Josephine v Saliba EdD Assignment 5

8/4/2019 Josephine v Saliba EdD Assignment 5

1/28

Doctor of Education EdD Programme: Module 5 Perspectives and Debates inLiteracy and Education

Concentric Ideologies in Literacy Theory and Practice reflections on Foucault, Freire and Fairclough

towards a comparison with professional practice

1. Defining Literacy: perspectives of a personal journey

'The meaning of 'literacy' as an object of enquiry and of action

whether for research purposes or in practical programmes is ()

highly contested and () we cannot understand the term and its

uses unless we penetrate these contested spaces.'

(Street and Lefstein, 2007:34)

Current perspectives about the various contested spaces of literacy filter

through diverse philosophies. Reflecting the dominant prevalent ideologies,

they sometimes converge as much as they diverge. Through literacy

acquisition, consequences of literacy and literacy as social practice () we

can begin to understand different approaches and their consequences

(Street and Lefstein, 2007:34). This paper, whilst discussing these domains,

nevertheless takes a more personal perspective. It not only reviews theories

of literacy discussed in previous assignments, but also traces the

development of my ideas as a practitioner, a student and

a writer in the educational field.

This assignment departs from 'the most important ingredient in teaching and

learning literacy, identity', how teachers bring their sense of identity into

classrooms and how this infuses the overall sense of identity negotiatedwithin (Pahl and Rowsell, 2005:98). This is my starting point as an educator.

As a student and pre-service teacher, I was exposed to critical and reflective

practices, further explored in subsequent sections. Prior, my early education

and literacy experiences shaped my 'reflexive self' (Giddens, 1991; Ivanic,

1998) as has my exposure to narratives in both oral and written forms within

Josephine V. Saliba Page 1


2/28


family and schooling environments. Thus, my reflexive self has influenced

my sense of identity which 'consists in the sustaining of coherent, yet

continuously revised, biographical narratives' (Giddens, 1991:5),

a 'reflexively organised endeavour' that 'takes place in the context of

multiple choice as filtered through abstract systems' (ibid).

This process has 'discursive features' (Giddens, 1991; Ivanic, 1998) that

impinge on the construction of an individual's social identity 'constructed

socio-culturally, discoursally and through the mechanisms of social

interaction' (Ivanic, 1998:11-12). People interact within intermeshed,

undelineated spaces engaging in different discourse communities. Everyday

literacies are therefore richer than traditional views limiting themselves toconventional reading and writing (Pahl and Rowsell, 2005; Barton, 2007).

Identity is expressed through our social practices (Pahl and Rowsell,

2005:98), injecting layers of meaning through 'a culturally mediated and

practice-infused activity that constantly pulls on the personality of the

speaker, the writer or the reader' (ibid). However, positively or negatively

viewed constructed identities depend on the dominant social practice the

individual is engaging within, on the acknowledgement afforded to the

individual's identity as a literate person.

Identity is clearly yet complexly tied to theories of learning and literacy.

Such recent theories have progressed from the 'empty vessels' traditional

approach, shifting their focus from 'the individual mind and towards more

social practices' (Street and Lefstein, 2007:36). Nevertheless, many theories

retain their basis on 'deeper assumptions about cognition and in particular

regarding the cognitive consequences of learning or acquiring literacy'

(ibid:37). A legacy of the 'great divide' theories has left an embedded

distinction between those we consider illiterate/literate and thus

underdeveloped/developed, a distinction that remains at the basis of many

literacy programmes world-wide (Street and Lefstein, 2007:37). Many such



3/28


programmes retain the Western bias in favour of reading/writing as the

dominant modes of desired functional literacy.

Although many theories of literacy exist, the pressures of 'the economic cost

of education, the requirements for a trained workforce, the effects of new

technologies on our lives, the need for adult literacy provision' (Barton,

2007:2) prevail. Thus, 'school-based definitions of literacy' continue to

dominate although people's everyday literacy practices may incorporate

other diverse experiences (ibid:4). Cognitive theorists associate the

development of writing with key advances in societies where

the ability to write distinguishes myth from history and thus oral culture from

the development of a written logic and reasoning (Street and Lefstein,2007:38). It is perhaps the ability to standardise, record and codify language

in its written form that lends writing an ascendancy over speech. Most social

rituals of passage, such as marriages, and transfer of power, like legal

contracts, happen through written practices which reinforce if not replace

formerly oral bonds.

As a reflexive practitioner, aware of these intermingled identities and literacy

practices, I cannot ignore the meaning-making processes I exhibit in class.My baggage of experience is part of the multi-layered narratives occurring

within me and within the social contexts I inhabit. I am part of the

interwoven narrative fabric of the everyday personal, social, cultural and

academic texts. Language constructs 'an identity for ourselves within the

different speech communities that we enter and we exit' (Pahl and Rowsell,

2005:98). Talk supports our identities and relationships in practice (Pahl and

Rowsell, 2005), whereas writing often causes people to 'change their speech'

(Ivanic, 1998:7) to alter their language and take on different identities (ibid)

thus affecting the narrative created, multilayering the meanings constructed

within the resultant text. Therefore, departing from the value of oral literacy

is as good as any for this paper, but perhaps even more relevant would be



4/28


placing the issue within the whole discourse between the

divergence/convergence of ideas about oral versus written literacy.

Possibly, this apparent division between the oral and the written may

nonetheless not be all-significant. Despite valid criticisms to Goffman's

metaphor likening everyday behaviour to theatrical performances (1959,

1990), this analogy suits my professional practice. Within my academic

persona, different theories of literacy create a 'performance' which although

not conflict-free create my social character/performer identity. Sometimes

the 'performance' is scripted, others it is an improvisation that departs from

the 'text'. Often it is a blend that reflects the personal and the professional

with whom students and colleagues interact in the narrative/discoursecreated (Goffman, 1969; 1990; Ivanic, 1998), a 'mix' of mutually applicable

oral and literary textual conventions mirroring 'the reality of social uses of

varying modes of communication' (Street, 1985:4).

Considerable academic discussion revolves on what is actually meant by

text, whether it is restricted to the written or whether other forms of

communication may be thus called. Barton (2007:76) comments that most

western societies prefer to describe speech and language as codified writtentext. Coulthard (1977) states that labeling text is difficult because its

meaning is culturally defined. Synthesising this debate, Gonzalez (2004:13-

16) concludes that oral and written communication are both subject to

discoursive narrative and so 'suprasentential analysis' is required. Gonzalez

(ibid:14) also describes how her studies have indicated that 'there is a

relationship between two methodological schools and two distinct research

interests: text linguistics, that follows the written tradition, and discourse

analysis, that follows the oral one'; however, the author's stance is to

differentiate 'discourse-as-process from text-as-product'

(ibid).



5/28


This assignment tends to concur with this, viewing text as meaning, a

semantic whole. Language in its many forms creates equally diverse genres

of text, be it spoken, visual, written or in any other form used for

communication purposes (Barton, 2007:76) and 'understanding literacy

involves studying both texts and the practices surrounding the texts' (ibid).

Instead of simply defining literacy, there is a need to examine the

metaphors and theories we are starting from', countering myths surrounding

aspects of literacy by focusing on an interdisciplinary approach that instead

of struggling over meanings of words offers different views

about 'common myths and widely accepted but wrong truths

about reading and writing' (Barton, 2007:6).

Therefore, this assignment explores Street and Lefstein's (2007) strands of

enquiry focusing on the trends emerging from my academic writing. My

identity as an academic writer is closely tied to the themes of oral/written

literacies; discourses of truth and power;

bilingualism/multilingualism/translingualism; Critical Literacy and the New

Literacy Studies; and Critical Discourse Analysis within ecological contexts.

This paper does not purport to discuss the whole complex facets of thesethemes but rather discusses those educational experiences and theoretical

influences that have shaped my stance vis a vis these themes both as a

literate adult and a practitioner who is trying to help others express their

literacies in whichever form these might exist. This assignment does not

attempt to dissect, analyse or investigate how traditional literacy

deficiencies can be solved but rather explores the interactions between

my thoughts on the theories of literacy that have influenced my practice

within my discourse communities.

2. Established Theories of Literacy: traditional and social practice

stances



6/28


'No one practitioner necessarily adopts all of the characteristics of

any one model but the use of the concept helps us to see what is

entailed by adopting particular positions, to fill in gaps left by

untheorised statements about literacy, and to adopt a broader

perspective than is apparent in any one writer on literacy.'

(Street, 1985:3)

Education is part of the social experience of the majority of people, therefore

perceptions, beliefs and opinions abound. In Westernised societies,

traditional cognitive theories emphasise that the 'cognitive consequences' of

learning and acquiring literacy are significant for 'a societys functioning,

economic development and scientific potential' (Street and Lefstein,

2007:37). Such certainty leads various governments and education

authorities to adopt 'scientific-based approaches that can provide sound

evidence of which methods and approaches are superior

and that can claim to soundly refute some hypotheses

in favour of others' (Street and Lefstein, 2007:35).

This Cartesian belief that since 'I think therefore I am; I read and write

therefore I am literate' drives traditional schooling systems and national

development policies. It is so ingrained that in times of economic difficulties

the media often highlight alleged 'literacy problems'. Often using

sensationalist, simplistic terms that are divorced from educational research

and based on popular assumptions, the media exert more pressure on policy

makers to solve the problem and produce the statistics to prove it (Barton,

2007; Street and Lefstein, 2007). Autonomous models of literacy are thus

trusted to transmit defined skills to various individuals across different

contexts in value-free ways for the benefit of the individual and the nation - if

this can be considered to be an actual value-free system (Street, 1985;

Larson and Marsh, 2009).



7/28


Although traditional theories of literacy focus on individual development,

such systems have not devised fool-proof programmes that turn out 'happy

well-educated people' (Barton, 2007:1). Autonomous models of literacy

often contain keywords such as skills, knowledge, understanding and

outcomes to describe linear methods of teaching concepts related to reading

and writing at specific ages during childhood, assuming that 'children

progress in similar ways and acquire specific skills in sequence' (Larson and

Marsh, 2009:4-5). Children and adults who miss out on any prescribed

cognitive stages are variously labeled as being at risk, illiterate, deficient and

similar terms defining their problem with normal traditional literacy

acquisition (Barton, 2007; Street and Lefstein, 2007; Larson and Marsh,

2009). Models of visible corrective pedagogy such as proposed by Bernstein

(1974) assume that teachers have explicit control to transmit 'the tastes and

experiences of a specific section of society () which possesses sufficient

cultural, economic and symbolic capital () to assert its authority' over the

whole curriculum (Larson and Marsh, 2009:6-8). This transmitted

indoctrination alienates, at worst violates, individuals' sense of identity and

belonging. It also creates and reinforces misunderstandings about diverse

literacy practices and the strategies practiced when interacting in different

discourse communities (Gee, 2004).

Ideological models of literacy contrast autonomous models (Street, 1985;

Larson and Marsh, 2009). Such theories vary in how they are shaped by

particular social, cultural, economic and political contexts

yet all acknowledge literacy as social practice. They are

ideological models because they embody particular meaning and power

relations (ibid). The most influential of the twenty-first century theories are

arguably New Literacy Studies, Critical literacy, New technologies and

literacy, and Socio-cultural -historical theory (Larson and Marsh, 2009:3-4).

These approaches combined with increasing interdisciplinary research and

'the impact of multimodal studies and discourse analysis have broadened



8/28


what counts as literacy and challenged claims for its consequences thus

contributing towards a more balanced approach that

recognises the strengths of different

perspectives (Street and Lefstein, 2007:34-35).

Interdisciplinary studies progressively favour 'a more decontextualised

account of the learning process' while others 'attempt to link cognitive

processes with social practices' or 'locate the teaching of literacy within

broader social and political contexts () rather than imposing a single

standard on all' (ibid:34-35). Rapidly changing technologies are also

acknowledged by theorists who focus on multimodalities or multiliteracies in

a globalised world (Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2001). A common trait that such

research has is the study of issues of power and social

hierarchy as these forces, whether explicitly or implicitly, affect 'definitions

and their outcomes for practice' (Street and Lefstein, 2007:34-35).

More traditional theorists acknowledge that new globalised economies are

changing educational contexts as 'the production, distribution and circulation

of knowledge' is increasingly tied to market forces bringing about the

'secular concept of knowledge' (Bernstein, 2000:xviii). Bernstein (2000:xxiii),

particularly, retains a highly political stance towards the education of the

individual but acknowledges that traditional schooling creates a discourse

'which generates () horizontal solidarities whose object is to contain and

ameliorate vertical (hierarchical) cleavages between social groups'.

Bernsteins persistent view of traditional education as a means of upholding

democracy and social justice within a stratified social class system

nevertheless recognises the existence of a 'mythological discourse' between

mutually reinforcing stances attempting to produce a unified common

national consciousness for the common good whilst trying to 'disconnect

hierarchies within the school from a causal relation with social hierarchies

outside the school' (ibid). This symptomises 'policy technologies' in a



9/28


globalised context where a 'one-size-fits-all' model aims at the

'transformation' and 'modernisation' of vocational education, mainly through

traditional models of educational management intended to organise human

skills and resources into 'functioning systems'

(Ball, 2010:41-43).

From another theoretical perspective, Barton (2007:6) declares the need to

deconstruct the myths associated with aspects of literacy, especially those

used to justify traditional literacy programmes. These myths and metaphors

render literacy to simple psychological variables that can measure and

assess the transferability of skills, problematising individuals and

labeling them as successes or failures according to dominant values

(ibid:11). When this view spills into the rest of society, social cleavages

rather than individual identities are upheld and reinforced. Focus remains on

employment, entrepreneurship, market forces, management and

performativity (Ball, 2010:45-53). A critical analysis of these processes is

necessary as socially identified 'figured worlds', positional stances linked to

power, status and rank and 'the space of authoring' orchestrate 'identifiable

social discourses/practices that are one's resources' and 'voice' in a bid toreach 'social efficacy' (Holland et al, 2001:271-2). Instead of being the

economy's task-masters, cultural and collective symbols, values and

resources transmitted between individuals through contextualised

and meaningful social practice should become the tools of self-management

and identity formation (Holland et al, 2001).

Actualising this necessitates 'more reflective' social sciences 'focusing on the

particular, and () interdisciplinary' countering accepted 'truths' and

building views representing multiple realities (Barton, 2007:6). Different

literacy theories, models and research serving as 'ideal types' would 'help

clarify the significant lines of cleavage in the field of literacy studies' thus

providing 'a more explicit theoretical foundation for descriptions of literacy



10/28


practice and for cross-cultural comparison' (Street, 1985:3). For instance,

'critical discourse analysis explores how discourse in local sites and in larger

social structures constructs and positions and is constructed and positioned

by human subjects' (Larson and Marsh, 2009:12). Consequently rejecting

specific definitions that create myths (Barton, 2007) and analysing contexts

of D/discourse (Gee, 1999; Larson and Marsh, 2009) within educational

practice can reveal social practices interconnecting public and private

worlds. Hence my personal theory of literacy is based on a critical analysis

of truths about interconnecting power, language and identity issues in

public/private discourses. If these are manipulated, so are literacy spaces

and contexts of identities.

3. Constructing a Personal Theory/Theories of Literacy: Foucault,

Freire and Fairclough

'People tell others who they are, but even more importantly, they

tell themselves and then try to act as though they are who they say

they are.'

(Holland et al., 2001:3)

Figured worlds are spaces and narratives where individuals create a

portrayed identity within social encounters (Holland et al., 2001). Through

retelling and re-narrating 'stories' to others, new personal and communal

identities are created (ibid). Identities in practice within figured worlds are a

result of 'the accumulation of history' (Pahl and Rowsell, 2005:110). People

create different identities depending on context and discourse, the

intertextuality actuated between narrative, identity and ideology (Fairclough,



11/28


1992, 1995) where 'discourse is the mediating mechanism in the social

construction of identity' (Ivanic, 1998:17). The discoursal self or identity

becomes, 'a culturally recognised way of representing a particular aspect of

reality from a particular ideological perspective' (ibid).

Ivanic's (1998) theory of 'writer identity' validly describes the development

of authorhood in any kind of discoursal narrative. Distinguishing the

autobiographical self, the discoursal self, the self as authorandpossibilities

for self-hood, it links Bourdieu's (1977) notion of habitus within the

autobiographical self and Goffman's theory (1959, 1990) of the creation of a

character/performer within discourse. It also encompasses elements of

Bakhtin's (1973) theory of social language and speech genres, Fairclough's

(1992) theory of voice, identity and intertextuality and Kress's notion of

multimodality of text construction (1989), amongst others (Ivanic, 1998:23-

55). It also can be used to illustrate the narrative text of

personal/professional identities, the mix of oral and literary conventions

described by Street (1985).

Social and discoursal history shaped my autobiographical self, my root

identity, as a creator of text through oral family history, narratives and

literacy practices. This is my 'truth', communicated both orally and in writing.

The voice I choose to convey my narrative is mydiscoursal self,

socially constructed as I choose to adopt characters suiting particular

contexts. My self as author is my discoursal self expressed in writing. The

possibilities of selfhood, my personal/professional identity, is a result of this

mix which although theoretically unlimited, is bound by social and discoursal

contextual boundaries. Currently, my selfhood and the texts I create are

highly influenced by my positionality as an academic writer and student of

literacy theory as well as a practitioner within traditionalist educational

structures. Subsuming certain aspects of identity, some professional 'subject



12/28


positions' tend to be more privileged over others as the educational

institution 'accords them more status (Ivanic, 1998:27).

Nevertheless, as a literacy practitioner and student/researcher, 'it is not just

a question of occupying one subject position or another, but rather of being

multiply positioned by drawing on possibilities (...) on several dimensions

(ibid:27-28). Consulting Larson and Marsh's model on the construction of the

curriculum (2009:150) aided an identification of those dimensions that have

determined which theories of literacy I consider fundamental to my own

pedagogical practice and academic writing the internal and external

influences, sociocultural and structural influences, and input of subject-

knowledge/pedagogical content. These key beliefs are transversally referred

to and evident in all domains of my identity discussed above and I believe

they are based on the theories of three principal academics: Foucault, Freire

and Fairclough.

Applying Larson and Marsh's model reveals a socio-historical view of the

development of identity, a retrospective search for 'truth' influenced by

issues of power, language and identity, issues central to Foucault's

philosophy. Analysing the internal influences on

my personal theory of literacy highlights dilemmas questioned by Foucault.

Family history and oral literacy practices are essential to my identity,

awarding freedom to be but constraining my

freedom to become because of the social conditioning that is part of the oral

literacy process. It is arguable to what extent my beliefs and attitudes result

from individuality of identity or family/social conditioning. This necessitates

a re-evaluation of personal 'truths'. Foucault states it is 'not wrong to avoid

identification, but wrong to seek to reinforce it' (Williams,

2005:109) as there is no final truth in genealogies.



13/28


It is a challenge to 'not seek to know who you are, but work with and vary

your pleasures' after understanding the necessary relation of the individual

to historical structures (Williams, ibid). This in essence means that the

individual needs to 'find space for movement within the

inherited determinations of power' (ibid), to be aware of how structures

have the power to determine identities, behaviours, values and norms. It

should be a pleasure to transgress this power.

Foucault provides 'new ways of thinking about our relation to the past, () in

terms of times and social conditioning () a new, poststructuralist form of

historical critique' (Williams, 2005:106). Foucault's poststructuralism looks at

social structures and individuals to transform our idea of identity in terms of

freedom and power, emphasising free will and how this is influenced by

external social structures, language and time (ibid). These external

influences, are mainly traditional theories of literacy and

schooling. They influenced my subsequent identity, language

development/use and literacy practices, practices carried on throughout my

university and pre-teaching service years which focused more on aspects of

subject-knowledge, in my case History teaching. Pedagogically, theemphasis was on traditional teaching methods, with class control and

assessment as prerogatives and functional literacy and 'the influence of

normalizing factors' (Foucault, 1977) as standards indicatively, Pavlov's

Theory of Behavioural Conditioning is my foremost pre-service training

recollection. External inputs on my subject

knowledge/pedagogical content were 'shaped by sociocultural discourses

that influence what is considered to be appropriate or not within an

educational domain' (Larson and Marsh, 2009:151).

However, other external factors on my subject knowledge/pedagogical

content challenged this behaviourist stance. Freire's Pedagogy of the

Oppressed (1996), his approaches to theatre, critical thinking and education,



14/28


combined personal interests in politics, orality and alternate literacy theory.

To read the world besides the word (Freire, ibid) reinforces aspects of

Foucault's theory, that 'every human being is capable of looking at the world

critically in a dialogue with others () to transform their world,

to bring radical self-awareness to the forces

of oppression' (Street and Lefstein, 2007:243).

Critical literacy 'ensures taken-for-granted practices, authorized texts and

commonsense knowledges are subject to question'; it 'creates dialogic

spaces to interrogate, question and learn how other people think and live'; a

process that is 'educative, rather than simply going through the motions and

rehearsing familiar scripts' (Comber, in Larson and Marsh, 2009:63).

Yet, the traditionalist influence persists. Freire has been criticised for

favouring autonomous literacy models, based on assumptions between

cognition and literacy (Street, 1984:14). Hence many Freirian adaptations of

adult and functional literacy programmes have been domesticated' by

traditionalist, oppressive systems (Lankshear and Knobel, 2011:12),

especially in developing countries (Barton, 2007). Indeed, as a literacy

practitioner, my context is intermeshed with the identity of a small bi-partisan nation state. Split between hybrid socialist and demo-christian

nationalistic socio-cultural historical traditions, I am working through a

traditional, post-colonial education system shifting towards European

agendas in response to globalisation's education and employment

challenges. My personal theories of literacy are further affected by an

increasing shift from bilingual to multilingual contexts which further

problematise literacy education, employment, economic and citizenship

issues of families and students from designated disadvantaged sections of

the local population.

These socio-cultural influences have shaped my professional decision-making

and the choice of theories on which to base my literacy practice and



15/28


curriculum development. Family literacy action with

economically disadvantaged families and present in-class work with

traditionally-viewed lower ability learners with low traditional functional

literacy skills has brought to the foreground my interest in ideologies and

their link to power and language struggles of bilingualism/multilingualism in

a country whose 'language problem' has always been linked to economic

development (Mayo, 1994). Hence, my personal theory of literacy agrees

with countering 'ideology as common sense' (Fairclough, 2001), the power

that regulates society and the individual (Foucault, 1977).

By looking at texts, or discourses, and the social forces that produce them

'linguistic and non-linguistic symbols which are regularly used to obtain

particular ideological effects' can be identified (Fairclough, 2001:27). Most

cultural contexts pressurise individuals 'to conform to

dominant values, beliefs and practices, as they appear to be the means

of achieving social, and often financial gain, although they usually reinforce

the status and serve the interests of the privileged few' (Ivanic, 1998:42). A

critical theory of literacy deconstructs those competing ideologies that use

socially constructed language and resources such as the

media and knowledge-power technologies to shift power relations

in specific linguistic interactions (Fairclough, 1992). Through the production

and interpretation of texts, values, practices and beliefs are understood,

reinforced, contested or changed, depending on the participants. Identifying

texts of 'social reality' and 'social relations and social identities' combined

with an analysis of those metaphors that reinforce modes of ideology

(Fairclough, 1992, 2001) provides 'useful ways of thinking about the relation

between symbolic forms and social effect' (Janks, 2009:37) especially where

dominant societal discourses use symbols and processes to constitute them

'as knowledge, that is, as truth' (ibid:50).



16/28


Thus my personal theory of literacy can be summarised as an investigation

of 'truths' (Foucault, 1980) to regain individual identities,

revolutionising these into agents who can transform their social situation

(Freire, 1996). Dialogic critical discourse processes such as text analysis,

processing analysis and social analysis help describe, analyse and explain

these 'truths' (Fairclough, 1995). The thoughts of these three theorists focus

on how language and literacy discourse processes 'produce truth, how they

are produced by power and how they produce effects of power' (Janks,

2009:37). Together with an awareness of the structural influences on my

habitus and the influence of Foucault and Freire on my thinking, this search

for the ideology behind my personal theory of literacy and practice is an

effort to denormalise dominant ideologies and social relations that

problematise rather than liberate individual identities.

4. Em/Powerment: implications of Critical Literacy theories on

Functional Literacy

'The idea of empowerment often surfaces as a kind of magic

bullet for fighting educational causes on behalf of disadvantaged

groups () on the grounds of social justice, equity, and like ideals

() or a principle for enabling learning to take place. But ()

empowerment is all too rarely given adequate conceptual or

theoretical attention by those who set most store by it.'

(Lankshear and Knobel, 2011:104)

A common theoretical thread throughout the works of Foucault, Freire and

Fairclough is the link between identity, language and power and the need to



17/28


be critical of this relationship. Although the discussion in this assignment is

by means exhaustive of their work, it confirms my personal and professional

discourses and identity as being steeped in theories of critical and

socio-cultural historical theory. Basing my work on Foucault, Freire and

Fairclough's theories helps me facilitate my students' understanding of their

positionality vis a vis texts and social practices whilst engaging with them as

a co-learner in goal-oriented activities intended to transform them as equal

participants in the learning process (Larson and Marsh, 2009:131-132).

Nevertheless, although my literacy support practice may not run the risk of

having too little theoretical basis regarding empowerment, my personal

stance risks overloading the concept with significance. Also, the texts and

discourses engaged in are part of wider secondary Discourses embedded

within an institution imposing how to 'name the space where theoretical

work is needed, rather than to fill that space' (Lankshear and Knobel,

2011:104) consequently making me an accessory to this process. Vocational

literacy programmes for empowerment thus inadvertently run the risk of

being associated with self-evident benefits or positive values that have little

substantive meaning (ibid). Such typical associations often linkempowerment with freedom and functional literacy or showing people

'how to work within a system from the perspective of people in power'

(Delgado-Gaitan, 1990:2; in Lankshear and Knobel, 2011:105-106).

Before engaging in critical literacy programmes, Knobel and Lankshear

(2011:105) advise analysing the embedded political, social and economic

ideals behind the notions and be clear about the subject of empowerment;

the power structures hindering empowerment; the processes through which

empowerment is to occur; and, the outcomes that are envisaged to follow

empowerment. Gee's work on D/discourse, on how Discourses and literacies

'constitute us as persons and situate us in society' (1990:153), further

explains how our words through speech and writing, our acts, attitudes,



18/28


beliefs and identities identify individuals as members of socially meaningful

groups or players of meaningful social roles (Gee, 1990:142-143).

Considering these implications upon the theories I incorporate into my

practice, it is valid to further elaborate this reasoning.

Gee (1990) states people participate in primary and secondary Discourses,

where the former is based within oral language and its connotative use, how

we first learn to communicate in our immediate social group. Secondary

Discourses refer to how we learn to communicate in other social groupings to

which we have access. This necessitates we learn their codes of

communication in order to function in wider society, including the use of

various writing genres (Gee, 1990). Participants need master a secondary

language consisting of various communication modes enabling the individual

access to those resources enjoyed by these often dominant Discourses which

distribute 'social power and hierarchical structure in society (Gee,

1990:4-5). Functional literacy may thus be another entry into secondary

Discourses through learning a secondary language or learning to read or

write, or using information technology or attaining standardised outcomes of

learning necessary to gain employment, thus embodying material as well assymbolic power. Through certain functional literacy programmes, dominant

literacies 'empower certain groups (and depotentiate others), by making

what they already have (or have privileged access to) into currency for

acquiring social goods and benefits' (Lankshear and Knobel, 2011:111).

Political change frequently imposes versions of Freirian critical and functional

literacy programmes on population groups deemed illiterate because (my

emphasis) they are poor or live in economically underprivileged,

underdeveloped areas. That is certainly my experience of local

family/vocational literacy programmes funded under the aegis of the



19/28


European Union or the United Nations. Currently, as a vocational literacy

support practitioner, I often need to re-evaluate my positionality on

'literacy', 'support', 'functional skills', 'empowerment and employability' and

similar labels. While it is my experience that numerous students display

gaps in traditional literacy skills, it is the infrequent minority who are really

illiterate by traditional standards, even those pertaining to emotional, oral

and similar communicative skills. This, regardless of the need to

value different literacies. Therefore, the discrepancy in touting vocational

courses as 'true' functional literacy programmes is real.

Functional literacy has different meanings in diverse cultures, ranging from a

passive, coping state of survival to acquiring the knowledge and skills in

reading and writing necessary to engage effectively within prevailing

dominant Discourses (Lankshear and Knobel, 2011:7). Common to most

institutionalised functional literacy programmes is a set of tangible outcomes

to be reached to become ideal, employable citizens, logically assumed

beneficiaries of intangible advantages such as heightened self-esteem and

the like (ibid:10). However, viewing functional literacy 'as a

rescuing savior is the height of naivety' (ibid:11) because the political andfinancial needs of dominant Discourses in ever-changing job markets,

affecting projected better standards of living, render other intangible benefits

relative to politico-economic situations. This functional

literacy becomes another kind of dehumanising, domesticating ideology

instead of what Freire intended to be the means for transforming people into

critically informed and transformed individuals (ibid:11-15).

Therefore, professional re-evaluation of critical literacy skills teaching in the

Freirian sense is necessary, especially when critiquing and analysing texts

and dominant discourses dealing with functional literacy and employability

'are my students responding to texts or to me?' (Lankshear and Knobel,

2011:64).



20/28


Answering this question involves engaging people in transformative

processes 'in dialogue facilitated by reading and writing' to enable

'intellectual access to their world and their place within that world, a

conception of their unique human status and vocation, and the commitment

to pursue their vocation' (Lankshear and Knobel, 2011:17-18). This ongoing

'radical alternative conception' should transform literacy theory into active

practice creating critical, conscious relationships between all players where

individuals build on their existant knowledge, skills and understanding to

become 'ever more functionally literate' (ibid). Consequently, re-evaluating

the theories of Foucault, Freire and Fairclough within this discussion, it is

worth considering the applicability of these theories on the functional literacy

programmes I work within to actually emphasise the really functional and

revolutionary aspect of our relationship rather than the dehumanising aspect

of traditional programmes.

5. Different Literacies, Different Ecological Contexts: A Critical

Analysis of Discourse

'Like other polarities in literacy, 'one literacy versus many' turns outto be too gross a simplification of the processes we are trying to

understand.'

(Hannon, 2000:38)

Although the view that 'some literacies can be regarded as more valuable

than others' (Hannon, 2000:33) persists, academics recognising literacy as

social practice conclude that one precise definition for the term literacy is an

impossible myth (Hannon, 2000; Barton, 2007). Problematisation remains

not in the conflict between the different literacies but in drawing boundaries

between different co-existing literacies. However, strict definition may not

be necessary as the interaction between different literacies lead to 'the



21/28


emergence of new patterns, features and structures, which are generated

from the constitutive elements of the system but cannot be reduced to them'

(Barton, 2007:31). The concept of concentric ideologies and theories might

thus be preferable when discussing 'literacies' as 'it takes you further, it

provides new insights and makes new connections' (Barton, 2007:18).

Talking about the ecologic nature of literacy/literacies is another useful way

of showing that 'skills and social practices are not opposite conceptions'

(Hannon, 2000:38). An ecological approach does

not isolate 'literacy activities from everything else in order to understand

them' (Barton, 2007:32) and hence may also be an ideal way of observing

the main theories discussed in this paper in actuation as it 'aims to

understand how literacy is embedded in other human activity, its

embeddedness in social life and in thought, and its position in history, in

language and in learning' (Barton, ibid). Therefore, instead of trying to

compare oral literacy with conventional reading and writing skills within the

diverse contributions of unitary versus pluralist views of literacy, it would

perhaps be preferable to study the 'social practices associated with

particular symbol systems and their related technologies' (ibid).I find this approach particularly relevant to issues pertaining New Literacies

and bilingualism/multilingualism practices during my in-class practice and

interaction with my students given our local context.

Such an ecological study could be paired with Critical Discourse Analysis

(CDA). As previously discussed in other papers, CDA has the potential for

transformation by bringing further understanding to the intertextuality

between language, utterance-type meanings, situated meanings and social

practices (Freeman, 1998; Rogers, 2008), hence analysing the symbol

systems and technologies associated with local bilingualism, taking up the

issue beyond traditionalist arguments revolving around language skills. CDA

focuses on the different ideological stances towards different literacies and



22/28


languages and the diverse social and cultural backgrounds which ultimately

provide different people with different educational, linguistic

and literacy goals (Freeman, 1998).

Critical literacy practices combined with CDA challenges domesticated

versions of functional literacy promoting utilitarian vocational meanings

(Rassool, 1999:8). CDA supports Freire's

(1996) arguments by encouraging people to co-read behind the literal text

and reflect on their society and the struggles of power, engaging

'in a critical discussion of the positions a text supports (Papen, 2005:11).

It can also throw more light on the multimodal entity of language

'both over new ways of using language, and over linguistic representations of

change' (Fairclough, 2001:204). An ecological CDA study in the classroom

enables critical reflection on political choices such as the language and texts

used for instruction and the content that is included or excluded from the

classroom, who imposes the curriculum and how, who decides what to teach,

and the nature of student involvement in such decisions (Janks, 2009:23).

It thus highlights the 'positioned and positioning' (Fairclough, 2001) within

the 'political question () truth itself' Foucault,1980:133). It also marries theory and practice through

participative research.

CDA offers an explanation of why and how discourses, including

bilingual/multilingual discourses, work. It aids the understanding of

relationships between language, the economy, national policies, and

educational practices (Gee, 2008; Rogers, 2008). Apart from its research

aspects, it encourages active functional literacy practices in which

participants are confident of their literacy skills (Barton, 2007). Thus, CDA is

not solely a theoretical exercise but complements theories of literacy through

empirical means (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Within a bilingual/multilingual

ecological approach it counters a monocultural view of language and



23/28


encourages diversity where it 'is a source of strength, the roots of the

possibilities of the future () maintaining diversity; () the range

of variation in language' (Barton, 2007:31, 32).

Ecological diversity of language is evolving fast through new information and

communication technologies that have irrevocably changed views about and

uses of literacy (Kress, 2003; Larson and Marsh, 2009). New communication

technologies are changing the balance of languages and cultures through

previously unconsidered and sudden, irreversible ways (Barton, 2007:32).

The traditional dominance of writing is being transformed into literacies

where 'the ability to decode, encode and make meaning

using a range of modes of communication including print, still and moving

image, sound and gesture' is mediated through new technologies (Larson

and Marsh, 2009:69). This may include 'written, oral, visual and corporeal

forms of making-meaning' (ibid), often used contemporaneously in various

ways. New multiliteracies, or new multiple ways of making

meaning, thus arise.

Ecological research into these new social practices paired with CDA can help

give a glimpse of other literacies beyond school-based ones leading to

reconsideration of traditional theories and practices as well as implications

on the roles of education professionals at all hierarchical levels. Larson and

Marsh (2009:75) discuss these implications, making a case for them as

aiding meaningful situated learning that is 'responsive to the discursive

worlds of learners' enabling them to 'bring their funds of knowledge' within

classroom situated social and cultural practices that 'provide opportunities

for learners to experience and respond critically to a range of discursive

practices, identities, texts and so on' (ibid).

Although there is diverse and often divided theory and research about

teaching and learning literacy in a new media age (Larson and Marsh, 2009),



24/28


a microecological approach studies the linguistic, social,

political and pedagogical practices in the classroom (Jaffe, 2003) and opens

up 'ideological and implementational space in the environment' (Hornberger,

2002) for as many languages and literacies as possible. Such a critical,

ecological approach 'considers the already established with the

new' including the 'development of new languages alongside the

development of existing languages' (Blackledge and Creese, 2009:201-202).

Within this scenario, the interrelationship between teacher and learners

develops a 'wide panoramic view of self', 'new identity

positions' and new possibilities' of self-hood for both teacher and

learners (ibid:202).

Consequently, such an approach would appear to be a natural progression

from my core theoretical base towards more practical

and empirical research into theories of literacy. This would seemingly involve

taking my concept of literacy and identity, comparing them

with the theories of literacy discussed in this paper and through CDA and

ecological approaches, work out how they translate into classroom practices

taking into account the new stances posed by New Literacy Studies. Suchresearch would provide 'rich and theorized accounts of cultural

practices' enabling me as participant-practitioner-researcher 'to experience

them from the inside' (Lankshear and Knobel, in Larson

and Marsh, 2009:95), thus expanding my

'knowledge and theory relevant to teaching and learning, and the learning

goals and outcomes' I believe in (ibid).

Hence, with the thoughts of Foucault, Freire and Fairclough as the kernel of

my concentric theoretical stance from which I departed at the beginning of

this paper, I can use this theory as a base of informed judgement from which

to move towards truly critical enquiry. Hence, I can endeavour to

find my own voice within the multiplicity of interconnected theories of



25/28


literacies and by comparing them to my own values and experience I can

engage in critical self-reflection leading me from theory to critical

action. Departing from the vision of Foucault, Freire and Fairclough and

engaging my texts with theirs may also eventually lead me further afield

than my current centred position to explore other interlinked or even

opposing views that may ultimately challenge and transform my current

ideology and theory of literacy.

References

Bakhtin, M.M. (1973) Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. Trans. By R.W.Rotsel. Ann Arbor, MI: Ardis. In Ivanic, R. (1998) Writing and identity:The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing.Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Ball, S. (2010) The Education Debate: Policy and Politics in the Twenty-

First Century. Policy and Politics in the Twenty First Century. Bristol:Policy Press.

Barton, D. (Ed.) (1994) Sustaining Local Literacies. Reading:Education for Development.

Barton, D. (2007) Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written

Language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Bernstein, B. (1974) Class, Codes and Control. Vol.1. 2nd ed. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bernstein, B. (2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory,

Research Critique. Revd. ed. London: Taylor and Francis. Blackledge, A. and Creese, A. (2009) Multilingualism: A Critical

Perspective (Advances in Sociolinguistics). London: ContinuumInternational Publishing Group Ltd.

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Comber, B. (2009) Interview. In Larson, J. and Marsh, J. (2009) Making



26/28


Literacy Real. London: Sage Publications Ltd. p.61-67.

Coulthard, M. (1977) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London:

Longman.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990) Literacy for Empowerment: The Role of

Parents in Children's Education. London: Falmer Press. In Lankshear,C. and Knobel, M. (2011) Literacies: Social, Cultural and Historical

Perspectives. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (2008) Collecting and

Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd.

Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and social change. London: Polity.

Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study ofLanguage (Language in Social Life). Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and Power (Language in Social Life).

Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for SocialResearch. New York, London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Foucault, M (1977) Discipline and Punish, New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, M (2003) Society Must Be Defended, (Trans. David Macey).Bertani, Mauro & Fontana, Alessandro (eds.).New York: Picador.

Foucault, M (1980) Two Lectures, in Colin Gordon, ed.,Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews, New York: Pantheon.

Freeman, R. D. (1998) Bilingual Education and Social Change.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Freire, P. (transl. by M. Bergman Ramos) (1996) Pedagogy of theOppressed. London: Penguin Books.

Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology indiscourses. Critical perspectives on literacy and education. London:Falmer Press.

Gee, J. P. (1999) An introduction to Discourse analysis: theory andmethod. London and New York: Routledge.

Gee. J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of

traditional schooling. London: Routledge.

Gee, J. P. (2008) Discourse Analysis: What Makes It Critical? In: Rogers,

R. (Ed.) (2008) An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in

Education. New York: Routledge. p. 19-50.

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the

Late Modern Age. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.



27/28


Goffman, E. (1959, 1990) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.London: Penguin Books Ltd.

Gonzalez, M. (2004) Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative: the Case of

English and Catalan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Hannon, P. (2000) Reflecting on Literacy in Education. London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Holland, D., Lachicotte, W. S., Skinner, D. and Cain, C. (2001) Identityand Agency in Cultural Worlds. Cambridge, Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity Press.

Hornberger, N. (2002), 'Multilingual language policies and the continuaof biliteracy: An ecological approach'. Language Policy, 1, 27-51.

Ivanic, R. (1998) Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of

identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing

Co. Jaffe, A. (2003) Misrecognition Unmasked? 'Polynomic' language,

expert statuses and orthographic practices in Corsican schools.International Pragmatics Association: Pragmatics, 13(4), 515-537.

Janks, H. (2009) Literacy and Power (Language, Culture, and TeachingSeries). New York, London: Routledge, Taylor & FrancisLtd.

Knobel, M. and Lankshear, C. (2009) Interview. In Larson, J. and Marsh,J. (2009) Making Literacy Real. London: Sage Publications Ltd.p.92-98.

Kress, G. (1989) Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice (SecondEdition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kress, G. (2003) Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.

Kress, G. and Leeuwen, T. van (2001) Multimodal Discourse: themodes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.

Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2011) Literacies: Social, Cultural andHistorical Perspectives. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

Larson, J. and Marsh, J. (2009) Making Literacy Real. London: Sage

Publications Ltd.

Mayo, P. (1994) State Sponsored Adult Literacy Programmes in Malta:A Critical Review. In Barton, D. (Ed.) (1994) Sustaining Local Literacies.Reading: Education for Development.

Pahl, K. and Rowsell, J. (2005) Literacy and Education: Understanding

the New Literacy Studies in the Classroom. London: Sage Publications

Ltd.



28/28


Papen, U. (Ed.) (2005) Adult Literacy as Social Practice. London:

Routledge.

Rassool, N. (1999) Literacy for Sustainable Development in the Age ofInformation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Rogers, R. (Ed.) (2008) An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis inEducation. New York: Routledge.

Street, B. (1984) Literacy in Theory and Practice. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Street, B. V. (1985) Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: CUP.

Street, B. V. and Lefstein A. (2007) Literacy: an advanced resource

book. London: Routledge.

Williams, J. (2005) Understanding Poststructuralism. Bucks: Acumen

Publishing Ltd.

Josephine v Saliba EdD Assignment 5

Documents

Transcript of Josephine v Saliba EdD Assignment 5