So, reading Lunsford and Anzaldua this week I was reminded how it seems like so commonly postmodern theory does not align with traditional compositional theory.
I tried something different for this week: I made a short comic strip, probably not funny and not that interesting, but nonetheless it highlights the main thing I was thinking about after reading this week's readings.
Click link to go to comic strip:
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Putting your business on the Information Highway
I just read Dr. Will Hamlin’s essay appearing in the most recent edition of Washington State Magazine entitled, “Language, Money and Loss.” It’s a beautifully written essay that takes up a number of issues surrounding language use. Though the goal of the essay is not necessarily in line with the reading for this week, Dr. Hamlin’s musings on social networking language is seemingly pertinent. After discussing how his father learned to suppress/abandon his own linguistic drawl and voice patterns as a way to help him “succeed” in mainstream culture, Dr. Hamlin asks if the kind of pressure his father experienced to adapt his language and accent still exists today. He writes:
“Perhaps this wouldn’t happen nowadays. Perhaps American society has moved beyond such trivial pressures. But I doubt it. I think, rather, that the manipulation of language habits has taken on more insidious forms. Consider, for instance, the linguistic norms of social networking sites. Here’s a random “tweet” I found on the internet: “OMG thats hystrical cn u believe he sd that!!! ;-).” Granted, there’s a certain density of expression here, but I wouldn’t say that the comment tells us much about the tweeter’s unique individuality. If anything, it does just the opposite. There’s great safety in merging one’s identity within collective forms of expression—and greater ease of interpretation for those encountering such discourse. But the loss is also tremendous.”
http://wsm.wsu.edu/s/index.php?id=767
Certainly, the tweet that Hamlin found on the internet is written in a text short hand script, and seems to not resemble any specific cultural or individual language markers, making the speaker appear almost anonymous and the text completely acontextual. However, the very fact that the writer has adroitly used the text short hand, not to mention emoticon’s and symbols, does speak to their ability, comfort and knowledge within that linguistic pattern, and thus does actually point to whom the individual might be. Admittedly though, that information does appear vague and not concrete. Further, what Hamlin does not speak to (for obvious rhetorical reasons—as his essay is largely about a different topic) is the rhetorical strategy of the tweet’s content, the fact that the tweet is rather intimate and expresses the feelings of the individual in a very open manner. It is obvious that though the world may have access to this tweet, what it actually says is very personable and seems to be intended for a specific audience—one who would know what “hd” originally said. So though the tweet’s linguistic pattern and use of language might point towards authorial ambiguity, it contains a message of individuality.
This is rather interesting in thinking about Dr. Monroe’s chapter from this week’s reading. The idea that members of different cultures hold different views on sharing personal information, or “putting one’s business on main street” seems to take on a slightly different context in the age of on-line social networking. The way that the email correspondence was viewed by the largely white tutorial staff at UM and the African American tutees who were submitting papers in Monroe’s chapter, might be somewhat different today (but, might not). I just wonder, and I understand that technological access is still going to be a large contributor to how far the tendrils of social networking sites have spread, how the renegotiation of personal and private space that social networking sites have facilitated over the past ten years might have changed cultural understandings of information sharing. In many ways, the signifier of which Dr. Monroe said was required for African American students to share information could now largely come from the very existence of sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. Or, in putting that as a question, do the existence of these sites act as the signifier, prompter, coercer to individuals to open and share personal information to others, audiences that are intended (friends, family, etc) and audiences that are not intended (profile searchers, etc.)? Of course each of these sites dictate just what kind of information a user can post and how the user can post that information, and they do not demand that users in fact post information at all. But what they do is encourage the sharing of private information in public spheres. Your personal business no longer on Main Street, but on the super information highway.
For Dr. Hamlin the way of which that personal information is shared is shrouded in collective shorthand. However, I think if he randomly looked again for a tweet, he might in fact find one that shows more individual language markers. The language of these sites is not so homogeneous as Hamlin supposes. Different people do in fact use the short hand language differently. But beyond that, the collective nature of these sites and the rhetorics that come with them is also further complicated by the way individuals structure their bios, information and media samplings. The individualization process does in fact take shape inside the design confines of the of the site, but that does not mean that it does not take place at all. I agree with Dr. Hamlin that the pressure his father felt to change the way he spoke is now seen in the way that people speak on the social networking sites. Where I differ with Dr. Hamlin is the fact that those sites at least provide a space, albeit a dangerous one at times, for individualization and the use of mixed discourses. And I wonder how we might as instructors learn to use these sites, not merely as a form of communication, but as a form of discourse, one that allows for collective gathering and individual voicing. Though, as Dr. Monroe’s chapter says, we have to be cognizant of the ways that different people will share their information on these sites, I think we also need to be aware that these sites are potentially changing the way that people in fact share their information.
“Perhaps this wouldn’t happen nowadays. Perhaps American society has moved beyond such trivial pressures. But I doubt it. I think, rather, that the manipulation of language habits has taken on more insidious forms. Consider, for instance, the linguistic norms of social networking sites. Here’s a random “tweet” I found on the internet: “OMG thats hystrical cn u believe he sd that!!! ;-).” Granted, there’s a certain density of expression here, but I wouldn’t say that the comment tells us much about the tweeter’s unique individuality. If anything, it does just the opposite. There’s great safety in merging one’s identity within collective forms of expression—and greater ease of interpretation for those encountering such discourse. But the loss is also tremendous.”
http://wsm.wsu.edu/s/index.php?id=767
Certainly, the tweet that Hamlin found on the internet is written in a text short hand script, and seems to not resemble any specific cultural or individual language markers, making the speaker appear almost anonymous and the text completely acontextual. However, the very fact that the writer has adroitly used the text short hand, not to mention emoticon’s and symbols, does speak to their ability, comfort and knowledge within that linguistic pattern, and thus does actually point to whom the individual might be. Admittedly though, that information does appear vague and not concrete. Further, what Hamlin does not speak to (for obvious rhetorical reasons—as his essay is largely about a different topic) is the rhetorical strategy of the tweet’s content, the fact that the tweet is rather intimate and expresses the feelings of the individual in a very open manner. It is obvious that though the world may have access to this tweet, what it actually says is very personable and seems to be intended for a specific audience—one who would know what “hd” originally said. So though the tweet’s linguistic pattern and use of language might point towards authorial ambiguity, it contains a message of individuality.
This is rather interesting in thinking about Dr. Monroe’s chapter from this week’s reading. The idea that members of different cultures hold different views on sharing personal information, or “putting one’s business on main street” seems to take on a slightly different context in the age of on-line social networking. The way that the email correspondence was viewed by the largely white tutorial staff at UM and the African American tutees who were submitting papers in Monroe’s chapter, might be somewhat different today (but, might not). I just wonder, and I understand that technological access is still going to be a large contributor to how far the tendrils of social networking sites have spread, how the renegotiation of personal and private space that social networking sites have facilitated over the past ten years might have changed cultural understandings of information sharing. In many ways, the signifier of which Dr. Monroe said was required for African American students to share information could now largely come from the very existence of sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. Or, in putting that as a question, do the existence of these sites act as the signifier, prompter, coercer to individuals to open and share personal information to others, audiences that are intended (friends, family, etc) and audiences that are not intended (profile searchers, etc.)? Of course each of these sites dictate just what kind of information a user can post and how the user can post that information, and they do not demand that users in fact post information at all. But what they do is encourage the sharing of private information in public spheres. Your personal business no longer on Main Street, but on the super information highway.
For Dr. Hamlin the way of which that personal information is shared is shrouded in collective shorthand. However, I think if he randomly looked again for a tweet, he might in fact find one that shows more individual language markers. The language of these sites is not so homogeneous as Hamlin supposes. Different people do in fact use the short hand language differently. But beyond that, the collective nature of these sites and the rhetorics that come with them is also further complicated by the way individuals structure their bios, information and media samplings. The individualization process does in fact take shape inside the design confines of the of the site, but that does not mean that it does not take place at all. I agree with Dr. Hamlin that the pressure his father felt to change the way he spoke is now seen in the way that people speak on the social networking sites. Where I differ with Dr. Hamlin is the fact that those sites at least provide a space, albeit a dangerous one at times, for individualization and the use of mixed discourses. And I wonder how we might as instructors learn to use these sites, not merely as a form of communication, but as a form of discourse, one that allows for collective gathering and individual voicing. Though, as Dr. Monroe’s chapter says, we have to be cognizant of the ways that different people will share their information on these sites, I think we also need to be aware that these sites are potentially changing the way that people in fact share their information.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
The Forms of Popular Culture as Ways to "Make" Meaning
I know I talked a bit about Gee and his work in What Video Games have to Teach us About Learning and Literacy in an earlier blog, and I know that we read another piece from Gee this week; but, nonetheless, I think that some of his ideas on literacy and what he calls semiotic domains from that specific book further complicate ideas and concepts from the this week’s readings, namely the chapter from Barbara’s book. In Gee’s What Videogames he defines literacy not as one’s ability to simply read and write, but as one’s ability to understand and make meaning in their own unique semiotic domain. Now obviously, as Gee points out, these semiotic domains are not natural but highly socialized, structured and influenced by outside pressures, internal struggles and un-written, negotiable characteristics. Further, one’s affiliation with a semiotic domain does not prohibit them from an association or participation with another semiotic domain: domain groups overlap, as do affiliations. Enough summary. Ultimately, what I want to pull out of Gee’s work in What Video Games for the use of this blog is the fact that semiotic domains not only dictate and/or influence member epistemologies, but also dictate and/or influence what kind of action comes from the epistemology. In other words, as Gee says, semiotic domains prescribe how meaning (or knowledge) is understood/learned as well as how meaning (or knowledge) is made.
This “made” part is what I think is important to consider when thinking about Barbara’s work in “Storytime on the Reservation” from Crossing the Digital Divide. In the chapter, Barbara explains how traditions of “storytime” in the domestic sphere heavily influence children’s epistemologies and consequently their literacy performances in school settings. Showing how traditional school institutions and assessment standards privilege the literacy learned from white middle class rituals of storytime, Barbara points out how group variations in “storytime” rituals can actually lead to students understanding discourse differently. Consequently, that difference in “storytime” and the subsequent difference in epistemology can have detrimental impact on how the student’s literacy is assessed by educators. However, just because the discourse of a student is assessed as poor or struggling, does not mean that the student is actually struggling with literacy; instead it might mean that the student is working from a different variation of home literacy education and that home education is reflected in their discourse. For instance, as Barbara shows, many students in her research population did not experience traditional storytime, where a book is read to the child accompanied with contextual questions, but instead spent more time watching television or watching films. Student’s who experienced this different “storytime” showed different literacy capabilities, though not necessarily less sophisticated or intelligent when compared to the students who had grown up being read to. Barbara then challenges educators to introduce these different epistemological-forming agents, namely popular culture artifacts like TV shows or films, into the classroom.
Okay. I get this and I see the benefit of this (here comes the inevitably foreseen “but”), but I want it to go further. Even though I don’t necessarily know how. This is what I mean: if we know that semiotic domains influence how we get meaning and how we make meaning, then should we not also find ways of promoting students’ use of the forms of popular culture to make meaning. And I don’t think that Barbara is not not suggesting this. I just greedily want more of it. If we introduce popular culture into the classroom, understanding that it is a mechanism of epistemology, then can we really turn around and ask students to make sense of popular culture through the discourse of which the popular culture does not support and did not help form? Or, more simply, if popular culture is how students have come to understand meaning then should the forms of popular culture not also be used to make meaning? The introduction of popular culture into the classroom is good start to expanding ideas of literacy and allowing much larger populations of students literacy “success” but it cannot stop there. If literacy is really a two headed beast, as Gee suggests above, then we must find ways to allow, promote, encourage the use of popular culture forms in discursive activities. I just don’t think that we can bring in popular culture and then ask students to discuss it in more traditional and conservative methods and forms of discourse. Whether this means using programs like Comic Life in the composition classroom or the film review genre in the fourth grade classroom, I don’t know. But if we are trying to meet students at their own epistemological development then I feel like we have to use the forms of their own epistemological development as ways for them to not only understand meaning, but to also, and maybe more importantly, make meaning.
This “made” part is what I think is important to consider when thinking about Barbara’s work in “Storytime on the Reservation” from Crossing the Digital Divide. In the chapter, Barbara explains how traditions of “storytime” in the domestic sphere heavily influence children’s epistemologies and consequently their literacy performances in school settings. Showing how traditional school institutions and assessment standards privilege the literacy learned from white middle class rituals of storytime, Barbara points out how group variations in “storytime” rituals can actually lead to students understanding discourse differently. Consequently, that difference in “storytime” and the subsequent difference in epistemology can have detrimental impact on how the student’s literacy is assessed by educators. However, just because the discourse of a student is assessed as poor or struggling, does not mean that the student is actually struggling with literacy; instead it might mean that the student is working from a different variation of home literacy education and that home education is reflected in their discourse. For instance, as Barbara shows, many students in her research population did not experience traditional storytime, where a book is read to the child accompanied with contextual questions, but instead spent more time watching television or watching films. Student’s who experienced this different “storytime” showed different literacy capabilities, though not necessarily less sophisticated or intelligent when compared to the students who had grown up being read to. Barbara then challenges educators to introduce these different epistemological-forming agents, namely popular culture artifacts like TV shows or films, into the classroom.
Okay. I get this and I see the benefit of this (here comes the inevitably foreseen “but”), but I want it to go further. Even though I don’t necessarily know how. This is what I mean: if we know that semiotic domains influence how we get meaning and how we make meaning, then should we not also find ways of promoting students’ use of the forms of popular culture to make meaning. And I don’t think that Barbara is not not suggesting this. I just greedily want more of it. If we introduce popular culture into the classroom, understanding that it is a mechanism of epistemology, then can we really turn around and ask students to make sense of popular culture through the discourse of which the popular culture does not support and did not help form? Or, more simply, if popular culture is how students have come to understand meaning then should the forms of popular culture not also be used to make meaning? The introduction of popular culture into the classroom is good start to expanding ideas of literacy and allowing much larger populations of students literacy “success” but it cannot stop there. If literacy is really a two headed beast, as Gee suggests above, then we must find ways to allow, promote, encourage the use of popular culture forms in discursive activities. I just don’t think that we can bring in popular culture and then ask students to discuss it in more traditional and conservative methods and forms of discourse. Whether this means using programs like Comic Life in the composition classroom or the film review genre in the fourth grade classroom, I don’t know. But if we are trying to meet students at their own epistemological development then I feel like we have to use the forms of their own epistemological development as ways for them to not only understand meaning, but to also, and maybe more importantly, make meaning.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)