Video

Here is my video.

Writing Veterans

The Hyphenated African

            This week’s reading really inspired me to be creative. This concept of critically conscious narrative/counternarrative made me think about how to use narration to “de-Other” by allowing someone to “imagine the mind of the oppressed and to see, and perhaps vicariously experience, the world through their eyes” (Willis et.al 112). My friend and I were brainstorming when she came up with the idea of writing a narrative about racial identity, but exchanging our narratives with one another in order to get both the experience of being “the other” as well as getting to see the world through someone else’s eyes (I think I said that right). Basically, the idea is that each person starts to write their own story, you trade papers with one another, and then you add on to the other person’s story from your own perspective. Once we made sense of it, we decided to add my mother and my niece to the equation.          

     

            We chose to write about the different perspectives in the racial identity of being African-American, and whether or not the “hyphen” is the absence or presence of identity. We call it: The Hyphenated African. My friend is east African, and she wrote about identifying as “African”. I wrote about identifying as just “American”. We had my mother write about identifying as both African and American—hence the need for hyphenation (mainly because she was around for the all the name changes, movements, and racist stuff). Then I had my niece write about how she identifies herself, because she is mixed and requires more hyphens to define who she is (pretty perceptive for a 10 year old). Here’s what we came up with:

Zam Zam: Growing up I was told to be proud about my heritage. I was told not to forget my history. To do so would disgrace all those who died protecting it in the civil war in Somalia. My mother even took it so far as to check the "other" slot when filling out documents asking about race. Even though we were naturalized as US citizens, she refused to check African-American. She refused to consider she was hyphenated in any manner. Eventually this rubbed off on me. You see I'm not a first generation--- I'm an immigrant like my mother from Somalia. I came here at the young age of 5, at times I'm so Americanized that I relate more to the American culture than my African one. However, in the end, I can tell I don't fit in the African-American culture. The label doesn't capture the collective experiences I've had in my lifetime. I may look African-American but I identify myself as African who is American. I am not hyphenated nor will I accept that label.

Me: I am not African. I am not from Africa. I am from America. I was born on American soil, to American parents, and many of my ancestors were Native American. I am more than just the descendant of former slaves. Although it is a part of my history, I refuse to allow slavery to define my identity. You cannot “hyphenate” me. You cannot “Other” me, create a separate label for me, but still allow me to be an “—American”. I was an American before there was an America.  

Mom: Our ancestors were brought from Africa as slaves to America. Our people helped to build this country, and because they were slaves they never got any pay for their work. Without the work of slaves there wouldn’t be an America. Our ancestors earned the title of American. The best way to describe Black people is African American. Black is an acceptable way to refer to us, or Negro if you know how to pronounce it correctly.

Ladybug: (Note: because of her age I had her answer questions rather than write a paragraph)…

            Q: What are you? (Name all).

                        A: German, Irish, French, Indian, Black, White, Black-Frenchman

Q: Are you African? Why?

A: No, I don’t think I’m African because out of all the parts I’m made of that’s not on my list.    

            Q: Are you American? Why?

A: Yes. Because I am free. An American is someone that was born and raised in America.

            Q: Are you African-American? Why?

                        A: No. Because I’m only American which is halfway not fully African American.

Yay Last Reading

So I'm not sure if it's just because I did this reading during a break in my Methodology writing or what, but I thought this section was by far the best section of the book.  If the book had been structured along the lines that were presented in bullet point form in the afterward, I think I would've enjoyed the whole thing more overall.

A few things I didn't understand:

On page 109, the opening of this reading, the authors state that "Historically, oppressed people have expressed themselves using their languages, literacies, music, and arts...."  What means of expression does this not include?  Do they mean academic works?  If so, why is that separate from languages and literacies?  What is the difference between the word "literacies" here and the words "literature" or "writing"?

On 111, they mention a scholar focused on "Chicana feminist pedagogy."  What exactly does that mean?  Teaching the subject of Chicana feminism?  Teaching in a Chicana feminist way?  Teaching in a way that emphasizes the importance of Chicana feminism?

On 116, there's a section that I found myself agreeing strongly with where the authors discuss how indigenous groups are discussed as a historic event in the classroom but not as a contemporary entity.  However, after a little more thought, I think that applies to a lot of things.  As an education system, we are scared to deal with contemporary events.  A lot of US History curriculum ends around WWII--I know anecdotally that very few classrooms cover Vietnam or the 60s in general except to acknowledge the Civil Rights movement very peripherally.  I agree that indigenous people's marginilization is much more than the events I just listed, but I think as a culture we are hesitant to insert anything into the History classroom that is still controversial.

On 117, a scholar is quoted as dividing counternarratives into autobiographies, biographies, and composites.  It doesn't define composites, but I didn't understand why counternarratives can't include fictive works, or poetry, or academic work in general.

A few things I liked:

Importance of narrative on 110.  Something that's really hit home with me this semester, in both this class and in Dr. Jackson's narrative class.

Problems with language in the classroom on 114.  In an education system built around evaluation, it's inevitable that we value one language more than another.

Acknowledgment that primary sources are downplayed on 127.  Only addition I have to this is the recent example of a Wikipedia editor refusing to use an email from Philip Roth on the author's Wikipedia page because Wikipedia only accepts secondary sources.  The practice is understandable, if they used primary sources then anyone would be able to insert their own spin on their Wikipedia page, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

One thing I didn't like:

This section as a whole explored the importance of narrative IN research, but doesn't seem to acknowledge the potential of narrative AS research, like in works such as Notes of a Native Son, Bootstraps, or other critical memoirs.

Language use and Power

Language Use and Power

Although I enjoy learning about the different methods of critically conscious research, I am finding some parts of this book hard to follow due to the “listing” nature of the book (In some parts, the authors seem to only list the research on a particular subject).  Chapters 4, 5, and 6 are no different

In chapter 4, the authors describe the different aspects of Critical Methodologies.  For example, “Critical Discourse Analysis is a form of discourse analysis that is inspired by the thinking of Derrida, Hebermas, Gramsci, and Marx among others.  Bloome and Carter submit that, historically , the term discourse was used as a verb” (52).  In other words, the methodology in this sense is utilized to form a “discourse community.

In chapters 5 and 6, the authors discuss the varying power structure evident in the varying structures (government, religion, laws, etc); they also present the different research for the power structures in language use.  The most interesting part was the research done by Moje, who posited that gang members didn’t utilize communication to just assimilate to the gang culture, but, instead, they used language to find meaning with their incomplete identities: “Their language use indicates willingness to engage of a gangsta lifestyle and reveals aspects of evolving identities” (92). 

Like always, I will try to take what I read and find meaning with my own work.  During the previous weekend (Marine Corps Birthday and Veterans Day), millions of Veterans grouped together to celebrate service to our country.  With my own experience, I am able to understand the importance of these two days.  This weekend, my battalion had a reunion and memorial service for our fallen; this weekend allowed me to notice the difference of comfort, within myself, when faced with the civilian world and the military world.  Although I have become articulated in both, my confidence is greater in another (the military world).  When understanding that confidence is a key factor with power and language use, I am able to see the importance of creating a more effective assimilation program for our veterans.

CDA, Critical Ethnography, and some other stuff...

Where to begin? There is so much information covered in this section 500 words just isn't enough to cover it all. There were a couple of parts that stood out to me the most. First, was the part about CDA--mainly because Dr. P. had us write one about a movie for class last year. Thinking critically about a movie takes all of the fun out of it--you develop this critical consciousness and have a heightened sense of awareness to everything. Next thing you know, every movie, every TV show, every commercial is racist and sexist and homophobic, and you're walking around in awe of how much of this stuff you were completely oblivious to. For example, Dr. P. had us read an article he wrote about the movie Shrek. I wasn't really interested in the movie before, but I never thought about it beyond it being a kid's movie with Eddie Murphy playing a stupid donkey.  After reading his article, I was amazed at how much racism I missed and had to go back and watch the movie. You can check out the article here.

Critical ethnography also got my attention. I wish there was more information on it, but the little overview made me want to do some more research into it. I liked Quartz's idea that critical ethnography "attempts to re-present the 'culture', the 'consciousness', or the 'lived experiences' of people living in asymmetrical power relations" (Willis et. al 55). In particular, I like the use of the word "re-present" instead of represent. Instead of trying to speak for that group of people, you are using their own words to present their culture, consciousness, and experiences. Big difference to me. The one thing that does bother me about this is how women and non-whites keep getting left out of the equation. How is it possible to focus on oppression, or oppressed people and not take their contributions into consideration?

The critically conscious study of whiteness and sexual orientation both interested me as well. I am a huge fan of Tim Wise (which is why I will post his video below), and for some reason language and sexual orientation both confuse and interest me. I think this is largely due to the fact that this is still new to me, but I am also realizing that I am at a disadvantage when talking to homosexual and transsexual people. It's has more to do with identity and language, but I've found that the lines aren't as clear to me as when I am dealing with something like race. Anyway, since I love visuals I wanted to add the Tim Wise video on whiteness. Hope you like it.

Chapters four, five, and six in "On Critically Conscious Research" are comprised of examples of different types of research projects from the past that are considered within the realm of critically conscious research. While reading a continuous thread of different examples of these types of research feels tedious at times, research that lies within the realm of the critically conscious is not easily defined and necessitates the use of multiple examples to show the wide range of theoretically critical lenses a researcher can use to analyze a problem within a group of people. Perhaps part of what makes critical theories so diverse and therefore difficult to define is that a scenario that calls for critical study involves examining a group of people where a variety of social constructs intersect (race, gender, social class, etc) to create dynamic relationships the can be analyzed and used to define what it means to exist within that culture. This makes critical theory applicable to virtually any study involving diverse peoples.

One thing that struck me as odd is mention only briefly on page 70: critical theory as applied to religion. The book barely mentions the use of critical theory to analyze religion, and only mentions a couple of examples: the image of Muslims in the post 9/11 world and the adaptation of Catholic education programs for Spanish speakers. The book states that "Although a part of CT, religion has remained distant from critical theories. Worldwide religious oppression is fraught with over-tones of mass murders and genocide that occur as powerful nations or groups seek to eradicate the religious beliefs of others." (70) When I read this I wondered why religion is not researched more thoroughly and frequently by critical theorists.Why is religion treated as sacred within this community when nothing else is? Critical theorists examine cultural, racial, and gender issues, and all of these facets of humanity are closely related to religion. Religion is generally culturally based and often has different roles for men and women as well as opinions regarding race (some explicit and some implicit), so it stands to reason that it would be necessary to critically examine the role of religion within a group of people. Of course religion is different from race and gender in a very big way: religion is a personal choice, race and gender are not.

After reading these chapters I also wonder about an idea that seemed to come up often regarding the teaching of English to students who are ESL and EL. While I can understand that teaching Americanized English to minorities can be problematic because of cultural differences and the idea that it makes the minorities language seem subordinate to English, I also see the importance of teach a lingua franca to all people within a globalized society. Perhaps it is easier for me to take this stance since my native tongue is English, but the issue of how to teach literacy in both English and the native language of a group seems like a complicated issue that I certainly do not have the answer to, I just know that the answer is not to stop teaching them English. And I say this not because of cultural reasons, but simply because in 2012 speaking and understanding English is essential to success in a globalized world. I do feel that all students in the United States would benefit from multilingual education.

Finally, Glazier and Seo addressed an issue I have wondered about throughout this book and during discussions on critical theories and race relations: what about White culture, or more specifically what appears to be a lack of White cultural awareness. In their study of European White student populations they find that "Whiteness studies are a missing link in teacher education that leaves many White educators feeling cultureless" (100). Maybe part of feeling "cultureless" (for myself anyway) comes from the knowledge that much of what European White Americans are taught as our history (and therefore our culture) are based on lies and half-truths and that many of the atrocities committed by White European ancestors are glossed over or ignored entirely. What I am certain of is the need for critical theory to examine the ways that race, gender, and social constraints interact to construct our global, multicultural society.

Ch 4-6

Chapters 4-6 this week were just as dense with theory as the reading for last week. It seemed like each paragraph or section could have been a term paper, and while reading I visualized myself surfing over a very deep ocean. Chapter four was on “Critical Methodologies and Methods” (philosophies and processes) then moving into specifically qualitative critical methodologies. My new friend Critical Discourse Analysis was in there with language and literacy research and critical ethnography. We saw CRT again (although I don’t any of these sections don’t include one another) and then critical policy analysis. Some of the critiques presented at the end were how critical theorizing needs to be disentangled from the narrow Marxist definition to be applied in education research and how insider/outsider perspectives cannot be essentialized. This moved into another section on insider/outsider perspectives.

The next chapter was “Critically Conscious Language and Literacy Research” which introduced domains of power and how critically conscious researchers use a socio-historical perspective in their research. The first section was on policies and government agencies, laws and critical language and literacy, religion, economics and critical consciousnesses. Then the authors had another larger section about Disciplinary domain of power, including indigenous schools and communities, language, literacy, and culture, and how all these theories could be put into practice by citing several examples of critical lenses in schools and how they worked to uncover formal and informal hegemony.

The section in this chapter on religion took my notice because it pointed out to me how clearly troublesome essentializing can be. My own history with “religion” and those people I know who are very “religious” fall completely out of this category. I think today in a world where not all people are religious and religion is often associated with culture, it would be helpful to both think of religion as a cultural practice and as a culture of its own rather than as a completely separate reflection of culture.

The final chapter focused on “Hegemonic Domain of Power” in critical language and literacy research. They “tackle the domain of power as well as inherent domain levels (83). Because there is no ideology free teaching practice, they define “critical literacy” and “critical pedagogy.” After defining it, the authors analyze critical pedagogy among White students. The researcher’s values reinforced White middle-class norms and found that the students generally adhered to gendered stereotypes in class discussions. They pointed out what seemed to be rather obvious: that taught literature tends to be White and male, therefore White males relate to it more. The next section was on sexual orientation and how literacy norms are generally presented in the dichotomous heterosexual male/female which excludes those who do not fall into that traditional norm. The next section is about studies among students of color and racial/ethnic/cultural identities that emerge and are created in the classroom and in research of language and literacy with the researcher and participants.  Finally, there were many smaller sections about pedagogy, popular culture, agency and student voice, teacher education, and critical media. I found the last section on media and pop culture especially interesting because this is what I have been focusing on in my research projects. In critical media studies, the researcher breaks  down the implicit messages that are being created for race, gender, culture, nationality, sexuality, and just about any marginalized group, with the idea pointed out here that “popular” culture usually means “White” culture.