When I teach literature – any of it really, but Shakespeare in particular – I have a tendency to use references to popular culture to help my students make sense of the texts they read, and in particular, the characters that populate them.
For example, I’ve pointed out to students that there’s a certain Cartman (of South Park)-esque “Respect my authoritah” attitude in much of Richard III’s interactions with other characters (other Cartman catch-phrases work equally well with Richard II, incidentally). I’ve also taken great advantage of YouTube clips to draw students into an understanding of the cultural relevance of Shakespeare: we’ve watched a video of Peter Sellers reciting The Beatles’ “Hard Day’s Night” in the style of Laurence Olivier’s Richard III, and we’ve compared the President’s speech in Independence Day to Olivier’s rendition of the St. Crispin’s Day speech.
These aren’t simply gimmicks to encourage student interest; aside from my own appreciation for pop culture, I have a larger purpose in introducing these comparisons, a purpose based in my own educational training. Taking its cues from cognitive psychology, constructivist educational philosophy* suggests that we organize all of our experiences and all of our knowledge in “cognitive schema.” Essentially, we build information on already existing knowledge and attempt to make sense of new information based on those structures of understanding. In order to facilitate significant learning and thinking, educators need to create a sense of cognitive dissonance – a point where the student must grapple with information that does not fit within his or her cognitive schemata. From this point of dissonance, individuals construct their own understanding of information.
Since part of what we’re teaching when we’re teaching literature is appreciation – whether it’s of language or the place of literature in culture – we need to help students make the links. Having students connect to their own knowledge can be a significant way to encourage students to think about their own views of literature, to create that cognitive dissonance that encourages critical thinking and deep understanding of the material. This is particularly true with Shakespeare— a class which can feel so disconnected from present day student experience—whether we’re teaching it in a senior level course for English majors or a first year general education course.
By having students consider the relationship between Shakespeare’s characters, ideas and language, we can encourage students to recast their understanding of Shakespeare – we’re told we have to read Shakespeare, but as students we don’t always know why. Once students can begin to understand the relevance of Shakespeare beyond “school stuff,” we can continue to delve more deeply into what it is that we’re looking at.
So perhaps the pop culture thing does begin as something of a gimmick. But ultimately it must reach beyond a means to grab students’ attention at the beginning of class. Rather, part of our work in the classroom is to give the students a reason to grapple with Shakespeare.
Certainly character comparisons in class discussion can be useful. Having students cast a play with current actors and celebrities can also be effective, particularly since it requires students to actually understand the characters in the play (and will result in very contemporary pop culture). I’ve seen useful exercises with various forms of social networking as well – an acquaintance of mine has experimented with using Ning to have students build social networks populated by characters in a play.
And I could go on. My point here is that pop culture is not a distraction from teaching significant works of literature, but rather an asset. It’s a way in – and if we can help our students comprehend the relevance of Shakespeare (or any other major literary figure), we can open the door for more significant discussion. Literature is part of culture, and it is foundational for much of the culture that our students consume. They just don’t always think that’s the case.
*My understanding of constructivist educational philosophy derives primarily from the work of the professors at my alma mater, Augustana College (Illinois). In particular, I would point to Constructivist Methods for the Secondary Classroom: Engaged Minds by Ina Claire Gabler and Mike Schroeder. Dr. Schroeder was one of my professors at Augustana.