Faculty Directory

Interview with David Rutledge

Recent Teaching History
History: A Celebration of Place; 2000-1
MIT; 1999-2000; 1998-99
Images: Physical Speculations on Unknown Conditions; 1997-98
SOS: Review of Literature in Psychology; 1997-98
Native American Studies; 1996-97
Nature and Technology; Spring 1996
Jungian Studies; Fall 1995 - Winter 1996
Sense of Place; 1994-95
Culture of Psychology; 1993-94

Recent and Current Areas of Interest

My interests are broadly based indigenous studies or shamanistic studies. I'm not interested in doing shamanism, but in understanding it from a philosophic point of view. This interest brings together the three threads of my research. The first is shamanism or the writings of indigenous peoples which demonstrate a different way of viewing reality and expressing reality. Another thread is post-modernism and the whole idea of challenging metaphysical assumptions about the way we experience the world and seeing that there are lots of alternatives and that there is no ground to stand on, so to speak to choose one over another , but rather there are lots of wonderful things to think about and wonderful ways of experiences the world. And the third thread is my on-going interest in Jung and his approach to the western philosophical tradition - his unstoppable desire to put mystery back into the western tradition. For me these three threads weave together both in the west and in lots of different cultures as the shamanistic tradition. That is the center of what I am thinking and reading about right now. Again, not how to, but rather a philosophic issue about what it means to be human.
I really am not interested very much in the practices of shamanism. I don't see shamanism in terms of ecstatic states of consciousness, or highs, but rather as a product of lots of very hard work. Philosophically shamanism is a way to look at another side of reality, that has a lot of importance for humans, the study of mythology, of dreams, of altered states of consciousness. I am interested in these things not as ends in themselves, but as tools for learning, as vehicles for asking questions about who we are as human beings. One needs to be very rigorous about that.

Are there particular authors/artists/thinkers whose work you interested and which you often ask students to examine?

I like to have students read a couple of native American Writers, N. Scott Momoday and Leslie Marmon Silko, and very importantly Gerald Vizenor. Others that I like students to look at are Trinh Thi Minh Ha and Toni Cade Bambara. Of course Jung, but form a certain perspective. Not so much a psychotherapeutic perspective, but from a philosophic perspective. Because Jung was an important philosopher: he may have been the last great system builder. I also find the work of Freud important in terms of thinking about the culture of the modern world.

In the post-modern tradition I like students to read Heidegger, Foucault, Derida and then some of the linguistic work of Saussaure. Within both of the Jungian tradition and the post-modern tradition there are a number of land mark essays and I am always interested in having students read them.

Are there specific areas of interest or issues you want to work with students on in the current year?

I am open to a broad range of materials, but the stuff that really excites me have to do with the philosophical notion of the social construction of reality. Its a very broad topic and I have a hard time limiting it. But I am interested in thinking about how a particular social construction opens some doors on reality and slams other doors shut. Really I am interested in working with students who want to look seriously at almost any philosopher.

Specific Skills, Competence, Techniques:

The thing I really try to teach is the ability to see ones own context and to see it as different from someone else's context. I want students to recognize that there isn't some absolute approach to knowledge, but that they must see their own personal and cultural context that suggests particular assumptions and understandings. Within programs I critique writing and teach a fair amount about clear exposition and the use of evidence. I want students to be come conscious about their writing. I want them to be aware of where they are going and how they are arriving there and at the same time make sure they tell their reader where they are going. Thus I teach some critical reasoning, argumentation, and the use of evidence. Finally I push students to know what they think. I ask for a kind of self examination - what do you think and why.

What are key qualities you look for and techniques you use to assess and help students assess their work?

Well, I am a sucker for brilliant insights. I love to find sophisticated illuminations in papers. I like to talk to students about them. That's not nuts and bolts writing, but it is the thing I enjoy most about papers. I love ideas and pay a lot of attention to them. What I am really looking for is people turning on and taking an idea and making it their own, whether it is brand new and original or not. The capacity to become engaged and to actually see what is there, to be enlightened by an idea is what is crucial. I usually can tell this has happened by seeing a student apply an idea out of its original context in a new situation. That's the surest sign they are on the track of understanding the idea and themselves in relation to it. The critical issue is that the student sees the relationship between himself and the idea. The material isn't an independent body, but only important as it exists in relation to them. I ask "Why is this important to you?" "Why is this and issue for you?"

Teaching Style:How would you characterize yourself as a teacher?

Intellectually rigorous. I like to push limits of intellectual presumption. I want students to understand where they come from and why they believe what they believe. I push for self reflection. I always ask students "How much time have you spent studying yourself?" and "Who in the world are you?" "Who are you as a subject of study?" I am very Rogerian in some respects. I appreciate the whole idea of a person discovering, to use a bad word, a path and following it for the full length of their journey. I can’t see their path and they have only an inkling of where it is. I have to trust they know where they are going. So I am not a disciplinarian.

I follow the syllabus and I am strict about getting things in on time, but I am much more open ended in terms of content. We enter into a contract the first day of class. The students know what is due, when it is due and we don't mess around with that. In terms of the mechanics of the eleven week quarter. It is much easier for every one if we set up clear expectations.

What types of students tend to do well with you?

Lots of different kinds of students do well with me. Strong independent students who know what they want and need just a bit of guidance and permission to go ahead and do it. But also somewhat weak dependent students do well who need a lot of hand holding and need permission to change the rules from high school. I love to become engaged with students who are pursuing something that is important to them and are really knocking themselves out over it.

What types of students have a hard time with you?

Students who are looking for definite, dictates about what I want them to do. Who just want to be intellectual bureaucrats, who just want to fulfill a check list of requirements. Those sorts of students tend to get angry with me. Lazy students do poorly. I tell lazy students they are wasting their time. That being an undergraduate for four years is really a privilege and a wonderful experience and if their not willing to work they shouldn't be here. Unless students are willing to commit themselves and engage, they are doing themselves a real disservice.

Sometimes students come to me thinking that they are going to learn something they are not, especially Jung. They will want everything I know about Jung in a rote way or a purely therapeutic way, and they simply can't get that from me.

What do your student evaluations say about the way you come across to students?

My good student evaluations tend to say "easy going," "good listener with a broad range of perspectives without too much judgement," "a good sense of humor," "who is intellectually rigorous and knows the material well." Bad evaluations usually are from students who expect me to be able to teach very specific detailed information about say "exactly what Jung thought."

Expectations about Contracts, Internships, and Evaluations
What qualities do you look for in a student who comes to you for work in a contract?

I find I don't want to do a lot of contracts these days, mostly because when I have a full program it is a lot of extra work. I really like older students who have a bit of life experience to base their reflection on. This is especially true in psychology.

I think contracts can be useful as a kind of rhythm. I like to see them as advanced work or exploratory work that emerges out of a program. When people find that they are interested in something that they can't find in a program and need to do a quarter or two of independent work in specific area then a contract may be appropriate. If a student comes to me and says that a particular idea or subject kept coming up in a program setting and they want to really explore that material, then I can get excited about a contract. I don't find contracts as useful for people who say "I am tired of programs and want to take a year to travel or meditate" I say " That is good but it isn't college."

What information do you want to see when a person comes to look for a contract?

For internships, I tend to do them in psychology and almost always with students I have already worked with in a different context. For contracts, I want to know the story about why you want to study this topic. How does this fit in with who you are and where you see yourself going. I tend to write quite vague contracts that allow a great deal of room for exploration and development. I keep wishing the contracts could be written after rather than before. Students really need to convince me that they know where they are going. A referral from another faculty member who I know and respect helps a lot in my deciding to take a contract.

When writing evaluations what are the key qualities or attributes of student work you access?

The thing I personally appreciate the most is how much of themselves they have put into the work. I look for the difference between just doing what is necessary and pushing some limits and becoming engaged with the material. I don't necessarily expect that students shouldn't be confused or have grasped every point. Students might emerge with lots of ideas.

Part of what I mean by putting themselves into their work is becoming a regularly contributing member of the class community. I have a real sense of an attendance requirement. At Evergreen this is really critical since so much emerges as a process in class.

Interviewer: Matt Smith