Phillips: English 540 Week 12 Post

It's about Hammersly Time!: Ain't Yo Mama's Ethnography

The readings about anthropological ethnography this week are some of the most useful readings I have encountered as a student in English Studies to date. Thank you, Dr. Seloni, for helping me find other voices that help me articulate and understand my resistance to the twenty-first century educational ethnographies that I have been reading.

To explain, my undergraduate degree is in anthropology with a writing minor. Because I am an older student, the gap between when I received my degrees in anthropology (90s) and visual culture (two years ago) is considerable.  The articles we read for this week articulate all of the intuitive irritations I have been having as I read contemporary educational case studies, interviews, and “ethnographies.” I felt like a dinosaur because I thought what I was seeing happening in recent literature about emplaced learning situations was somehow inadequate or, to my mind, McScholarship—too fast, too greasy, and too easy—scholarship that routinely left me ill at ease, but I could not identify quite why. Now I know why I have been having that reaction. It is because I have a fundamentally different perspective on what “ethnography” can be and should do. Of course, these are value judgments based in my historical and ideological understandings of cultural anthropology and cultural geography that I learned from my dad and my professors many years ago.

Hammersly’s article addressed some of the particulars that have been troubling me. He writes:

[W]hat I am suggesting is that we need to bear in mind the consequences of moving from the older anthropological model of ethnographic fieldwork to its more recent forms, in which we study only parts of people’s lives over relatively short time periods, perhaps only being in the field a few days each week. There are problems of sampling and generalization here, and a danger of failing to recognize both cyclical variability and fundamental patterns of change. (6)

Granted, Hammersly points out the economic whys and wherefores of the move to expedient forms of methodological research practices that draw from anthropological ethnography, but he also points out what is omitted in such a move—observation of cyclical patterns and deep contextualizing.  I fear I seem nostalgic, but there is something to be gained from “living among ‘em” that builds a two-way bridge across difference, a bridge we need to foster deep social justice.

Hammersly’s query into how ethnographic research methods may be deployed in online communities is at the forefront of my mind. That we have a different relationship based in different kinds of sensory exposures to each other online makes for an interesting shift in research practices. Because I am interested in how different ratios of sensory perception may impact how we feel about each other in different environmental contexts, Hammersly’s essay may draw attention to what is omitted in online discourse. I don’t believe you can know whether the person on the other side of the screen is “real” or not. This Baudrillardian sense of hyperreality transforms ordinary human interaction. Put differently, one does not have the same kind of sensory engagement one does with another real-live human being or other creature. Sociological studies—Sherry Turkle’s Alone Together comes to mind—begin to examine the disconnect between face-to-face human interactions with online or robotic machine interactions. How does one do ethnographic research of robotic interactions? If so, how does one shift analytic components to reflect the non-human aspects of communication across this two-way bridge? 

Phillips: English 540 Week Eleven Response

Literacy Facts and Fictions

James Paul Gee ‘s purpose is to complicate a “traditional” notion of literacy, one in which “literacy is treated [solely] as a mental phenomenon” divorced from cultural, historical, and political contexts (26). Instead, Gee wishes to define literacy in “social and cultural” terms that acknowledge the power dynamics involved in inequities of access for marginalized peoples (28). He suggests an ideological model for understanding literacy. “An ideological model,” Gee writes, “attempts to understand literacy in terms of concrete social practices and to theorize it in terms of the ideologies in which different literacies are embedded” (76). Gee demonstrates this model, to my mind, by discussing different cultural and historical examples that provide extrinsic evidence to back his concluding claim that, “We ought to be as interested in creating a ‘new society’ as we are a new ‘science’” (86).

Gee proposes three literacy facts. First, he notes that, “Most people in developed countries are literate in the sense that they can read” (30). Second, although many are literate, “…lots of people cannot do more difficult and sophisticated tasks with their literacy skills,” which creates a hierarchy of “service workers,” “knowledge workers,” and “knowledge leaders” (30). Third, “…home-based factors matter deeply” in terms of parental education, culture, and access to literacy materials (31). In essence, Gee claims that there isn’t a “literacy crisis.” Rather, there is a “schooling” problem. He discusses a specific instance from the National Academy of Science (1998) that failed to adequately discuss systemic inequities and instead focused too heavily on “phonemic awareness” (37).

In another example—the “aspirin bottle” problem—Gee refutes claims that all this “fancy stuff” about culture and history and so forth won’t help people who can read a warning label. By performing a discourse analysis of the warning label, Gee pauses to consider the larger issues of status quo ideologies about literacy. That is, what has led to the “legalize” on the back of the label in the first place?

Gee’s concise history of Plato, Baktin, Swedish literacy, and Freire’s “emancipatory literacy” is useful as a refresher. Gee’s point is that, “Literacy always comes with a perspective on interpretation that is ultimately political” (60). I don’t think that is a new concept, but his explanation of “Plato’s dilemma” is one we face when we consider how to interpret texts and whose perspective we choose to respect in our role as student or teacher.

Finally, Gee provides a survey of key developments born out of New Literacy Studies to ground our understanding of the ways in which sociocultural approaches to literacy study might transform the conversation. While I am on board with Gee’s assertion that, “We ought to be…interested in creating a ‘new society’,” I wonder who is going to pay for the cost of that new society and under what circumstances. 

Phillips: English 540 Week Eight Response

 The Whos and Whats: Gee’s Figured Worlds and Five Systems of Discourse

Favorite Ideas from Gee’s Chapter Six & A Pet Peeve

“Different social languages…make visible and recognizable two different social identities, two different versions of who one is” (89).

“All utterances make assumptions about people’s previous experiences and knowledge “ (97).

“A figured world is an assumed part of the context on the part of the writer…” and it implies a set of cultural “…values and ideologies” (101; 106).

“There is no knowing a language without knowing the cultural models or figured worlds that organize the meanings of that language for some cultural group. But all cultural models tend ultimately to limit our perception of differences and of new possibilities” (110).

James Paul Gee poses the concept of “figured worlds.” I find this idea compelling, for, on the one hand, the idea suggests embodiment in the word ‘figure,’ and, on the other hand, the idea suggests a view of the world that a ‘figure’ sees, experiences, and holds. All of this is contingent with her/his own social situation.

Gee references Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By (L&J) but doesn’t delve into their ideas about conceptual metaphors to my satisfaction. Gee’s text would benefit from the addition of L&J’s Philosophy in the Flesh, which was published in 1999 almost a decade prior to Gee’s own work, and three decades after Metaphors We Live By, which was first published in 1980. Even though I know no one can ‘read-it-all,’ his omission seriously impacted my ability to read him as generously.

For example, Gee names “idioms” like Time is Money, but I am not on board with his interpretation. L&J frame this as conceptual metaphor and place it into a schema representing Time as a Resource (L&J 161). Maybe I don’t understand why Gee doesn’t take the next step and deconstruct the idioms he poses, or at least reference extant scholarship that does a more thorough job deconstructing the concepts.

Favorite Concept from Gee’s Chapter Seven

Nevertheless, Gee’s description of Five Systems of Discourse provides some good points for consideration. Gee writes: “[D]iscourse [are] stretches of language” that “hang together” …to make sense to some community of people.” (112). He indicates that there are ways in which discourse “hangs together” that we may analyze.

Quoted and Paraphrased from 116-117

1. Prosody = the way things are said…pitch, loudness, stress, syllable length

2. Cohesion = ways sentences are linked, or the text’s glue

3. Over all Discourse Organization = the ways in which sentences are structured/positioned into higher ordered units

4. Contextualization Signals = cues for listeners and readers to situate a text or utterance

5. Thematic Organization = the ways in which themes are signaled and developed (through visuals, focalizers, etc…)

“These five systems are interrelated. … Devices in the first three are used to accomplish the functions of the last two…’ (116-17).

In response to Meg’s query, Gee doesn’t address the body in motion per se, but one might place the ‘figure’ under the heading of contextual signals, or theme (?!), or prosody under “stress.” I’m stretching it here, though.

While I am harsh on the details in Gee’s text, this doesn’t mean I find no merit in his project, I do. I wished to play devil’s advocate in this post to help forward my own thinking with regard to conceptual metaphors--something I intend look at in my intercultural analysis paper.

Phillips 540: Week Seven Discussion Facilitation with Irina

Hi all!

Below are question sets for the Horner et al. and Michael-Luna & Canagarajah articles. Some of the questions pertain to the CCCC and TEOSOL statements as well as other readings we have engaged with thus far.

Please take a look at them if you have time, so you know some points Irina and I may bring up during our discussion facilitation. :)

Thanks!

 Lisa and Irina’s Discussion Heuristics & Subsequent Question Guide for Horner et al.

1. Exploratory: Probe for facts and basic knowledge.

Is the Horner et al. article a manifesto? If so, who/what are they protesting against? Aren’t they preaching to the choir? OR, are they indirectly addressing some other audience? If so, who/what/why?

2. Challenge: Examine assumptions, conclusions, and interpretations.

Why is this article deemed an “opinion,” versus say an “argument,” or, for that matter, a “petition” for a translingual shift addressed to politicians?

3. Relational: Ask for comparisons of themes, ideas, or issues.

How is Horner’s pursuit of a translingual approach different from the CCCC second language writing statement or the TESOL statement? Are the issues at stake different for each of the stakeholders?

4. Diagnostic: Probe motives or causes.

Why does Horner et al. preface their resource bibliography with a call-and-response Q&A set?

5. Action: Call for a conclusion or action.

What do you think Horner et al. want readers to change about themselves after reading the article? Are they making a reasonable request given the political and economic climate that envelops public education?

6. Cause-and-Effect: As for a causal relationship between ideas, actions, or events.

Why does the Horner article include a list of “seconds,” or signers-on to the translingual approach?

7. Extension: Expand the discussion.

How does Horner’s Q&A comments relate to our discussion of World Englishes and hip-hop posed by Pennycook?

8. Hypothetical: Pose a change in the facts or issues.

Suppose Horner had not included the “petition” aspect of the article—would the article convey less support for the translingual approach? OR, does the inclusion suggest an exclusionary edict? That is, does Horner’s inclusion of names suggest a “you’re either with us or against us” approach?

9. Priority: Seek to identify the most important issue.

What to you is the most important thing to learn from, or from reading, Horner’s article?

10. Summary: Elicit syntheses.

What interesting points have been brought to the table by the CCCC and TESOL language statements? What are those documents a response to in your opinion?

Lisa and Irina’s Discussion Heuristics & Question Guide for Michael-Luna & Canagarajah

1. Exploratory: Probe for facts and basic knowledge.

Does the article oversimplify the HE setting by equating it to an elementary education setting? If so, what are the emotional consequences to HE students who might feel denigrated by the suggestion?

2. Challenge: Examine assumptions, conclusions, and interpretations.

Does this article address the complex political consequences of code meshing adequately to your mind? If not, are there ways in which that conversation might take place, and how would go about that task?

3. Relational: Ask for comparisons of themes, ideas, or issues.

How is the authors’ pursuit of a code meshing approach different from the TESOL second language writing statement or the CCCC statement? What issues are at stake different for the different stakeholders: teachers, learners, policy makers?

4. Diagnostic: Probe motives or causes.

Do you think that Michael-Luna and Canagarajah select Spanish-to-English language learners for the elementary education code meshing example for politically motivated reasons? If so, does the suggestion that higher education pedagogues adopt the elementary education model devalue (or privilege) Spanish over other languages?

5. Action: Call for a conclusion or action.

What, if anything, do you plan to change about yourself after reading the article? Do you think the authors are making reasonable requests given the complex realities of our own classroom spaces and time constraints as people in a liminal space—i.e. between teacher and graduate student?

6. Cause-and-Effect: As for a causal relationship between ideas, actions, or events.

Why do the authors exclude, or at least elide, gender variables in their discussion of code meshing?

7. Extension: Expand the discussion.

How do the authors’ observations about code meshing relate to our discussion of Li’s yin/yang principle in a way that helps us understand cultural comparisons? That is, how does Li’s idea that languages and cultures “are intertwined, curving into each other’s sphere” work toward or against a code meshing pedagogy (Li 16)?

8. Hypothetical: Pose a change in the facts or issues.

Suppose the authors had not included the elementary education aspect of the article—would the article convey less support for a code meshing approach?

9. Priority: Seek to identify the most important issue.

What, for you, is the most important take away from the article for your pedagogy chapter in your dissertation? Is the reading relevant to your own goals?

10. Summary: Elicit syntheses.

What interesting points have been brought to the table by juxtaposition of code switching versus code meshing?

Phillips: English 540 Week Six Response

For this post I have opted to do what I did in week two: post some key points for consideration that I engaged with during my reading. Because I focused heavily on Connor’s Contrastive Rhetoric book last week, I decided to focus on the articles from this week. I appreciated some of the research methods suggested by Li’s article and Connor’s 2004 essay. Kubota’s questions struck me as particularly useful.

Li’s Key Points for Lisa:

Contextual quote: “It was no accident that classical rhetoric, the study of effective argument, was born in an ancient democracy, not in a dynasty. The world is not as free-flowing as postmodernists would like us to believe” (16).

Li proposes a yin/yang principle as an approach to contrastive rhetoric. That is, we can come to understand that cultures “are intertwined, [and curve] into each other’s sphere”(16). This makes a great deal of sense to me. Cultures circumambulate one another in a complicated dance. Languages, groups, and individuals do likewise.

Li asks us to consider two issues pertinent to an ESL writing context: (1) How to determine when cultural influences appear in student writing, and (2) what “culture-specific templates” consciously or unconsciously form a student’s antecedent genre knowledge (17). The guiding idea here is that Li wants us to avoid “omniscient” cultural explanations that essentialize students.

As a rhetorician, I appreciated Li’s discussion of George Kennedy’s “comparative rhetoric” vis-à-vis contrastive rhetoric. In other contexts, I have misunderstood that they were two distinct “fields.” I didn’t realize in what way they where different until I read Li’s explanation. I had a “well, duh,” moment or two. Moreover, Kennedy has a number of critics within classic rhetorical circles who prefer the term “Alternative Rhetorics” to include other culturally and historically situated ancient rhetorical traditions not all of which were “born in an ancient democracy”(Lipson and Binkley 3; Li 16).  Clearly, linguists are not unique in their disciplinary disputes about whose cultural model is whose and whose gets top “billing” in studies of culturally influenced writing patterns.

Li suggests that contrastive rhetoric is social not “political”(19). I cannot agree with Li on this, contrastive rhetoric is always already political as is pedagogy. I do not understand how Li can imply that CR is not “political.” What am I missing here??

Kubota’s Key Points for Lisa:

Contextual quote: Traditional contrastive rhetoric “reinforce[s] a cultural deficit view in which certain groups are seen as innately deficient because of their cultural and linguistic background[s]” (15).

Kubota makes a move toward “critical contrastive rhetoric” the aim of which is “political” to create “oppositional language against racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of injustice” (16). {Perhaps Kubota’s point here answers my “What am I missing here?” question about Li’s article, but I still don’t fully understand how CR could be apolitical.} Is Kubota’s point to show that CCR is explicitly political in opposition to CR? Probably.

I found Kubota’s explication of Whorf particularly useful as she situates his work philosophically parallel to Baktinian notions about reflexivity and plurality and juxtaposes these two with Kaplan’s hierarchical cultural “Doodles.”

Finally, Kubota’s queries (page 17) offer us some useful research questions to ponder as we begin to consider our own projects. She asks:

• How have we come to believe that a certain cultural difference is true?
•   What political purposes have motivated the construction of particular beliefs about cultural difference?
• What alternative understandings of cultural difference, or counter-discourses, are available to transform our taken-for-granted knowledge? (17)

She answers that a critical contrastive rhetoric pedagogy “is self-reflexive” at the core (23).

Connor (2004) Key Points for Lisa:

Connor offers some useful research methodologies that may inform some of our work. Connor’s literature review featured Flowerdew’s four types of methodological categories: (1) genre analysis, (2) corpus-based studies, (3) contrastive rhetoric specific to academic discourse, and (4) ethnographic/naturalistic approaches (263). Connor’s explanation of these was concise and useful. Also useful was Connor’s definition of the “three schools of text analysis,” which are: (1) The Prague School’s “theme” and “rheme” analysis, (2) Systemic Linguistics developed by Halliday, and (3) A “New School” of discourse analysis that is interdisciplinary and applied (295).

My favorite word is “miniethnographics” posed by Louhiala-Salminen (Connor quoting L-S 301). This research method, according to Connor, “generate[s] descriptions of ‘slices of life’…of discourse in different cultures. After the descriptions were generated, comparisons of discourses and of how to get things done using discourses could be conducted” (301). I love this idea because I connect it to Foucault’s notion of “heterochronies” or “slices of time” in his Of Other Spaces. I have been seeking a way to think about how to conduct research on the senses and “miniethnographics” make a lot of sense to me. Thank you, Connor!

Outside sources referenced:

Foucault, Michel. “Of Other Spaces.” Diacritics. Trans. Jay Miskowiec. Vol. 16:1 (Spring 1986):22-27. Print.

Lipson, Carol S. and Roberta A. Binkley, eds. Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks. Albany: SUNY Press, 2004. Print.