All the World's a Stage? - A Comment Response

Thanks for all your great comments this week. I'd like to briefly respond here to Jen's comment (and thanks for putting Footloose in my head all day dude!). I think Jen is right, and the idea of having multiple identities that you pull out of the bag for different situations is not necessarily the same as the idea of Discourse communities, but for me the two go hand in hand.

What is the authentic self then? Well for me, and without wishing to sound insane, all of my identities are authentic. I'm not acting on a stage, I merely (and without conscious thought or effort) am channeling different parts of myself depending on the Discourse community I'm taking part in.

Since the moment we're born, society teaches us that there are rules and regulations, and different kinds of language, that have to be followed in different social environments, or Discourse communities. For instance, you wouldn't greet your professor the same way you would your husband or friend. Or, if this blog entry makes you want to sing Footloose at the top of your lungs, then you can type it out, but you'd be unlikely to do it in class (go on, I dare you). So I don't believe that people can transcend Discourse communities to always be and act in one way. Should they be able to? Well that's a different question. Lots of our blog entries these days seem to revolve around constraints put on us by others, constraints from society about how we should act in different Discourse communities, constraints on how and what we can teach our students, and constraints on how we can utilise our vast array of literacies within the academy. Doesn't it all just make you want to go to an abandoned warehouse and dance?

Private vs Public

Response to: Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998) Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community, London: Routledge.

This week in class we were talking about the various Discourse communities that we each belong to, and how we communicate and use language (or discourses) differently within each community. This is a notion that appeals to me; I've always believed that people have a vast repertoire of "identities" or "ways of being in the world" that change depending on the context of who, what, where, and when they are, and I was intrigued to see a very similar idea picked up on in Barton & Hamilton (1998).

In their description of Lancaster, the authors talk about a "sense of place" and how Lancaster has both a public and private identity that has been created on paper (p. 46). Barton & Hamilton (1998) say that the public identity is represented by historical postcards, or council-designed documents, while the private identity can be seen more in local magazines or newsletters. But it's more complicated than that. Within the public identity of the town you have the public identity put forth on paper by the local council, the public identity issued by the local university, or the documents from the local museum. Each of the documents from these places constructs a different public identity of Lancaster. Similarly, I find it hard to believe that a "true" private identity can be portrayed on paper by a local newspaper or a community leaflet - these documents likely portray a more private identity than the council documents, but I doubt they truly represent the private identity of Lancaster. And of course other elements not on paper will add to the representation of public and private identities of a place (or indeed of a person) such as accent, colloquialisms, dress...the list is endless.

Connecting this with our discussion on Discourse communities then, it made me think about the different paper-based identities we have each constructed for ourselves, and the public versus private identities we show the world on paper (or on-screen!). This blog for instance is a distinct hybrid between my academic identity and my private identity. This blog is being written for an academic purpose, but "on paper" it shows a very different identity to the more formal one someone might see in my final papers. I confess I'm watching a movie as I write this response (Footloose, which is making me feel both old and nostalgic at the same time!), and I had always planned that this blog would encompass both my academic identity, as represented by these reading responses, and a more vernacular identity, with some posts about opinions on movies and the world at large. But it hasn't worked out that way. I can't bring myself to mix my academic and vernacular identities on-screen so readily. So this blog remains a strange hybrid - more of a public identity with some private mixed in. Now my Facebook page shows a much more private identity than this blog, but it is still not a true representation because I'm highly aware of privacy issues with the internet and how my "on-screen" private identity might be perceived.

I'm not sure where I'm going with all this, but I'm thinking about the connection between multi-identities (or Discourses) and multi-literacies. I was drawn to a concentration in literacy because I see literacy as being so much more than simply reading and writing; we are each skilled in a vast array of "literacies" that we take part in every day based on the context of situations. I guess my point is, that when we become more aware of the different Discourse communities we take part in and the different identities we create for ourselves, whether it be online, on paper, or in the moment, we can better start to reflect on the multiple literacies we each use in every-day life past academic reading and writing.

Perspective

It's all about perspective isn't it? For instance, to those of you from Ohio, this constant down pouring of white, fluffy hell must seem pretty mild and normal for the time of year, while to me, it feels like I've moved to a hostile, alien environment that I have to navigate without the aid of sidewalks. This difference in our perspective also impacts how we view writing.

As I read Menand's Show or Tell (The New Yorker, June 8 & 15, 2009), my thoughts meandered around wildly. The first problem I had with this article was with the term "creative writing". I've used the phrase for years, but as I think of it now, isn't all writing creative? Anything I write comes from my unique mind and is, therefore, creative. As I write this blog, I am creatively writing. So who defines "good" creative writing? As an aside, week-by-week I've come to the conclusion that "good" is possibly the most ambiguous word in the English language!

Reading on, I began to consider whether writing is an art or a craft, or indeed both, and whether "good" writing is a skill or a gift; your perspective on these questions will effect the way you teach writing. On page 111 Menand explains that "what is usually said is that you can't teach inspiration, but you can teach craft" (p. 111), and I agree with this. You really can't teach someone to be creative, but you can teach people different ways of writing so they have a larger writing repertoire.

While Menand then goes on to argue that craft has changed dramatically over the years, and "there is no 'craft of fiction' as such", I do believe that learning to write in different genres, using different techniques, and developing the craft of writing can help people to develop as writers. I was asked recently how I developed my own "voice" in writing, and as I wondered about this, I concluded it was simply through practice. If I don't write for a long time, I forget how to write effectively and my "voice" gets more than a little hoarse (as with today's posting I fear!).

One other idea from this article really stood out for me, and that was that "teachers are the books that students read most closely..." (p. 112).

If we consider teachers as books to be read by students it can inform our work as writing teachers at all levels of education. A teacher with a passion for writing is often more effective than one who has no love for the subject. With this comment, Menand reminds us that we each may not be the best writers of fiction, or we may not have the time to write much outside of making shopping lists and lesson plans, but we should still strive to write regularly in order to keep our creative and writing muscles flexed. If we can model a passion for writing (most easily done by actually writing), then when our students "read" us, they will hopefully alter their perspective on writing and endeavour to become better writers themselves in one form or another.

Local Literacies - Response 1

Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge.

I've only just begun reading Local literacies, but it's already a fascinating read. Even though I adore living and studying in the USA, and it's something I've strived for for a long time, reading about community and literacy practices in a British city is like wrapping myself in a warm blanket. Even though Lancaster is a world away from the city I come from in England - Bristol (North West vs South West), I noted a lot of similarities between the "visual literacy environment" that the authors describe in Lancaster (p. 40).

As I said, I have only just begun to scratch the surface with this text, but the idea of a "visual literacy environment" is one I'd like to discuss this week. As a 'highly literate' person I take reading and writing for granted on a daily basis. How often have I passed signs that say thinks like "don't touch - wet paint", and I don't give them a second thought...I simply don't touch the wet wall. But what of people who can't read the signs? How frustrating must that be? Even people who can't read are aware of literacy practices such as putting warning signs and messages on pieces of paper; they know there's a message there they're supposed to pick up on, but they cannot read it.

On page 40 the authors describe a variety of visual literacies in and around the city of Lancaster. As I read those descriptions, it occurred to me that many of those same signs and symbols appear around Bristol, but I have become de-sensitized to them. For instance, recently in my home town, a sign was placed on the way into town claiming "Keynsham: Historic Market Town". This sign was scoffed at by most of the residents who know the town to be far from an idyllic "historic market town", but since that initial reaction, it has just become part of the visual literacy environment that we each ignore. But what of the deeper meaning of signs like this? The authors explain how these kinds of literacy practices in and around a town illustrate "commercial...entertainment...political campaigning...information [or]...legal" intentions.(p. 41). This is a sign put up by those in "authority" to try and get more business into the town, they do not represent the local community's view of the town.

Local people and communities do make there mark though, as the authors remind us, with activities like posters and graffiti. In my youth, I remember lots of old, ripped posters around Bristol, but I'm not sure if they're still there - has the authority stamped their mark and taken these community and political voices away, or do I just not notice them anymore? Graffiti is a fascinating literacy in Bristol. It's long been a literacy that young people and those whose voices are often choked by the authorities have utilised to get their point across. I can think of specific bridges and structures that have had activist messages sprayed on them for years.....but then came Banksy.

Banksy started his days defacing buildings around Bristol with graffiti that made statements about society that the local youth could identify with - I think it was quite anti-authoritarian. I think in the beginning the local council tried to remove his work, as they did with all graffiti in the city, but then Banksy became famous. No one ever sees Banksy spraying his murals, and with some media help he recently became an acclaimed 'artist' and his work is now highly valued (both in prestige and monetary value) all over the world - local council's can no longer remove Banksy's work because it adds value to the buildings that he's chosen to spray. This is an interesting case of a particular literacy practice morphing from one thing to another. Graffiti, traditionally a literacy practice of the oppressed, has suddenly become something that the elite has taken as its own and turned into a literacy practice they accept.

However, there's a deep irony here. I recently heard on the radio that a number of people were in uproar because a graffiti artist had painted a design over a Banksy mural!!! The council calmed people by explaining that they would, of course, remove this terrible graffiti as soon as possible and strive to keep the Banksy 'art' in tact.

I may have digressed somewhat here (what's new?!), but my point is that there are a variety of literacy events and practices going on all around us in our daily environments, yet we have our eyes closed to them. Each of these literacy practices has social, cultural, and historical dimensions and it's fascinating to begin to open our eyes and not only identify our own "visual literacy environment", but also to consider what it tells us about whose interests are being represented.

A Banksy Mural in Bristol, England

Writing a dictionary

Below is a link to my favourite scene of my favourite TV show (found on YouTube) - it relates to writing a dictionary...hope the link works! Let me know what you think!

Blackadder: Ink and incapability (BBC, 1987)

Teacher Training in the UK

I saw this headline this morning on the BBC website and thought it might be of interest: Teacher training article.

Change

It's been snowing here. Well, that's a slight understatement - I'm pretty much snowed in at this moment. That's not a big deal for most of my Ohioan and Pennsylvanian buddies, but this is a big change for me. If I were on my island with this amount of snow, the whole country would shut down and curl into a tiny ball until it cleared. That seems like a thoroughly sensible response to me, but my life and environment have changed, and so I need to alter my response to snow. I now live in Ohio (or the Tundra as I think of it), and part of living in Ohio is that I have to learn to deal with the snow. I'm working on altering my habits and practices so that I'm prepared for bad weather (i.e. getting a snow shovel seems like a good idea, and having plenty of food in the freezer) and slowly but surely my mental processes and reactions to snow will start to change as well. It's not always fun, but circumstances change; the world changes, and as human beings one of our most wonderful abilities is to adapt. However, over the past week I've been thinking about the lack of change in our schools even as the world changes in front of our very eyes. Interestingly, the two chapters I've just read on writing and knowledge inside and outside modern institutions seem to also suggest that very little has changed over the years.

Bazerman, C. & Rogers, P. (2008). Writing and secular knowledge outside modern European institutions. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbooks of research on writing: History society, school, individual, text, pp. 143-156; and Bazerman, C. & Rogers, P. (2008). Writing and secular knowledge inside modern European institutions. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbooks of research on writing: History society, school, individual, text, pp. 157-175.

As I read about the history of writing and knowledge, I was struck by a description of Chinese education many centuries ago. In China, they developed exams and a canon of texts that stayed pretty constant. The authors describe it as an "exam culture" where "knowledge of the key texts and of the expected form of the essay outweighed substantive understanding of the specifics of knowledges, values, and arts expressed within the texts" (p. 152). Is it just me, or is this a pretty accurate description of our school system today? We have our key texts (best that I don't start a rant about the canon of literature in this post), which students are asked to understand in a very narrow way. Kelly Gallagher talks about this in his book Readicide (2009). He describes how students are more willing to read texts when they can see the value in them. He gives an example of teaching Hamlet, where he has his students translate a passage and then relate it to today's real world. He explains that when students are "exposed to the wisdom" (Gallagher, 2009, p. 77) in a text and how that wisdom relates to today's world, they start to value the text - and I would assume, learn more. But Gallagher's approach isn't the norm, and I know from personal experience and from discussions with others, that our canonical texts are taught in ways that mean students pass exams without seeing the knowledge and value of those texts. How can ancient China's school system and today's US school system, light years away apart it would seem, be so similar? Has nothing in education changed? This is one to ponder further...

Open knowledge

One further area I'd like to discuss is one mentioned at the end of page 172, where the authors mention the "modern university" and people committed to "open production and circulation" of texts and knowledge (p. 172). I agree that modern universities will become more and more open with their knowledge and texts over time, and I think that new technologies encourage this. I've recently been looking at the Open Source courseware offered by MIT and the British Open University online. Both of these projects make online resources available, for free, to anyone who wishes to use them - this could be anyone from an octogenarian at home wanting to learn about making kites, for example, to other universities using these courses as supplements to there own courses. We can also see a more open atmosphere in the number of journal articles that are now freely available online, although to get to the really good stuff, you have to be affiliated with a university license. While I do not see universities becoming so "open" that all courses, texts and knowledge will eventually be available for free, these things do point to a more "open" culture in universities.

However, even as I talk about the open nature of knowledge in modern universities I am reminded of a fascinating conference in England that I went to a couple of years ago. The key note speaker explained how new technologies such as blogging, social networking, and bookmarking meant that people academics could be more open about their new ideas and ongoing research projects, and gain immediate feedback and support from colleagues while in the process of conducting research. This was told to us as if it was the most wonderful thing for students and researchers everywhere - with Web 2.0 we can all be open about our ideas and research. But would I write my dissertation ideas on this blog for all the world to see? Absolutely not. There is fear - and the questions asked by the audience in this conference highlighted this fear - among academics about having their ideas stolen. So, how open can the modern university ever be with this underlying culture of secrecy still prevalent in universities today?

I'm afraid I'm rambling now, so it is time to leave you and find a snow shovel!