· Cushman’s Chapter 1: The Struggle and the Tools
o Cushman writes, “Language transfer is a socially complicated process that can best be understood when examined in a back-and-forth fashion between community and institutional contexts” (7).
§ As I read this sentence, I couldn’t help but realize that I, too, do this between my personal community and institutional personas, per se. Being from a small, Southern Alabama town, I have acquired all of the stigmatized attributes of the language associated with the religion. However, as a member of a family that prides itself on education, I assumed two personas: Kelly, the Valley Girl (or rather, the girl from Valley, Alabama) and Kelly, the Masters of Education, Graduate Student. Friends of mine from Auburn have heard me on the phone with my Mother or friends from home and even though they may also be from the South, they often times tell me later that they could barely understand what we were talking about. I definitely agree with Cushman that language transfer or code-switching is extremely prevalent in individuals who are participating in a community and an institution.
· Cushman’s Chapter 2: Activist Methodology
o Cushman writes, “Without immersion in the community, I would not have had access to the private ideologies that inform residents’ cunning language use” (14).
§ In reading this, all I could think about was Margaret Mead and her ethnographic studies with the Samoan people. Why does Cushman think she has actual, true knowledge of the actual language practices of this community? She mentioned earlier in the book that she was from a similar community and was a woman, which made her more accessible to the families. I suppose that after hearing what happened with Mead, I am a little more skeptical of ethnographic research, so I guess now I’m always looking for flaws or weaknesses in the system.
· Cushman’s Chapter 8: The Transfer of Language in Gatekeeping Interactions
o Cushman writes, “the transfer of language can promote social and political equality, an egaliteration ideology often implicit, yet not actualized, in encounters with social service institutions” (178).
§ I agree that by putting everyone on an even language playing field, there are positive things that can come out of it, but isn’t there something to be said about rising above and making more of yourself? I cannot imagine walking into my Graduate level classes and talking like I just left my family’s farm and expect to be taken seriously. I definitely see where Cushman is coming from and in a Utopian world, that would wonderful, but that is not the world we live in. People with education, power, money, etc. are expected to speak, behave, etc. one way and those without are not. While I think those social tags are slowly merging, it is still not the norm.
· Peck et al’s “Community Literacy”
o Peck et al write, “Community literacy then—in a stark contrast to urban development and social service efforts—places education and inquiry at the center of its practice. To speak theoretically, the process we want to foster is one in which writers construct a negotiated meaning, rising to greater reflective awareness of multiple voices and sometimes conflicting forces their meaning needed to entertain. The understandings writers come to in text are a provisional resolution constructed in the middle of an internal conversation” (582).
§ This selection speaks directly to the book I am reviewing for our class’ book review project, so it immediately jumped out at me. The current trend in the ELA classroom is not for students to simply read and text and move on (as was in previous years), but rather for the student to take steps to have an understand of the text for themselves and to then know how they came to those conclusions, therefore, making them a better writer and reader. “Meaning making” as it is called is such a crucial aspect in an ELA that most every piece of material is centered around what meaning can be individually made and then to, once again, know how that meaning was made.
No comments:
Post a Comment