On a Critically Conscious Literature Review (pt 2)

On a Critically Conscious Literature Review (pt 2)

Again, dislike this book. Bloated lit review with little substance beyond a guided reading.

Chapter 4

I found the modern interpretation of dialectic as presentation of the truth to be an amusing throwback to the Greeks, who at the time used dialectic as a label for non-rhetorical discussion. Given that critical theory is pretty much all rhetoric, yet dialectic is used to describe it, yet... The dividing line between what is rhetorical and not is so arbitrary anyways.

Book says discourse was a verb, now a noun and modifier. Proceeds to not give a case of when it's a modifier.

Critical Discourse Analysis “emphasizes anti-racism and anti-bias” (53) but isn't critical race perspective, then goes on to show all the ways it kind of is critical race perspective. I don't get this, or the exact difference. Also, hasn't most qualitative research moved in the direction of declaring nothing as anti-bias? Why does this get to claim otherwise?

Their definition of a critical ethnography just sounds like a good ethnography to me. What kind of ethnography would it be to not take in historical and extraneous circumstances? Also I'm curious as to if there are ties between the movement behind critical ethnographies and the activist anthropologists. If not, there should be. How can you be conscious of the driving factors that surround the marginilization of the people are you critically ethnographing (yes, I made it a verb) and not become partially an activist?

Also I guess my experience in undergraduate school was unique, because this chapter says on page 58 that CRT are counterstories against mainstream academic pictures of culture. CRT was definitely the mainstream in my experience. Of course, I'm sure there are some no-true-Scotsmen arguments to be made about the mainstream professors preaching counterstories, but we could go in that circle endlessly.

Finally, on page 60, they cite Grande as someone who wants individual race theories to be more distinctive, and I wonder at what point that kills their value as theories used to look at information. I understand the need to consider every aspect individually, but there has to be a line as we cannot possibly hope to grant every individual who has ever existed's exact identity a fair shot at being theorized upon.

Chapter 5

I'm sad this book helped these people's academic career since I don't think anyone else could ever cite this book as a source, given it's pretty much a tertiary text.

Case et al.'s groundbreaking 2005 study that there are invisible standards which hold Whiteness above others truly opened my eyes. No wait, it just made me hope this book has left out some crucial new aspect of that work in their summary.

Yes, one size fits all education hurts. Yes, fixing deficits model instead of using strengths sucks bad. But what is the realistic solution? Hiring “appropriately trained teachers” (67) is so far from being pragmatic in the current environment that it hurts. Shifting evaluations is a good idea, but somehow I don't see the people preaching the need for it going off to develop a better way that doesn't involve huge amounts of man power.

Finally, at the end of this chapter, they say they don't like pretending literacy is neutral. I'm curious as to if they would prefer every literacy measurement start with a disclaimer that says “THIS MEASURE OF LITERACY VALUES ONE LANGUAGE OVER OTHERS AND THEREFORE IS BIASED.” What would that serve? What is the solution?

Chapter 6

Waiting with bated breath for any comments on the quote about what white people lack.

BEST PART OF TODAYS READING – Conflation of the ideas of digital identity with gender identity and how they might be facets of the same institution. Very cool.