Blog on En Los Dos Idiomas

"Literacy is a social phenomenon...it is a system or tool, created by human beings and passed on from one human being to another" (475).

I think this quote directly explains the concept of the entire essay En Los Dos Idiomas written by Marcia Farr. This essay was basically a case study on a group of Mexican American people within the location of Chicago, IL and references back to a few parts in Mexico. The author explains how literacy is being learned and utilized informally and subconsciously within various environments such as the workplace, church, and inside of the home.

I thought it was particularly interesting to see how literacy was being taught from one person (whom could be categorized as non literate) to another person whom could be categorized as illiterate or non literate. It was interesting to see the relationship between hearing the pronunciation of words transcribe into writing and comprehension of the alphabet. I think that this essay is proof that we live in a very socially intellectual society and that sort of expands the concept of education. Education seems to mean the ability to make connections between direct experiences (oral language, social interactions) with the technicality/structure of what is learned in the classroom (grammar, the alphabet, etc. ) Perhaps there is so much emphasis on the latter that the experiential quality becomes subconscious, this is also proven in the essay written by Ong when he says that writing is a technology that has become inherently internalized. I think one thing I realized when reading this essay is that before the Mexican families even began to be interested in education, they had to find a practical use for it in their daily lives. For example, they needed to communicate with other family members through letter writing, which prompted them to start to become more aware of their uses of language and being inspired to expand their capabilities. This could translate within classrooms, I have always believed that students learn best, seem the most engaged when they can take the knowledge that they learn in the classroom and bring it into their own worlds.

Blog on "Writing is a technology..."

"Nevertheless, by contrast with natural, oral speech, writing is completely artificial. There is no way to write "naturally"...To live and understand fully, we need not only proximity but also distance. This writing provides for, thereby accelerating the evolution of consciousness as nothing else before it does"( Ong 23).

I thought this essay was very interesting. I can recall from other classes the general assumption that a culture of people can only be defined as "civilized" only when they have acquired a written language. Although the author of this essay does parallel both the attributes of written and oral communication it does seem that he would be in agreement with that. Writing does create a distance between the "knower" and the "known" and within that space there is perception without borders/constraint and from that position of "openness" human beings have created and acquired so much knowledge and art. However, when Ong talks about using more words to explain definitions of words it seems apparent to me that the human mind can then become so conceptual that it blurs the direct experience of the world with our internal projections of reality;thus creating our own worlds so to speak, "living in our heads". It seems then that writing does become a paradox.

Ong then uses the "tree definition" to illustrate how oral traditions are somewhat limited as well. He says, "What is a tree? Define a tree", the illiterate peasant replies, "Why should I? Everyone knows what a tree is" (Ong 29). He believes that oral speech and though narrativizes experiences/environment. I am in agreement with that. I also think that oral speech provides that space for reflection and personal interpretation. What would happen if we were to look an object and not readily define it with words? In my opinion creativity takes place within that spaciousness and that is what art is inspired by. I also thought it was interesting how he described the mental processes of oral speech as describing and interpretation. He says that an orator can describe something but when asked to repeat it they use words to further articulate their interpretations of what was said instead of using the same wording. I find that within our society of both heavily used, often blended oral and written speech, I possess a sort of dualistic literacy. So then it seems that the most effective speech would be a collective of both written and verbal. With written speech generating proximity, logic, universal knowledge and oral speech being the spaciousness in which we as humans have furthered our creativity and technological advances.

Blog on "The ethnography of literacy"

"Mass education, mass literacy, etc. necessarily involves a cheapening or debasing of culture, language, and literature...We must come to terms with the lives of people without patronizing them or falling into what can become a sociology of pathos"(Szwed 427).

This quote resonated with me the most and seemed to summarize the author's opinion/central theme within the essay. It is pretty difficult to try and construct a universal definition of the term "literacy" the author offers a few general descriptions such as; possessing education (ability to read and write) and a persons knowledge of a particular subject. When thinking about the title "The ethnography of literacy" however, this seems to be an obvious yet rarely spoken of definition of what literacy is and how it is expressed in our daily lives. The author discusses how language and literacy are deeply engrained in our culture through advertisements, street signs, menus, etc. I also thought it was interesting that the author introduced this sort of hierarchal structure of "smart/intellectual" reading which is "scholarly discourse" textbook/informational" reading verses "entertainment/junk reading" such as magazines, sports statistics, etc. This subliminal hierarchy reinforces why success on standardized tests seems to determine a persons intellectual capability which therefore suggests that it is more important to expand vocabularies and theorize about the world from a distant standpoint instead of actually articulating our own experiences and sharing those with each other. In my opinion I think literacy is undefineable and it simply cannot define/measure someone’s level of comprehension and intellectual capabilities. I also think that instead of looking for a universal definition it is important to allow fluidity within the concept and that that may enrich our appreciation for all forms of communication, expression, and expansion of knowledge and experiences.

Blog#6 Applying Freire's concepts to modern society

"His task is to "fill" students with the contents of his narration-contents which are detached from reality, disconnected from the totality that engendered them significance...narrative education, then, is the sonority of words, not their transforming power" -Paulo Freire, on "The banking of Ed., p. 74

After reading Paulo Freire, I couldn't help but notice his infinite references to what I presume as a representation of humanity with none other than the male pronoun. I am not angered by this somewhat exclusive representation, it did however, seem important to highlight the subtlety of "his language “especially when referencing the “oppressed" and the "oppressor". The quote above is a term that seemed to be the groundwork for Freire's chapter on "the banking concept". When contrasting this idea of a "narrative education" with my own experiences, I can definitely attest to my learning environments being a sort of authoritarian hierarchy between my teachers, my classmates, and I especially within my k-12 years. It seems to me that a "narrative education" is a way to reinforce our current class systems. Meaning, only upper middle class and wealthy families have the opportunity to develop and nurture critical thinking skills and can experience what Freire refers to as a liberal education. This is evident within Milwaukee Public School systems, which are often attended by children of "working class" families. The curriculum of MPS consists of children being required to memorize their teachers, whom are simply transferring knowledge from textbooks to the students. This type of learning environment is mere preparation for joining the work force (blue-collar jobs) where there is a sort of mechanical, mundane task and where thought isn't required and memorization is applauded. There is no room for questioning what is being taught or ensuring understanding. Criticism is also something that isn't nurtured in MPS schools and there is definitely a lack between connecting the classroom with reality, especially the reality of their student’s life experiences. Criticism and this lack of reality can also be defined as what Freire refers to as "authentic thinking". It is impossible for "authentic thinking to take place when students are expected to simply prepare and become “proficient” through a series of standardized tests.

Throughout Freire’s chapter, it seemed as if his anticipated audience were teachers and maybe prospective teachers, but not students. For example, when he reference terms such as “narrative education”, “banking education”, and “dialogical relations” he is sort of mapping out different ways to incorporate his philosophy of creating a more liberal education, he also eludes towards what not to do when referencing “banking education”. This is another instance of contradiction/questioning with the first being usage of the male pronoun. My question is, who are the oppressed? Who is the oppressor? With so much emphasis on what educators can do to revolutionize education, I have to consider what can students do particularly, college students? Students have the right to demand a more liberal education, and if they did what would be the reaction? How can students demand freedom and a more all-inclusive education without jeopardizing their success? When students remain passive about their academic setting they aren’t developing their “consciousness” which means a less enlightened society and a continuation of this cycle of the “banking education” within our society.

Response to Melanie 2/15

I thought this essay was very complex and interesting. I had some troubles pin-pointing his own thoughts/perspectives because the words he used didn't seem to say much. He was kinda talking in circles yet there were strong implied messages/opinions such as his embarrassment towards his parents. I appreciate your comments on the term "scholarship boy" because it helped me to tie it all together. "Scholarship boy: good student, troubled son. The child is moderately endowed..."(Rodriguez 433). I find this sentence to be very complex and multifaceted. Does the comment good student, troubled son suggest the students alienation or the parents/families perception of the him becoming troubled? Perhaps it is both. The examples of his mother asking him what did he see in his books, or his brother calling him four eyes all seem to suggest that there is some sort of shared "troubling anxiety" between the student and the family.

I have a lot of criticism toward this essay because in the beginning Rodriguez was struggling with trying to reflect and understand his academic success and it seems that he was searching outside of himself instead of within. For example, he is searching through books which is how he discovered Richard Hoggart, he then finds a label/term in which to identify himself(scholarship boy) and then begins to recall examples from his childhood that are aligned with Hoggart's analysis. Throughout the essay, Rodriguez passively touches on his feelings of embarrassment towards his family and blames their "distant interactions" on the fact that they simply had nothing in common, however as I was reading his essay I never read anything about Rodriguez attempting to open up to his parents about his experience in school, particularly college. There is this assumption that they wouldn't be able to relate to him. I wonder why didn't he try to relate to them, find a common ground?

Lastly, I thought your final question was interesting, How will we as teachers be able to help students like this? This question is one of my strongest motivations for wanting to become a teacher. In my opinion, students such as Rodriguez, and students of color from working/middle-class all seem to develop some feelings of embarrassment/resentment towards their families and their backgrounds once they begin to enter the "commonplace" why? Perhaps it is because there is a lack of acknowledgement towards multiculturalism within the classroom. Would Rodriguez have felt embarrassed had his teachers assigned books by Hispanic American Authors? would Rodriguez have been happy to shed his accent had he attended a bilingual school? When thinking about the school setting, literary canons, and most of the teachers within these schools (In wisconsin 92% of teachers within public schools are caucasion) it is difficult to say whether or not students like these have the chance to bridge home life with school life. I am not suggesting that incorporating a more all inclusive curriculum from a multicultural standpoint will eliminate the anxieties and alienation Rodriguez faced I think that there will always be a double consciousness among students of color, that is having a fluid identity between their individual culture and aspiring to be american, a part of discourse, canonized, especially within an academic setting. I think teachers can and should use their curriculum to promote their students personal experiences and academic experiences as being equal and vital towards the shaping of ones identity.

Blog#3: How is writing an act of aggression disguised as an act of charity?

After rereading the article assigned by David Bartholomae, I noticed that there were a lot of details I had missed, but the most interesting phrase that stuck out to me was "...what is generally true about writing-that it is an act of aggression disguised as an act of charity"(Bartholomae 516). Question number nine asks, what is my understanding of this? When thinking about the word aggression, I naturally think of physical gestures, violence, attack, and force. However in this particular context I am "appropriating" the word as "proactive", "goal-orientated", and "willful". When thinking of the word "charity" within this context it seems to be a "foundation" to promote goodness, a "gift" that benefits all beings. The concept of charity seems to fit the results of language, dialogue and literature...after all, literary works are often viewed as collective outlooks on diverse human experiences. I think Bartholomae's reference to writing being a form of aggression disguised as charity is somewhat accurate and is expressed by his commentary on the "commonplace", "a commonplace then is a culturally or institutionally authorized concept or statement that carries its own necessary elaboration...provides a point of reference and a set of pre-articulated explanations that are readily available to organize and interpret experience"(Bartholomae 516). When talking about beginner writers, there is an understanding that they are "outsiders" of discourse trying to work themselves in, they can begin to do this by attempting to access these "commonplaces" which seems to be various voices/perspectives. For example, the student who wrote the clay model essay relied on his "scientific language" to try and dramatize his experience with building the earth model in order to orient himself within the college-bound setting. This is the aggression that Bartholomae is referring to. Aggression seems to be the "risks" that these beginner writers are taking in hopes of being considered worthy of gravitating more closer to this realm of discourse. The "charity" then seems to be the final product of this aggressive effort. As the writer takes more risks by practicing different voices and writing from different perspectives, their writing becomes more charitable. It is easier for the new found "expert" writer to "better imagine how a reader would respond to a text and can transform and restructure what they have to say around a goal shared with a reader"(Bartholomae 514).

In conclusion, this phrase that Bartholomae uses describes the journey/creative processes of becoming a "better" writer. Students are aggressively eager to imitate and anticipate how their teachers "know what they know" and how they would work out the problems that they assign in order to construct a good piece of writing. Students have to actively assume that they already are privileged without actually being so all while being completely in tune with their audience and anticipating the skepticism/ideals they hold. It is using this aggression to balance their own individual voice simultaneously and if done correctly, eventually these writers will be able to be a part of some charitable discourse that is privileged enough to partake in the writings of collective personalities within our human experience.

comment from Melanie's blog...

Erica Woods said...

I really enjoyed reading your blog and I thought your opening quote was interesting. I think that the admission essays written by prospective college students allow the "scholars and authoritative figures" to see if there is any potential for the student to be shaped and molded into an academic writer. I also agree with you when you said that we have to analyze our professors and understand their "coding" literary styles in order to succeed in their classroom. It is true that we are essentially altering our voice in order for our professors to understand our writings, which is similar to anticipating who our audience is and speaking through that perspective. I used to think that in doing that the writer would somehow lose themselves and that altering their language somehow disconnected them from their central experience or identity. After reading this article however, I am beginning to understand that the writer can and does still convey their own experiences and perspectives even when they alter their language style. Maybe learning to write from various perspectives and different audiences is a form of exercise for the writer, a way to sharpen their skills with language and learning how to efficiently flow in and out of various discourses in order to become "cultured" or "well-rounded".

Looking at the exercise from your english 420 class made me realize that we, the students are sharpening our minds through adaptations or mimicking various languages/discourses. At the same time we have the ability to filter our own experiences and perspectives within these frameworks. A word that comes to mind for me is "blending". All students are gathered together in this commonplace known as the university to become better writers. We can do that by navigating through the framework our professors line out for us, and we can evolve by blending in our own creativity, perspectives and experiences for multiple discourses.