtogether to makethe first girl look silly,an accentuation of her foolishattempt at denyingthe fatethat wasinevitable. Butwhat appearedasacceptanceof defeatonthe part ofthe secondgirl,wasreallythe bestwayto achievevictory for herselfandherpeople.

It wasalmost asifshewasplayingthe gameofthe teachers andpeople in power. Shewasplayingtheir gamesothat shemightbeatthem at it oneday. That washerultimate goal. Rightnow her goalwasto pleaseher family and herself. Shewas not interested in being loud andarrogant aswasthe firstgirl. Shedidn't quiteunderstand the attitude ofthe first girlbut theiraims were the same.

The secondgirlwasthe smarterofthe two. I saythis becauseshetook the paththat seemedimpossibleto the secondgirl and yet shewassucceeding. The author wanted to use her lifeasan example ofwhat hard work and determination can do. Sheknew that ifshecould do itthen allof her people could do it. Her choiceto take the tougher path and more subtle pathof resistancemadeher successevengreater. Aswith allheroesthey seemto fallunder criticismfor the choicesthey make. But, for reasonsjust discussed,the choicesthey make areexactlythe things that makethem heroes.

342]AC

I first read Luke's paper as indicative of his failure to critically read andunderstand the poem. His statement that "the first girl" (Teresa)chose to wearmakeup asameansoffittinginwith whiteculturerepresentswhat Iconsideredsuchamisreading. BecauseI selectedthis poem asrepresentativeof the conflictspeoplefaceinassimilatingversusmaintainingculturalwaysofknowing-with the narratorreflectingupon the lossshefeelsandrespectingTeresa'sdecisionnotto assimilate­Luke's readingseemed,to me,especiallyproblematic. Byfocusingon the positivenarrative of the American dream-a minority's successwithin a "prejudice (sic)world" isviewedas"anexampleofwhat hardwork anddetermination cando" forthe individual and "her people"-Luke's responseignoresplacesin the poem thatcomplicate his reading, such asthe conclusion in which the narrator callsTeresa"sister" and the fact that the poem iswritten in both English and Spanish. In re­readingLuke's paperin lightofhisfirstresponsepaperandthe other textshewrote,however,Irealizedtheextentto whichLuke'sresponseto "ParaTeresa"wassimilarlyshaped/ produced through hisfundamentalistinterpretive frame. Indeed,one canreadLuke'spaperasacommentaryon hisroleinthisparticularclass,inwhichhefeelshe must passively(andactively)resistasareligiousbelieverto coursegoals.

Primaryto Luke'sreadingisthenotionofhowthenarrator's"passiveresistance"enablesher to succeedinwaysthat Teresadoesnot. Becausethe narrator refusesto"changeherownways,"Lukeargues,shetakesa"moresubtlepathofresistance"thatmakesher successful.In comparison,LukereadsTeresa'sactionsofdyeingherhairandwearingmakeupasactively"acceptingthe cultureofthe whitepeople,"actionswhich he negatively characterizes as"denying the fate that was inevitable." ThedichotomythatLukesetsupbetweenTeresaandthenarrator,bothofwhom have"thesamegoalinmind"readslikeamoralityplay.Teresaistheloudandarrogantgirlwhoadopts superficialappearancesto gain"the securityofbeingawhite person"whilethe narrator rejectsthe easyway out andrelieson her own initiative. Eventhoughothers viewthe narrator ashavingaccepteddefeat,Lukesuggeststhat sheismerelybidingher time as"the bestway to achievevictory." Lukeneversayswhat Teresa'sinevitable fateentails,but it's clearthat shedoesnot succeedasthe narrator does.

Ultimately thispassiveresistancemakesthenarrator ahero, anexampieofwhat"all of her people could do." The relationship between passiveresistance andachievingheroinestatusisespeciallyintriguinggivenLuke'sstatement,"Aswith allheroesthey seemto fallundercriticismforthechoicesthey make."Lukedoesnot saywho iscriticizingthe narrator's choicesor what thesecriticismsentail,nor doeshesaywho considersher actionsheroic. Her family?Whiteculture? Herpeople? ButLuke's seeminglyvaguereadingmakesperfectsensein lightof hisfundamentalistdiscourse. Within afundamentalist framework, those who resistthe easypath­materialistandsecularinfluences-are ultimatelyrewardedthroughsalvation.Thosewho takethe tougherpath andrefuseto changetheirbeliefsbecomeChristianheroeswho,whileunappreciatedbythesecularworld,arerewardedwitheternalredemption.Thus, the narrator's choiceto take "thepath that seemedimpossible"isrewardedintheendandherlifebecomesaninspirationforothersto follow.ForLuke,valueresidesin individualsalvation,not community identification.The issueofculturalidentity

Discoursesof Fundementalism 343

versusassimilation,whichI readasamajorthemethroughout thepoem,isnot relevantto Luke becausethe narrator's identificationwith the Chicano community isonlyimportant inthat shecanprovideamodelto followfor"herpeople."Likehisreadingof "Lot's Wife," Luke's response to "Para Teresa" emphasizes the ways that anindividualachieves-or failsto achieve-salvationby rejectingcommunity norms fortheperceivedgreatergood-in thiscase"therespectandthe securityofbeingawhiteperson."

The relationshipbetweenLuke'sfundamentalistbeliefsandhisresponseto "ParaTeresa"canalsobe seenin the waysthat Luke ignoresthe conclusion of the poem.Having setup abinary betweenthe narrator asrolemodelandTeresaasapretender,hecouldhardlyacknowledgethat thenarratorvaluesthechoicesthat Teresahasmadein her life. ValidatingTeresa'suseofsuperficialmeansto become acceptedwouldbetantamount to moral relativism. To acceptTeresa'sactionsaslegitimatewouldsubvertthelegitimacyofthenarrator'sefforts.Likehisfaith,inwhicheveryindividualeither acceptsor rejectssalvation,Luke readsthe actionsofthe narrator andTeresaaseither heroic or doomed to an inevitable fate-there areno gray areas.

Luke's response can alsoagainbe read asacommentary on his position asareligiousbelieverwithinasecularinstitution.Lukeclearlyidentifieswith thenarrator,who wins the game"under the noses"ofthose in power but stillremainstrue to herbeliefs.From the firstdaywith histheory ofevolutioncomment, Lukeshowedthathe viewed the curriculum asa site of struggle between university teachings andreligiousbelief.Butrather than viewingthisstruggleintermsofvarioussocialgroupsvying for legitimation through representation (asI did),Luke viewsit asastrugglebetween religiousgroupsandsecularonesover the nature 0 fknow ledgeandbelief.Asabeliever,Lukeconstantlynegotiatesknowledgethat is"neutral"versusthatwhichis"biased."Likethe narrator in "ParaTeresa,"Lukeviewshimselfastaking asubtlepath of resistancefor which hewill eventually be rewarded. This belief,which hedescribes in his first paper asan "unshakeable security and confidence that I amheadingfor somethingbetter ...the doorway to eternallife,"isreflectedinvirtuallyallof his responsesto assignedtexts.

BeyondLuke'sresponsepapers,hisfundamentalistassumptionswerealsovisiblewithin his oral responses to his group members, Tyler and Margaret, and meconcerningthe finalcourseproject:acollaborativetext on "asingleissueor conflictthat directly impacts contemporary American life and culture." In addition tocompilinganannotatedbibliographyofat leastthirty sourcesofvaryingperspectivesandpositions,studentsalsoused"livedexperiences"suchasinterviews,observations,andsurveysto gainadditionalinsightsinto the topic. Intheir projects,studentswereencouraged to "present 'multiple truths' instead of just one way of seeing" byforegroundingdifferencesinperspectivesabout the topic. In keepingwith the goalsofcriticalpedagogy,Iwantedstudentsto selecttopicsfor"real"audiencessothat theirwork could havesomevisibleimpact beyond the classroom. In the previous term,forexample,onegroupproducedavideoonhomelessnessthat wasusedforresidencehallprogrammingwhileanother hadwritten aneditorialfor the campusnewspaperon student attitudestoward daterape. Butwhilethe previousclass'sevaluationsof

344]AC

theseprojectswere overwhelminglypositive,Lukehad difficultiesthroughout theterm with respectto the goalsand assumptionsunderlying this assignment.

Luke's group initiallyhaddifficultyagreeingon atopic. Although Tyler sharedLuke's religiousbeliefs(andwasamember ofhisBiblefellowshipgroup),Margaretdid not, and the three disagreedovereverytopic they discussed.Every topic LukeandTyler proposed(usuallyignoringMargaretuntil afterthey haddecided)involvednotions of universal morals, which they felt quite comfortable generalizing toeveryone. For instance,Luke and Tyler firstwanted to write about familyvalues,positingthat the lossoffamilyvalueswasresponsiblefordecliningmoralswithin theUnited States.Margaretwashesitantbutwillingto goalongwith them. When I askedthem how they would goabout definingtermslike"family,""values,"and"rna rals,"Luke gotdefensive,saying"You're a1waysaskingusto definewhat wemean,alwaysaskingquestions"(Fieldnotes2-16-93).On the followingclassday,Imetwith Luke'scollaborativegroup againto seeifthey haddecidedon atopic. They hadchangeditfrom familyvaluesto euthanasia. When I askedwhat researchquestion they wereinterestedin pursuingabout euthanasia,Lukesaid"theethicsofit"(lournal2-19-93).When I askedthe typesofeuthanasiato which hewasreferring,Luke said"allof it."Concerned that the topic wastoo broad, I suggestedthat the ethicsof euthanasiacouldn't bedivorcedfrom the contexts inwhich it occursandthat they might findit useful to focus on a narrower topic such as living wills. Luke replied that alleuthanasiaisunethicalbecauseonlyGod hasthepowerto takeawaylife.At thispointI realizedthat onceagainLukeandI werenot simplydisagreeingoverthetypeoftopicheandhisgroupmembersmightuse;wewereclashingoverassumptionsofauthorityandvalue.For Luke,valuesandknowledgearestable,unitary,universal,andrevealedby God. For me,valuesandknowledgearealwayschanging,multiple, partial, andcontingentupon variouscommunitiesinspecifichistoricalcontexts.WhileI believethat the topicofethicscannotbedivorcedfromspecifictypesofeuthanasia(and,evenmore narrow Iy, eachindividualcontext),Luke believesinuniversalcodesof ethicswhich canbeappliedineverycase.What I consideredapragmaticissueofchoosingasmallertopicwasrepresentativeofalargerissueoverwhoseassumptions about thenature ofethicswould bevalued.

Equally problematic for Luke and me were our different conceptions of thepurpose of this collaborativeproject. WhileI wantedstudentsto exploreatopic byhighlighting multiple perspectivesandexaminingdifferentwaysthe issuehasbeencontextualized for differentpurposes, Luke found it difficult,ifnot impossible,toembracesuchgoals.For Luke,thereareclearcutpositionsthat onecantakeon everyissueand thus aresearchpaper isan exercisein persuasion-in this particular caseto prove that alleuthanasiaiswrong. BecauseLukeunderstandseuthanasiawithinthe context of strict moral codesconcerning lifeanddeath, hecouldn't conceiveofwriting from any position except that which denounces it. To present multipleperspectives is to acknow ledgeand legitimize their validity, a move that he wasunwillingto makebasedon hisbeliefsabout the natureandauthority ofknowledge.

To say that I found Luke's texts challenging to respond to would be anunderstatement. WhiletheoreticallyI viewtextsassitesformultiple readings,open

Discoursesof Fundementalism 345

forcontestandinterrogation,Luke's responsessetinto sharpreliefmy investment inhaving the texts read in the ways that I desired, and I felt especiallyvulnerable inresponding to histexts. I didn't want to be accusedofbeingpoliticallybiasedin thewaysthat most ofthe students, includingLuke, feltteachersof thiscoursewere. Atthe same time, likeJody Swilky, I believe that teachers' responses should invitestudents "to analyze conflicting ideologies, sothey might begin to attain criticalunderstandingofwhy they holdcertaincommitmentsandwhy they resistalternativewaysofthinking" ("ResistingDifference"28).Thus,IwantedLuketo complicatethewaysthat hewasreadingthesetextsor at leastrecognizethat his readingsarepartialand situated through the lensofhisfundamentalist assumptions. In respondingtohistexts, then, most of my comments tended to be inthe form ofquestions, askingformore explicationor explanationofhisresponses.For instance,when Lukewrotethat the writer of "Lot's Wife"wastakingatwentieth-century approach to abiblicalstory, I wrote, "Yes,I think you're right. Why do you think this writer took thisapproach?"In responseto Luke's paperon "ParaTeresa"that Teresa'sactionswereanattempt to deny"thefatethatwasinevitabIe,"Iwrote "Whatfateareyou describingasinevitable?"Next to his statement that the aimsof the two girlswere the same,Iwrote "How wouldyou describetheseaims?"andinmy endcommentsIasked,"Whatdoyou think abouttheconclusionwhen shesaysI respectyou andI callyou my sister?How doessheviewhersuccessinrelationto the other girl?"Ithought thesequestionsmight prove helpful to Luke ashe revisedhispapersfor hisportfolio. Iwaswrong.

Luke includedhispapersto both "ParaTeresa"and"Lot'sWife"inhisportfoliobut hisonly revisionswerein spellingandcommausage.Surprisedthat Luke hadn'trevised, especiallywhen he had saidin classthat hewanted an "A" in the course, Iattributed his lackof revisionto the other priorities in his life.Asagymnast, hehadaheetictournament schedule,andhewasalsoworkingon thecollaborativepaperdueatthe end0 ftheterm. However,Luke'sinterviewwith Mindyoffersperhapsanotherreason why he did not reviseany ofhis responsepapers. In assessingthe ways thatI respondedto histexts,Lukesaysthat my margincomments arebiasedbecausetheyreflectmy own positions:

She's supposed to be this unbiased grader. You present your viewpoints and the grade, notgrade for the content of ideas, but for grammar and punctuation and development of ideas.That kind of thing. And, you know, I don't think she did that. She did that but she tended togiveyou hints and stuff in the margins that got you thinking-more alongwhat she wanted tohear. (3-16-93).

Luke's viewthat texts should beevaluatedsolelyon grammar andpunctuation andnot on the content ofideasis,ofcourse,commonly shared.The dichotomy betweenform andcontent iswell-establishedincurrent traditionalapproachesto writing, andit iscertainlyaviewwithwhichmostofmy studentsagreed.Eventhough wediscussedthe relationship between form andcontent in the textsthat we readthroughout theterm, Luke's prior assumptionsthat student textsshouldbereadandevaluatedsolelyin terms of superficial features remained strong. But Luke's comments suggestanother possiblereasonwhy hechosenot to revisehisresponsepapers.Luke'snotion

346]AC

that my comments gave"hints" about what I "wantedto hear"ledhim, perhaps,toresistrevisingexceptfor grammarandpunctuation becauseother revisionswouldhavemeantchanginghispositionstobemorelikemine.Bynot revising,Lukeavoidedthepossibilitythat mybeliefs-which heconsideredradicallyopposedtohis-wouldinfluencehistexts. While I assumedthat Luke couldelaborateon hispositions inresponseto mycomments,hesawlittlenegotiationbetweenrevisionandappropria­tion. And, in a sense,he was correct. Although I thought I was careful not toforeground my readingofthe text,my questionsclearlypromoted alternativewaysof readingthat hedidnot value. Ifanything, my responseto Luke's textsprobablyreinforcedhisfeelingthatmycommentswereaformoftrickery,designedto elicitwhatI wanted him to think and representativeof those in power who try to subvert hisreligiousbeliefs.What at the timeIconsideredapracticalstrategyfor respondingtoLuke's textssothat hecouldn't criticizeme (asbeingpoliticallycorrector biased.)inretrospect representsamissed"teachablemoment." Insteadofengaginginacriticaldialoguewith Lukeabouthisreadingsoftexts,mycommentsreinforcedhisviewthatI wasanimpositionalauthorityand,mostimportantly,eliminatedtheopportunityforLuke and me to consider possible sources of conflict between our readings.Evaluation,then, further complicatedthe waysthat LukeandIcouldnegotiateourcompetingassumptionsabouttexts,authority, andknowledge.

Due to the nature ofLuke's oral andwritten responsesthroughout the term, Iwasnot surprised to find Luke ashostile to the courseat the end ofthe term ashewasin the beginning. Basically,Lukemaintainedthe position headoptedfrom thestart: English300, which aimsto examineandvalueissuesofdifferencewithin theUnited States,runscounterto hisreligiousbeliefs.Becausefundamentalistdiscourseistheprimary interpretivelensthrough whichhereadstheworld,anyissuethat doesnot acknowledgeor contradictsbiblicalauthority isincorrect:

To me, itallhasreligiousaspectstoit. If you want to getinto it, I'll getinto itwith you but we'dbeherewayaftertwo o'clock. Youknow. That's whereI'm comingfrom anduntil everybodybelieves,you know, thismaysoundconceitedbut until everybodybelievesgenerallythe samething Ibelieve,you know?...the stuffI'vemademy mindup on,you know, that'swhar IbelieveandI believeit's the correct view. (Taped Interview 3-16-93,emphasis added)

GivenLuke'sassumptionthat biblicalauthorityprovideshimwith correctviews,heisresistantto any coursewhichaimsto valuedifference.Despitethe assumptionsofcriticaleducatorsthat criticalthinking cannot beseparatedfrom issuesofdifferencebecauseallknowledgeissituatedwithin aworldview,Lukemakescleardistinctionsbetween"biased"knowledgeandthinking becausethe valuingofmultipleperspec­tivesisequivalent, inhiseyes,to moral relativism.For Luke,valuingdifferenceinperspectivesleadsto toleratingthosewhoselifestyleshefindsirreconcilablewith hisreligiousbeliefs.To toleratedifferenceundermineshisfaiththat anindividualmustbe savedin order to be accepted:

This classthisuniversity ismakingustake, itwasn't teachingushow to criticallythink. It wasteachingustothinkaboutdiversity. It wastellingusthat everyone'sthe sameandallthisstuff.I will make up my own mind aswhat to think andI don't need the university tellingme thatI should tolerate everybody ... becausenot everybody'stolerable!(Taped Interview 3-16-93,emphasis added)

Discoursesof Fundementalism 347

Luke's rejoinder that "not everybody'stolerable,"isstronglyrooted inhis religiousidentity, one that works to categorizepeopleinto believersandnonbelievers,savedandcondemned. For Luke,anydifference-in race,class,gender,sexualorientation,and soon-is aconstruct to be transcended for religioussalvation. Of course, theterm "tolerance"itselfsuggestsanunexaminedpositionofprivilegefromwhichthoseinpower canchoosewhom (andwhom not)to respect.ButLuke'sresponsessetintorelief my own assumptions about what constitutes "tolerable" behavior in theclassroom.AndwhileI didnot sharethe groundsupon whichLuke'sresponseswerebased,hisresponsesdidencouragemeto examinethewaysthat my relianceon criticalpedagogicaldiscoursesobscured, in someways,the limitsofmy own tolerance fordifference.

Intersections: Discourses of Fundamentalism and Critical Pedagogy

Those who do not embracethe fundamentalistmessagehaveoften failedto appreciatethebindingpower ofthat messageoverthe heartsandmindsofBiblebelievers.In criticizingthemessage,onecannot failto comprehendandrespectthe situationofthemessengers-who, likeallinterpreters, maketheir assertionsbecausetheir text tellsthem so. (Boone111)

Luke's experiencesin this classraisesignificantquestionsfor criticaleducatorsto considerasthey andtheir students investigatehow" difference"shapespeople'slives.Isit possibleto enactacriticalpedagogyin aclassroomwhere students do notviewknowledgeaspartial andsituated?When students' main sourcesofauthorityare fundamentalist in nature, how can critical teachers legitimize such beliefsinrelation to their pedagogicalgoals?And what should be the limits of a teacher's"tolerance" for student resistanceto courseactivitiesand assignedtexts?

As ateacher who supports the goalsof critical pedagogy, I am troubled andunsettledbystudentswho viewsuchpedagogicsaschallengesto (andevendestructiveof their religiousidentities.Inthesamevein,lam troubledbyteacherswho too easilydismisstheir students' concerns asnaive,uncritical, or resistant. For instance, intalkingwithcolleaguesabouthowIcouldhaveengagedmoreproductivelywith Luke,somesuggestedthat studentswith fundamentalistbeliefsshouldgoto fundamentalistschoolsifthey do not wishto be influencedby secularvalues.Others saidthat I wasgivenanopportunity to "enlighten"him. Andonesaidthat whenfacedwith asimilarstudent,shesimplyignoredhim. Ibelievetheseresponsesareconnectedto how issuesof faithareneglectedwithin criticalpedagogicaldiscoursesin general.The absenceofdiscussionabout student'sreligiousbackgroundsinconnectionwith constructsofgender, race,class,and soon createsadiscoursethat erasesor" others" students inpolarizingandreductiveways. It's true that Luke's responsesinthisclassroomwereextreme,evenin the eyesofthe other "ConservativeChristians"in the class.Buttosaythat Lukedoesn'tbelonginapublicuniversitybecauseofhisreligiousviewsseemsreductive,andthe notion that heneedsto be"enlightened"by meequallysmacksofarroganceandshort sightedness.AsStephenBatesconcludesinBattleground,whichprofiles acourt battle between fundamentalistsand educators in Tennesseeover apublicschoolreadingseries,thepresenceoffundamentaliststudentsinthe classroom

348]AC

iscentral to promoting the goalsofcriticaleducators:

Ifwe truly believethat pluralisticpublic education is an essentialfoundation of a peacefulmulticultural society,then we should do what we can to keep fundamentalists (andotherreligiousdissidents)in the public schools. Evenskippingthe occasionalbook or class,theybenefitfromandcontributeto thedemocraticmissionofpubliceducation...Bytheirpresence,fundamentalistsalsogiveotherstudentsanobjectlessonindiversity. Weshouldn'tpanicwhenthe differentnessmanifestsitself...Embracingdiversitybut forbiddingitspublicexpressionisacrabbed form of pluralism (316).

I initiallybecameinterestedinstudyingLuke'sresponsesasaresearcherbecauseI wasfrustrated by what I consideredmy inability to engagehim in the goalsof theclass. Bythe end of the term, I viewedLuke's responsesas"other" to my own, asradicallydifferent from that which I expectedor hoped to seein terms ofmy goalsasacriticalteacher. Yet, in learningmore about the natureoffundamentalistbeliefsandattitudes,I beganto seemoreconnectionsthan differencesbetweenthediscoursesoffundamentalismandcriticalpedagogy.AsBatessuggests,Luke's presencewasanobject lessonin diversityfor measateacher. Whileat the time I thought that Lukewasone of the most resistant to classgoals,I now think that hewasperhaps one ofthemostengagedintermsofparticipatinginsocialcritiqueandindevelopingacriticalconsciousness about his identity position in relation to the classtexts, other classmembers,andme. Through Luke's responses,I beganto appreciatecommonalitiesbetweenfundamentalistandcriticalpedagogicaldiscourses:theiroppositionalstanceto the status quo and their critique of massculture; their assumption that schoolcurriculurn isasiteofstruggleovervaluesandrepresentation-their questioningofthe nature of authority (with fundamentalists questioning secularauthorities inrelation to scriptureandcriticaleducatorsquestioningdominant socialdiscourses);their examinationofsourcesofknowledgeandbelief,andmostnotably, theirdesireto convert the "other," to persuadethosewhom they defineaseither "unsaved"or"uncritical."

In arecentA tlanticMonthlyarticle""TheWarringVisionsoftheReligiousRight,"Harvey Cox suggeststhat liberalandconservativetheologiansareunableto discussdifferences because liberal Christian theologians do not know how to engageconservative theologians (in this particular caseat Regent, agraduate universityfounded by Pat Robertson) within the sametheologicaldiscourse:

The problem isthat many politicallyliberalChristiantheologianshavebecomesoenchantedby deconstruction,postmodernism,andsecularpoliticalphilosophiesthat they findithardtoengagepeople like the Regent faculty at the theologicallevelin which the argument hastoproceed. (69)

Similarly,I suggestthat criticaleducatorsareunableto engageinproductivedialoguewith fundamentalist students becausethey do not seeplaceswhere connectionsbetween the two discourses can be productively bridged. At present, criticalpedagogicaldiscoursesoversimplifythe nature ofconservatives'attitudes towardcritical practices, particularly when they are basedon religious difference. For

Discoursesof Fundementalism 349

example,Kincheloearguesthat conservativeandcriticaleducatorscannot engageinproductive dialogueabout the politics of education becauseconservativesdo notappreciatethe assumptionsupon whichcriticaleducatorsmaketheir arguments.Hesaysthat conservativeeducators,

have trouble understanding that (our] reading and our thinking about reading (whether we arereading and thinking about the traditional canon or about student and teacher lives) aresociopolitical acts-our interpretations cannot be separated from where we are standing whenwe read and think, in other words, our location in the web of reality. (53)

WhileKincheloeultimatelyaimsto hesensitiveto fundamentaliststudents,hisabovecomment succumbsto thesametype ofmisreadingthat Coxsuggestspreventsliberaltheologians from engagingwith conservativetheologians. In essence,Kincheloedoesn't fullyappreciatethe theoreticalor theologicallevelupon whichdebatesaboutcritical pedagogy might be productively engaged. Conservative educators (andconservativestudentsaswell)dounderstandthat readingandwritingaresociopoliticalacts. They know that interpretations cannot beseparatedfrom their webofreality.Butbecausethey donotviewtheirwebsintermsofthesocialmatrixesthat Kincheloeidentifiesascentral, their interpretations areconsiderednaiveanduncritical.

Fundamentalist students recognize the sociopolitical nature of reading andschoolcurriculum ingeneral;what they choosenot to recognizeisthe importance oftheorizing theseactsin terms ofsocialdifferencessuchasrace,class,gender,and soon. Instead, they believethat their web of reality-one that theorizes in terms ofsecular and religious-baseddifferences-is the most useful in understanding andcritiquing educational practices. In many ways, the responses of students withfundamentalistbeliefsserveasamirror (albeitsomecriticaleducatorsmight suggestadark one)that reflectsthe principlesofcriticalpedagogyfrom adifferentlocation.

Rereadingthe discoursesofcriticalpedagogythrough the mirror offundamen­talist discoursehelpsto point out uninterrogated assumptions that limit teachers'understanding of their students' responses. For instance,Phyllis Mentzell Rydersuggeststhat critical educators "need to offer students a persuasive method thatexposesthe differencesbetweenthe professed,dominant valuesandthe actualeffectsofthose ideologies"(519).In describingtheviewofknowledgeunderpinning criticalpedagogy asinherently political, Ryder callsfor a developmental approach thatprovides"spacesfor students to hold disparateideasuntil time andexperiencegivethem waysto reconceptualizethose ideas"(523).In asimilarvein,Patricia Bizzellargues that one problem with critical pedagogy is that teachers rely uponantifoundationalist notions ofauthority which posit no authority existingbeyondone'shistoricalposition:"Weexerciseauthority overthem inaskingthem to giveupthese foundational beliefsbut we givethem nothing to put in the placeof thesefoundationalbeliefsbecausewedenythevalidityofallauthority, including,presum­ably, our own" (Bizzell670). Instead,Bizzellsuggests,teachersmust usetheir ownability as rhetors to persuade students to construct a progressive authority thatconstructsandvaluesknowledge:

350JAC

We must help our students, and our fellow citizens, to engage in a rhetorical process that cancollectively generate trustworthy knowledge and beliefsconducive to the common good­knowledge and beliefs to displace the repressive ideologies an unjust social order wouldinscribe in the skeptical void. (Bizzell 671)

I agreewith BizzellandRyderthat teachersshouldnot enactaquestioningpedagogymerelyto question,without positingformsofbeliefto whichstudentscouldascribe.Butwhataboutthosestudentswho alreadyassumethattheirsourcesofauthorityserveacommon good? The students in my classroomwho rejectedantifoundationalistclaimsbasedon religiousauthority didnot do soout offearoffallinginto somesortof skeptical void. They believein acommon good-an eternal and transcendentone-that otherscancollectivelyachievethrough salvation.Andthey aremorethansatisfiedin abiblicalauthority, one inwhich their knowledgeandbeliefissecurelygrounded.Andtosaythattimeandexperiencewillgivestudentswaystoreconceptualizetheir ideasalsoseemsabit arrogant,especiallywhen somefundamentaliststudents'experiences often are that of constantly defending their beliefsfrom dominantdiscourse,eventhosethat invokeliberatory goals.

In describing how postmodernism changes one's view of knowledge,Patricia Lather says, "[AJ politicized postmodernism shifts the debate to aquestioning of what it means to know and be known, how and why discourseworks to legitimizeand contest power, andthe limitations of totalizing systemsand fixed boundaries" (88). Similarly, I suggest that a critical pedagogychallengesteachers to ask"How ismy discourseoperating within the classroomto legitimize and contest knowledge, fixingboundaries that students and I needto negotiate in an ongoing process of reflection and self-critique?"

In reflectingupon how I might haveengagedmore productively with Lukeand the other students who "resisted" the ways I asked them to read texts andview knowledge, I have considered several strategies that might have provedusefuLRather than askinghim to problematizethe nature of religiousauthority,perhaps I could have invited Luke to think more about how his religiousbeliefsshape his reading by acknow ledging the ways that I sawhis religiousdiscourseshapehistexts.For instance,insteadofaskingLuketoconsiderthegoalsofthewriter'srevisionistapproachin "Lot'sWife,"I mighthavenotedthewaysthat Lukeseemedangrywith thewriterandaskedhimto considermoreextensivelythe stakesinvolvedin interpretingthisbiblicalstorydifferently.Or perhaps,followingRichardMiller'ssuggestionsin hisessay"Fault Linesin the Contact Zone," I mighthaveaskedhimto outline "aplan ofaction" for addressingthe difficultiesinherent in readingtextswhich complicateor contradict the biblicalsourcesofauthority he reliesupon tointerpret meaning. Or for alargerproject, I might havesuggestedthat he mapoutsomeofthedailyconflictshefacesintermsofpreservinghis"ConservativeChristian"identity from the pressuresofhispeers,hisgymnasticteammates,andhisteachers.StudentslikeLukeengageincounter-hegemonicpracticesdailyinclassroomswherethe discoursesthrough which they readthe world aredelegitimizedor challenged.Exarniningmorecloselyhowstudentswithfundamentalistbeliefsnegotiatetheirfaithinthe faceofalternativeauthoritiesmighthaveledto amorecriticaldialoguebetween

Discoursesof Fundementalism 351

meandthe studentswithin thisclass.Usingtheir religiousbeliefsasasitefor analysismighthavetappedintotheresistancethat thesestudentsunderstoodintheirown lives.

Luke's presence taught me the danger of buying into critical pedagogicaldiscoursesthat nameandpolarizestudentsasthe "Other" without fullyunderstand­ingorappreciatingthewebsofrealityinwhichtheyarelocated.In learningmoreaboutChristian fundamentalism, I discoveredavariety of debateswithin conservativeChristian movements that criticaleducatorsmight profit from understanding: forexample,the differencebetweenpre-millennia!andpostmillennia!eschatologies­the branchesoftheologyconcernedwith how historywillend-and the implicationsofthesedifferencesforhow peopleviewthe importanceofsocialandpoliticalaction.While Cox discussesthese different world viewsin terms of bridging gapswithinconservative Christian camps, his discussion also raises issues for how criticaleducatorsmightbetterunderstandfundamentaliststudents'attitudestoward criticalpedagogicaldiscourses.For example,ifstudentsbelieveinpre-millennialeschatology­theviewthat thingswillnecessarilygetprogressivelyworseonearthuntilJesusreturnsin the secondcoming-then there islittle incentivefor supporting pedagogicsthatadvocatesocialor political change. However, ifstudents believein postmillennialeschatology-the viewthat the influenceofthe faithfulwillbringrighteousnessandjusticeto the earth insocialandpoliticalspheresbeforeJesusreturns-then they willprobably bemore amenableto discussingissuesof institutional, not just individual,conversion.Thus,eveninaclasscomposedentirelyoffundamentaliststudents,theremight be awide diversity of opinion about the value of acourse basedon criticalpedagogicalprinciples. And whileI doubt whether Luke andIwould everagreeonany topic, ifI hadunderstood more clearlythe nature ofour differentworld views,wemight haveat leastcometo amutualunderstandingofeachothers' positions (the"utopian consensus"thatJohn Trimbur hopesto achieve),arespectfor the differentdiscourseswhich definewho we areandhow we readothers.

In hisfinalinterview,Lukesaidabout myteachingofEnglish300:"Ithink Amy's goingto hearthis andthink 'I neverknewhefeltsobadlyabout me!'Idon't feelbadlyabout her ...I justthinkshe needsto expose herselfto the other viewpoints some more" (TapedInterview 3-16-93).

Luke's comments, while painful, were an important reminder that I need tocontinuelearningaboutandfrommystudents'discourses,especiallywhentheydiffersogreatlyfrommy own. Today,asanassistantprofessorwho teachesatanother largestate university, I continue to think about the lessonsLuke's presencetaught me,especiallyasI negotiatemy university's secularviewsofknowledgewith the beliefsofstudentsfrom alocalSeventh-DayAdventistcollegewho takemanycoursesatmyinstitution. And perhapsthat isthebestcriticalteacherscando-illuminate how theirdiscoursesandthose of their students areengagedinconstant struggle.While I hadimaginedworking collectivelywith my studentsin resistingoppressivediscoursesinsociety,thosesamediscoursescomprisedthewaysthat studentsandI readeachotherinthe classroom.The faithI hadinthe discourseofcriticalpedagogydidnot callintoquestion my own complicity in creatingoppressiveclassroomrelations. Likemystudents, I put my faith in adiscoursethat, while claimingto valuedifference,fails

352]AC

to acknowledgeone ofthe most important differenceswithin students' lives.And,likemy students,I struggledwith thosewho didn't acknowledgethevalueofthisfaith.Perhaps faith iswhat isneededmost for asuccessfulcriticalpedagogy-faith in thevalueofinitiatingdialogueinthefaceofconflictsoverdiscoursesandfaithinstudents'andteachers' ability to valueandnegotiateeachothers' differences.

UniversityofNebraska,LincolnLincoln,Nebraska

Notes

"The name "Luke" is a pseudonym chosen by the student whose work isprofiled.2Por further information about the larger goals and findings from this project, see Critical

CompositionPedagogiesand theQuestionofAuthority:Scenesfrom ThreeCollege-LevelClassrooms.Unpublished Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1994.

3For this class, students wrote two individually-authored papers, a collaboratively-authoredresearch paper (which included a 3D-minute oral presentation), six one to two-page response papers toclass readings, and several in-class assignments. The first paper asked students to trace the history ofa belief that they held while the second required an analysis of one form of advertising and the thirdfocused on any controversial issuerelated to the American Experience. Assigned readings were drawnfrom anthologies, local and campus newspapers, magazines, and student writing from the previous term.For formal papers, students wrote several drafts to which I and other students responded via peersessions, full-class workshops, and individual conferences. The six response papers served asthe basisfor classdiscussions on assigned readings. I responded to these papers but did not initially grade them.At the end of the term, students selected and revised their three best responses and turned them in foraportfolio grade.

41realize that reading a student's responses or actions as shaped by one overriding discourse isproblematic because such a reading seems to decontextualize this discourse from its relationship toothers, like race and class. Yet, asJennifer Gore suggests, naming the discourses that shape studentresponse helps teachersexamine how their own discourses shape their practices: "We allhave atendencyto refuse our own implication in relationships of power-knowledge and in particular discourses; we allparticipate in the construction and operation of regimes of truth even while working or arguing againstdomination or authoritarianism, or for empowerment, democracy, and liberation" (109). Thus, thisessay is more a story of how my faith in the authority of critical pedagogy conflicted with Luke's faithin fundamentalist authority and the way these collisions enabled me to question the regimes of truthwithin my discourses as well as his.

5Inproviding this "summary" ofthe poem, I am confronted with the problem of privileging myreading over Luke's. '

"The binary that Luke sets up between Teresa and the narrator, who gains "the respect and thesecurity of being awhite person," can alsobe fruitfully examined in terms oftheories of raceconstructionand the social construction of "whiteness." Sharon Stockton's "Blacks vs. Browns" and AnnLouiseKeating's "Interrogating 'Whiteness,' (De)Constructing'Race'" both discussinterpretive frameworkswhich are useful in analyzing how Luke's response aims to essentialize and transcend race.

Works Cited

Bates, Stephen. Battleground.New York: Poseidon Press, 1993.

Bendroth, Margaret Lamberts. Fundamentalism&Gender,1875 tothePresent.New Haven: Yale UP,1993.

Discoursesof Fundementalism 353

Berlin,JamesandMichaelVivion.CulturalStudiesintheEnglishClassroom.Portsmouth:Boynton/Cook,1992.

Berthoff, Ann, Beth Daniell,}oAnn Campbell, C.Jan Swearingen,JamesMoffett. "Interchanges:SpiritualSitesofComposing."CollegeCompositionandCommunication45(1994):237-63.

Bizzell,Patricia"BeyondAnti-FoundationalisminRhetoricalAuthority:ProblemsDefining'CulturalLiteracy;" CollegeEnglish52(1990):661-75.

Bleich,David. "Literacy Citizenship: Resisting SocialIssues. TheRight to Literacy. Eds. AndreaLunsford, Helene Moglen, andJames Slevin. New York: MLA, 1990. 163-69.

Boone,Kathleen.TheBibleTellsThemSo.'TheDiscourseo/ProtestantFundernentalism.Albany:StateU ofNewYorkP, 1989.

Cox,Harvey. "TheWarringVisionsoftheReligiousRight."TheAtlanticMonthly,November1995:59+.

Fox,Thomas. TheSocialUsesofWriting.·PoliticsandPedagogy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,1990.

Giroux,Henry.BorderCrossings.'CulturalWorkersandthePoliticsofEducation.NewYork:Routledge,1992.

Gore,Jennifer.TheStruggleforPedagogies:CriticalandFeministDiscoursesasRegimesofTrutb.NewYork:Routledge, 1993.

Hernandez,Ines."ParaTeresa."RereadingAmerica.·CulturalContextsforCriticalThinkingandWriting.Eds.Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen,andBonnieLisle.New York:St.Martin's P, 1989.247-49.

Hurlbert, MarkC. andMichaelBlitz.CompositionandResistance.Portsmouth: Heineman, 1991.

Kaminer, Wendy. "AWing andaPrayer: ReligionGoesBackto School." TheNation, 15Dec.1997:18-20.

Keating,AnnLouise. "Interrogating'Whiteness,'(De)Constructing 'Race." CollegeEnglish57(1995):901-18.

Kincheloe.]oeL. TowardaCriticalPoliticsof7heacherThinking:MappingthePostmodern.Westport,CT:Bergin& Garvey, 1993.

Knoblauch,C.H. andLilBrannon.CriticalTeacbtngandtheIdeaofLiteracy.Portsmouth:Boynton/Cook,1993.

Lather, Patricia. GettingSmart.'FeministResearchandPedagogywith/in thePostmodern.New York:Routledge, 1991.

Marty,MartinandR.ScottAppleby.FundementalismsandSociety.·ReclaimingtheSciences,theFamily,andEducation.Chicago:U ofChicagoP, 1993.

Mclaren,Peter.LifeinSchools.·AnIntroductiontotheCriticalPedagogyintheFoundationo/Education.NewYork: Longman, 1989.

Moffett,James.Stormin theMountains.·ACaseStudyofCensorship,Conjlict,andConsciousness.Carbondale:Southern IllinoisUP, 1988.

Ryder, Phyllis Mentzell. "I'm OK, You're (Not) OK: Teaching in aWorld of Relativism." jAC:AJournalofCompositionTheory15(1995):511-25.

Shor.Ira, EmpoweringEducation:CriticalTeacbingjorSocialCbange.Chicago:U ofChicagoP, 1992.

Simon,Roger.TeachingAgainsttheGrain.'TextsforaPedagogyofPossibility.NewYork:Bergin& Garvey,1992.

Stockton, Sharon. "'Blacksvs.Browns': Questioningthe White Ground." CollegeEnglish57(1995):166-81.

Swilky,Jody. "ResistingDifference:StudentResponseto MulticulturalTexts."TheWritingInstructor(1993): 21-33.