A Pedagogy of Charity

Porter, Kevin J. "A Pedagogy of Charity: Donald Davidson and the Student-Negotiated Composition Classroom." College Composition and Communication 52.4 (2001): 574-611.

In “A Pedagogy of Charity,” Porter offers Donald Davidson's philosophy of language as theoretical underpinning for current practices.  First, he describes his students' responses to an evaluation assignment in which they over-focused on criticizing the writer’s work, using their performance to demonstrate the consequences of a “pedagogy of severity,” which decisively points out errors and thus closes the door to dialogue by presuming to know what students mean to communicate and how they should do so.  He argues that this method "often transforms students into the kind of harsh, antagonistic reader that they would otherwise resent" (577), as evidenced by his own students' work. Even positive feedback emerging from this pedagogy is dangerous, since "writing 'good job'" also puts an end to dialogue and fails to offer explanation (582). 

Next, Porter explains Donald Davidson's philosophy of language.  Davidson argues that each communicator brings expectations to a conversation and uses them to interpret utterances.  If the expectations or "prior theories" match, communication is successful (585).  If they do not, the communicators must each construct "a passing theory" that may then allow successful communication (585).  In this process, communicators rely on "charity, which requires us to accept others as rational beings with mostly true and coherent beliefs" (585). We do not choose charity; it is a "precondition for communication" (586) because we must assume that an interlocutor isn’t universally in error—all of his beliefs aren’t false or irrational.  But charity doesn’t require us to assume that all beliefs are correct or give up the right to reject any particular assertion.

Finally, Porter reports the results of a second evaluation in which his students responded critically and constructively after experiencing a pedagogy of charity.  He begins by denouncing practices ranging from “assignments that demand…summary over analysis” (586) to “teacher-initiated prefabricated discussion topics" (587), and uncharitably characterizes such pedagogy (and thus teachers using it) as one that "distrusts its students, who must be force-fed information and then constantly watched to ensure that the information is retained--and punished if it is not" (587).  Considering that he urges us not to assume error on the part of students, but instead engage in dialogue that recognizes their ability to make rational choices, this dismissal of other instructors as thoughtless and cruel seems contradictory, especially juxtaposed against the proceeding description and direct quotation of student work, which is characterized by a reflective and generous tone, even when a writer has, for instance, employed unfair stereotypes.

Porter's article clearly connects Davidson's philosophy of language and composition instruction.  The examples from his classroom demonstrate the concept’s importance, although his convenient assumptions of causality should be questioned (which he admits to an extent with his mention of Newkirk’s work). Further, his title seems to promise an equal focus on the "student-negotiated…classroom," but Porter simply refers to the concept, not even going so far as to define or summarize it.  In short, the article's methods make its evidence anecdotal at best, but the description of Davidson's concept of charity and the demonstration of its connection to the composition classroom are useful and valuable.