You are reading a recap of episode 6 of the Netflix series Chair Collaborated with writers Alison Kinney, Grace Lafry, Dan Sinikin and Rebecca Vanzo.Find our other episode recaps here.

For the sake of space and clarity, the following content has been edited.

Rebecca: In fact, I am shocked that I like this series so much.One of my favorite things about it is that it ends with Ji-Yoon in the classroom, let’s read it carefully-this is not Barbra Streisand The mirror has two faces To be ignorant of love. There is a practical text for this class. We see that she loves teaching, even after she lost everything, literature, language and pedagogy still centered on her. I like Emily Dickinson, but choosing this particular poem and explanatory work feels very clichéd. In other words, it is rare to see teaching descriptions in which teachers and students are happy with the actual content of the text.

An ongoing question that Grace has been asking is “What is Chair think? “This is a sitcom, so on one level it wants people to laugh. But on another level, it is an old-fashioned defense of the value of English departments and universities as a space for knowledge participation. This defense is at the end of the episode. It happened very quickly. Ji Yoon defended the students, she returned to the classroom happily, and Bill showed a deep devotion to the students’ work. The good daily life of this career is the end, but of course, ordinary happiness does not produce funny comedy.

with: I was worried before Chair It may be saying goodbye to English and portraying us as moments that are not suitable for us. I’m wrong. I am right. I was wrong for the reasons you pointed out, Rebecca. I am also very happy to have the opportunity to see Ji Yun in action. She is enthusiastic, in her own home. Her students-unlike many other classroom scenes on this show-are very engaged and wary of Emily Dickinson’s language.

This is a “refuge” scenario-the word Ji Yoon used when he changed his mind and decided to defend him during Bill’s hearing. She said that this university should be “a refuge from nonsense.” Her speech to the dean was a structural turn of the show. She observed that the student Bill’s protest had nothing to do with Bill. They are about the college’s failure to retain faculty and staff of colored people, failing to become a refuge for colored students, and imagining itself as an alibi that is not nonsense. Pembroke’s job seems to be, in Ji-Yoon’s words, “deceive them or manage them or make them obey”. As we all know, universities satisfy their students as consumers.

So Dickinson is a refuge-and it is beautiful. But this is not enough. This is why when I worry about the show portraying us as moments that are not suitable for us, I am not wrong. Pembroke University is a certain type of university. It’s not ivy, but it’s close. Despite all the troubles, it has enough prestige and enough endowment to be a refuge: cover up the fact that most people who teach in higher education institutions in the country are part-timers, without office or health insurance or job stability Sex-if they can make up $30,000 a year, they will be lucky.

Ji-Yoon said that Pembroke can fire Bill, but unless it changes radically, its students will not rest. We also have no sign that Pembroke will change—in fact, there is no sign that the faculty union does anything to advocate for change. Dickinson’s refuge is beautiful fatalism.

So the hope of the end of the show, something with feathers, feels like a false promise. I feel that this show is a blessing after all, a bittersweet, a belief in us and what we did when we sank.

Alison: What are you talking about false promises of hope-irreversible? -The defective institution feels right. Ji-Yoon’s speech here is not only the conclusion of the show, not only the (true and inadequate) answers to the questions we have been asking, but also, perhaps the inevitable result of Ji-Yoon’s (failed) speech “Master The tools of this will never tear down the owner’s house.” Audre Lorde wrote: “Differences must not only be tolerated, but also seen as the basis of a necessary polarity. Our creativity can be stimulated between them like dialectics… Only Only in the interdependence of the different advantages of recognition and equality can we have the ability to find new ways to live in the world, as well as the courage and support to act in places where there are no regulations.” The word “hope” is too simplified to apply to Luo. What Germany seeks, but perhaps there is something similar to hope in the juxtaposition of these texts, ideals, and demands for better institutions. Or, as Bill suggested in the (failed) speech in episode 1: Hope is continuous action, even if there is no belief or belief, that action can change anything.

We called four scholars to talk about the drama’s depiction of the academic world, and they did not flinch. Read the summary:

Grace: I think “read carefully” means different things to different people. If it is to become the lingua franca of our discipline, this may be a problem.I know what feel Like: Feeling thoughtful, attentive, away from the rush of daily life.For this reason, I cannot agree with the short excerpt posted by Yaz Moby Dick It has a lot to do with it on Twitter.

We also provide some other perusal concepts. Dan wrote beautifully about Ji-Yoon’s “refuge” model, and I was completely fascinated by it (and by Sandra Oh as a delivery ship). The second part of Ji-Yoon’s phrase-“A refuge from nonsense”-made me pause even more. What exactly is “nonsense”?She pointed to the children protesting outside the window: maybe nonsense is a virtue signal to abolish the pseudo-politics of culture, as we mostly agree, it has always been a scarecrow Chair Always.But I am also worried that Dickinson is nonsense, and so is love; after all, the humanities may be more than just a refuge. From Nonsense, but a refuge for nonsense. Jonathan Eburne believes that one of the main advantages of our profession is that even if we have a very bad day at work, no one has died.

Rebecca: I also want to talk about Joan’s new role as chairman. This should feel like a victory that is not worth the loss, but the show sees it as a real victory.

Grace: It’s as if Joan has always been the secret protagonist. After watching the first episode, I was worried that women of color would become the code for white women. I don’t think that is true, but I agree that the show views Joan’s election after the expulsion of Ji-Yoon as a victory, not a coup by a white teacher.

Rebecca: Who we have discussed Chair It is for, and obviously, the audience of scholars is too small to serve us. The show recognizes that academic life is already suitable for sitcoms, but it must remain universal enough and that humor does not require insider knowledge. The show also understands the general joy of the narrative of women of victory-even if it gives us the worst version. (I don’t know if Joan will be a good chair, just because her ability to think outside of her own interests seems to be limited.) Joan’s victory came from using Ji-Yoon as a scapegoat, because the faculty tried to imagine a way out of trouble Methods. Generally unstable. This is the end of inter-generational friendship. Joan’s success, even though it was coded as moving forward, remained familiar-basically ineffective and full of symbolic gestures. But we can be happy for her to have a big office!

Grace: My final thought: Twitter and Netflix are also homes for the owner.



Source link