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.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Rach,
ReplyDeleteI watched Sybil last night so I'll go with multiple identities and multiple literacies. (I am infuriated at this point, because I wrote an entire comment and tried to preview it and lost the whole post >:( I am trying to remember everything verbatim, impossible [and I had some clever puns]). Anyway, I believe that if we limit ourselves to just the written word as counting as literacy, then we are cheating ourselves of a wider world. In Dr. Dowdy's new book, Connecting the Literacy Puzzle, due out in April, she includes dance as a literacy. We do need to adopt a different perspective in order to "read" the performing arts. If I interpret dialogism correctly, then the reader and the text are reciprocal partners where, in this case, dance is the text and the reader is the audience. Meaning is made in the marriage of the two.
In terms of public vs private, I too struggle with how to consider the blog. You have the perfect blend of quotes and academic jargon mixed with your "voice" that we all tell you that you have. In my estimation you have been successful in merging the public and the private. "Cheers," meant in the most American vernacular way!
I also intended my blog to contain posts written in my various "voices." I began writing this blog last summer in preparation for Dr. Kist's New Literacies class. He suggested we set it up before class actually started. If you go back and read my earliest posts, they were not academic, but much more expressive/informal. Once I began the class, the posts took on the 'scholarly voice' and I haven't made much room for the others lately. Am I afraid they won't mix? Is it ok if they do? I'm going to try :-)
ReplyDeleteRegarding Kathy's comment about 'reading' the performing arts, I think it makes sense. The meaning one person extracts from watching a dance or hearing a symphony, for example, may not be the same for someone else. Even watching the skating competition in the Olympics relates to this conversation. I always find it fascinating to see how the skaters interpret the music they choose since they often 'act it out' and sometimes I don't see the connection while at other times, I think they were 'brilliant' (wink to the Brits!) as to their interpretation. Interesting stuff!
Tonight I goootta cut loooose, footloose....kick off your Sunday shoes...Please, Louise, pull me up from my knees! -- Okay, sorry, I couldn't help myself. Some songs just get me going, and they roll into other songs. Your post brought me to sing the song Limelight by the band Rush to myself. Part of it goes like this: “All the world's indeed a stage, And we are merely players: Performers and portrayers, Each another's audience, Outside the gilded cage.”
ReplyDeleteI sing this song to myself in reaction to your comments about the different Discourse communities and the different identities we live with. I must confess that I've really been struggling with the whole thing, which isn't a new thing for me either. I do agree that we reside in different Discourse communities with specific ways of doing and being in the world, but I don't know if I completely buy into the whole idea of different identities. I’ve found all to often that hiding identities doesn’t always work or end well for me. I feel like I’m doing an injustice to myself. I’m left wondering about the comment made in class about those people who can transcend the messiness of Discourse communities and identities and just be themselves. How are they able to do this?
All these ideas leave me asking questions like: Where is the authentic self? Who sees and gets to interact with that self and who doesn’t…and why? Are we all just on a stage acting out roles and where does that get us? Could we be alienating ourselves by doing this…or protecting ourselves, and if so, why do we feel the need to protect ourselves? Is it out of fear, desire, or something else? My apologies if all this sounds wacky but I’m really left wondering.