Rachel
Sherman
Dr.
Amy Horowitz
Living
Jerusalem
April
30, 2013
Living Jerusalem Reflection: Class Critique
I enjoyed Living Jerusalem very
much. It is unlike any course I have taken at Indiana University thus far, and
probably any course I might take ever. The course made an honest effort to open
students’ eyes in an unbiased way, which proves difficult as nearly all
information regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict has some sort of bias or agenda.
I know this isn’t the place to really discuss our feelings about how the course
has impacted each of us personally (that’s what the blogs are for), but the
format of the course and the structure definitely affected the dynamic and how
I came to view the course as a whole and my opinions about the Arab-Israeli
conflict that was shaped over the semester.
Upon entering the class I really had
no idea what to expect and this was typical of many other students within in
the Living Jerusalem Project that I spoke to. The blogs were a great way to
find a small entryway into fellow classmates’ minds about the material. I could
relate to their insights, misconceptions, and confusions. I felt like some of
the ideas that made me think the most were presented in the personal blog
posts. I would have enjoyed reading and writing more of the personal blog posts
because it allowed me to reevaluate my opinions and viewpoints and to see them
next to those of my classmates’. The commentary on the blog posts had the
possibility to be entirely personal and based on how each student interpreted
the information. Most of the questions were open-ended, which encouraged
students to take the prompts as they saw fit, but it often left me without a
lot of direction and guidance. The reassuring aspect is that the class is truly
an experiment where we were learning together and it was difficult to be “wrong”
in a situation such as this.
One major critique I would have
would be about the class is the scheduling of speakers for each day. The
speakers were individually intriguing and were very engaging in what they had
to say in regards to their knowledge of the topics such as gay rights, music,
social issues, political issues, and many others. The topics seemed to jump around
from one to another it was difficult to often get a grasp on their perspectives
fast enough, because we had just as quickly moved on to another issue,
typically linked to the previous speaker, but still different enough to create
confusion. In truth I think the only way to combat this is time, which we was
always working against us. In the future, I would hope that the course is
divided into more cohesive topics from week to week. It was interesting to see
many different aspects of Jerusalem, but it made it difficult to become
immersed in the specific issue we were discussing within the overarching
cultural concept of Jerusalem.
Another suggestion or critique I
have about the style of the class would be to include a section about
photographs and photography of/in Jerusalem. It was difficult to envision
issues of specific spaces when we were not presented with physical photos. It
made it difficult to connect to Jerusalem as a physical space and it prevented
us from having a mental picture of the material. This was highlighted in the
discussions regarding the settlements. The basic information was relatively
accessible or relatable, especially about the basic human rights violations but
it was entirely different when one of the final presentations showed photos of
the crowded spaces and the uninhabitable conditions, often in extremely
undesirable locations. If there had been a section specifically on photos or
more photos included in the preface of each article, then it might have made
the topics a bit more personal or relatable.
The class structure is built for
intimate discussions, but the large size of our class prevented in depth
discussions in which students learned from another through intellectual debate
and dialog. The structure of the class encourages students to speak among
themselves in regards to the articles and speakers inside and outside of class.
Living Jerusalem IU was extremely well attended, which is a testament to the
class’ overall message and goal of allowing students to explore the
Arab-Israeli conflict in a civil and productive manner. It became difficult,
especially towards the end of the class, to discuss people’s blogs with them
because they were able to hide behind their keyboards the entire semester. In
the beginning, the blogs were personally terrifying because they were shared
among the entire class. Students quickly realize that they only have a limited
amount of time to read other blogs and have to become more selective in the
ones that they choose to read. I would recommend that students would be
assigned different blog posts to comment on. It would reinforce the practice of
having students create blog posts on a biweekly basis and it would reinforce
the practice of commenting on each other’s blogs. In such a large class, it
would make the atmosphere more personal, which was challenging at times during
such a large class. It was interesting to see how the blogs had the potential
to be extremely personal, but each student had the opportunity to read or
listen to the speakers.
Another critique I have of the class
is that we were not given the opportunity to discuss with Ohio State University
about their experiences with the speakers and the materials. We were able to
hear the same lectures, which gave students a fair basis, but we were unable to
hear the discussions afterwards. This certainly gave students at IU and Ohio
State a sense of privacy, but that sense of privacy was not present to begin
with because we were asked to share our thoughts and opinions on our blogs. It
would be interesting to record interactions between the Ohio State class and
the IU class in terms of dynamics and their social and political views on the
Arab-Israeli conflict after the speakers we encountered. In the future it might
be beneficial to pair each student up with a student on each campus. This would
open students up to new perspectives based on their backgrounds and general
interest in the overall topic. The class is described as more of an experiment
in the course description and like many experiments there are variables that
can be altered in order to produce or change the outcome of that reaction.
Another issue for me during the
class was the final project. Although we were able to choose any topic we
wanted for the project, the topics were almost too open and too broad. I think
everyone would have benefitted from a rubric or something to indicate how we
would have been graded, so we could have planned better and differently. The
final project allowed each student to explore the topics we discussed during
class in either a private or a public setting, or something entirely different.
I liked the fact that they were all different and creative in terms of their levels
of formality, but I had trouble associating a sense of finality within the
class through the completion of my project.
Some of my favorite moments in the
class were during the section about Karen Armstrong’s history of Jerusalem. My
biggest complaint with her book was that it read as overly emotional towards
both sides in an effort to keep bias out of the equation. This is not to
discount her book as an excellent introduction, because it truly was. For
future classes I would be interested in looking at biased sources in order to
compare them. This would allow students to evaluate the different histories in
order to create one that made the most sense to them personally. By looking at
openly biased sources and their versions of history, it would also allow students
to identify biases within articles on their own.
I also think that students should
have been more informed about the impact they could and would have by
participating in class. I think we were all encouraged to participate during
class, but naturally some people responded more than others. I do not think
that people realized that they could make a strong impact on the course through
this participation. Conversations about the speakers, our projects, and blog
comments could be molded or geared towards our class’ interests. I think more
people may have participated if they could have realized that by just speaking,
they would be able to shape the conversations into something that were more
interested in.
Upon reading the course description
for Living Jerusalem: Ethnography and Bridge Blogging in Disputed Territories,
I had absolutely no idea what to expect. I was drawn in by the word “Jerusalem”
in the course title, as someone that loves Israel in general, especially
Jerusalem, and the cross-counts for my majors (always an added bonus). I am
taking 18 credit hours and was feeling very stressed about the sheer amount of
work I received within the first few weeks of class. The blogging was very intimidating
at first considering I had had no prior experience with it except for a few
short angst-filled posts on Tumblr in 7th grade (hardly academic or
anything worth talking about). I commend Living Jerusalem as a class and as a
concept for pushing students outside of their comfort zones in terms of an alternative
format for a course.