I’m curious about further exploring the role of formal education in a person’s “education,” or the myriad ways they’ve been schooled, learned knowledge and/or skills, and consequently grown and developed as a person. Grant Wiggins was the only formally educated (attended a black university) man in his community; not even Reverend Ambrose was formally educated. Grant’s education permitted him a play special and privileged role on the plantation. He was seen as a leader, eminently referred to as “professor” by black adults. Had Grant not attended university and been a teacher, chances are that he would not have been asked by Miss Emma to speak to Jefferson.
Throughout the novel, we follow Grant’s internal tensions as he navigates trying conversations and spaces with various people (Henri Pichot, Jefferson, introducing Vivian to his aunt, fight at the bar). This tension is in part fueled by the ‘distance’ that being formally educated has afforded him. To name a couple examples of this distance: he loses his faith while away at school and he is allowed to enter into, albeit, cynical conversation with his old school teacher about how the white man will “make you the nigger you were born to be” because he is a school teacher, a role earned through formal education. These distances grant Grant a unique perspective. He can observe others, contextualize his observations, and articulate them more astutely than others without a formal education. He can witness the children cutting and stacking logs and recognize the cycle of how he did the same acts when he was in school. He can acknowledge he had been kept waiting by Guadry and Pichot for hours as their means to devalue him. He can recall recall a James Joyce short story about the way people talk about heroes to interpret a conversation at the bar, ultimately leading him to think of Jefferson. His perspective and experiences, in part fueled by the distance education as afforded him, further reveal the tensions Grant navigates. Could someone without a formal education have made these observations? Yes. But Grant’s reception of a formal education further enabled and shaped his perspective.
A few minor anecdotes aside, we are not given significant access to his memories of university– we are mostly left with Grant’s consciousness, influenced by formal education.
Grant holds an esteemed position in the community as a teacher, earned through formal education, which challenges him to assume roles and responsibilities which may or may not have been in the job description– like speaking with Jefferson (and, arguably, speaking of that situation in his classroom). Grant became further educated (on the ways of freedom) by fulfilling and performing these roles; his formal education gave way to another type of education as a teacher within his community and in the jail cell which (most likely) would have not been possible without a formal education.
But is this always the case? Does formal education enable or disable someone from becoming further ‘educated’?
School's Not Everything! 
I think Matt’s makes a reasonable claim in saying that Miss Emma likely would not have asked Grant to talk to Jefferson had he not been a teacher. Additionally, I agree with the general premise of (what I understand to be) Matt’s argument: that Grant’s formal education, which allows him to become the only teacher on the plantation, necessarily puts him in a unique position on the plantation vis-a-vis other people of color. I am not sure, however, if I agree with Grant’s role being special or privileged. The only characters that show explicit deference to Grant’s education are Miss Emma and Farrell Jarreau (Henry Pichot’s yardman). Rather, I think that there are many moments that Grant’s formal education hinders his understanding, rather than supplementing it. I also agree with Matt that many of Grant’s perceptions of the people around him are fueled by the distance he feels. Yet I found many of these observations, while they acknowledged larger social patterns and constructs, seemed blind to the immediate circumstances in front of him. In the moment he recognizes the students enjoying the physical labor, he is only able to assess them as pawns in a cycle: not as young children excited to be out of a classroom with their friends.
This tendency to see the concept while missing the immediate is demonstrated multiple times in the novel, and also, I think, relates to how Grant’s formal education might impact his language. I am also not sure that we can argue that Grant articulates his thoughts more astutely than others, because we don’t have access to any other character’s internal monologues. We are witness only to the thoughts they speak out loud in Grant’s presence. I think it is is reasonable to assume that he might be able to articulate them in language we recognize, through the standards of mainstream English, as articulate.
I think that Grant uses this “articulateness” to obscure his thoughts rather than articulate them, something I noticed in conversations Grant has with Vivian. When he first tells Vivian that Miss Emma has asked him to talk to Jefferson, wondering why he shouldn’t “let the hog die without knowing anything” (31), Vivian is brought to tears, but she insists that he must go up there “for me…for us,” recognizing, ostensibly, the moral value and urgency in Miss Emma’s request. Later, when Vivian asks him if Irene is in love with him, Grant launches into a cynical tirade about the reasons Miss Emma, Irene, and his aunt truly rely on him. At multiple moments, Grant checks in with Vivian to see if she’s following his “logic” (she isn’t), and though Grant can recognize her disagreement (“I can see by your face you don’t agree, so I’ll try again”), he continues to try to explain it to her, confusing her disagreement and misunderstanding. I read both of these scenes as moments that Vivian recognizes Grant’s reasoning as products of cynicism and fear. Though Grant is “eloquently” explaining himself, his words are not being used to articulate a feeling, but to mask it. This is also manifested in Grant’s repeated requests to “drop everything” and run away with Vivian – it is not an escape from their situation, but an escape from his fear and feelings of inadequacy (141). It is also notable that Vivian is also a teacher, and presumably has also been formally educated, indicating that Grant’s cynicism may not be a result of more intelligence or understanding, but of something deeper.
As I write this, I’m reminded of the scene that Jefferson is grinning as he insults Vivian, and Grant recognizes the grin as “the expression of the most heartrending pain I had ever see on anyone’s face” (130). This, to me, feels like a demonstration of real knowledge, and I if the way Grant becomes further educated in the novel (as Matt alludes to) is an ability to do what Vivian does with him – sort through the words to see the immediate; not the literal meaning of the speech, but the motivations of the person producing it.
LikeLike
Tanya, This response is very strong. And I think you’re right to point out, for all of us, that Grant is not the only formally educated character in the story. Besides his former teacher, who had been formally educated before him, there is Vivian, who it seems might have been forgotten in some of our posts.
I also agree that it’s important to recognize that we don’t have access to the other characters’ thoughts except by way of speech rendered through Grant, and then of course except through Jefferson’s journal. It seems if we want to make any comparison about how formal education allows for self reflection and distanced reflection, we need compare Grant and Jefferson’s use of language in their reflections. Still the comparison would be tricky, since everything about Jefferson’s writing has been framed for us before hand through Grant’s narration.
I am very interested in the idea that clarity of language can actually be an obfuscating tactic. Or that articulation that comes with education allows one to hide behind abstract concepts and a certain over determined world view that doesn’t allow for the complexities and possibilities of the children’s communal joy and their communal force right now.
LikeLike