Appalachians, Sponsors, and Literacy: Webb-Sunderhaus

Sara Webb-Sunderhaus’s research on sponsors, which according to Deborah Brandt are “any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, and model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold, literacy…” (p. 1601) involved students in English Composition courses at two open-admission universities in Central Appalachia. In the two summer classes she used to gather data, one had 18 students and the other 14 students. The breadth of research instruments she used to gather data is intense, she included: participant observations, transcripts of individual cases, a brief demographic survey, formal interviews, and an extended survey based on her interview script (p. 1602). She discusses several different sponsors that the students had. They range from large institutions such as religion to immediate family members. She found that, “Some relatives emerge as both sponsors and inhibitors…” (p. 1600).

Narratives involving Appalachian people, according to the author, are split into two camps, one displaying and telling of the redneck/hillbilly/white trash culture and the sexual deviance and ignorance they contain. The other camp is a picturesque vision of Appalachian people and their devotion to family. Loyal Jones states, “Mountain people usually feel an obligation to family members and are more truly themselves when within the family circle” (p.1602). Through her research Webb-Sunderhaus found that this notion of family was a central point to sponsorship or being an inhibitor of literacy, sometimes both within the same person. Although there are many different ways to promote or inhibit literacy that Webb-Sunderhaus discusses in her findings (religion and spiritual development, socioeconomic status (particularly in material goods such as food and shelter) and advice on how to approach instructors and areas of study) the one I would like to focus on is gender.

There were two important areas of gender that were discussed, fathers encouraging their kids to go to school and women being held back because of strict gender roles. It is interesting to note that when we talk about men encouraging their kids to go on to college, this is seen as a positive  (and rare) happening, whereas when we are talking about women (specifically women with children) going to school it is seen as negative. Both of these scenarios tend to happen because of the strict gender roles in Appalachian society that are typically spurred by religious institutions (p. 1614). In the case of Michelle’s literacy story with her father showed her by doing, meaning he kept his college textbooks, subscribed to science periodicals and openly discussed career and the schooling needed in order to have a career in health and science. Nurturing of children is often a domain left to mothers and is typically bound to only mothers and therefore fathers are often overlooked in studies of literacy and children (p. 1608).  However, Brandt  writes, “[t]he historically privileged position that men have occupied in education and employment made fathers in many households the conduits of specialized skills and materials that could be of interest and use to other family members” (p. 1608). This means that many fathers hold power in discussing literacy and promoting it within their family. They are able to encourage and show the benefits of education just be being who they are.

Pamela and Julie’s literacy stories both have to do with how they struggle/d to stay in school while dealing with difficult family issues and decisions (pregnancy and divorce). In fact, both ended up leaving school for a period of time and we do not find out if they end up re-enrolling. One thing that I found fascinating was that both of these women dealt with a gender-role reversal of being the breadwinner of their families. With the flux of this specific strict societal gender role we see it as detrimental to their being able to stay in school as both went through divorces and then had to (were pressured to by family and partners) to return home to work and take care of their kids. This is not something that is specifically dedicated to literacy studies. We often find successful women politicians who are asked “who is taking care of the kids?” which is something most (if any) male politicians are asked. Although it is difficult for many to perceive and do, it would be helpful for Appalachian communities (specifically  for women) to break down the walls of strict gender roles. Not only would it create a better environment for women to go and stay in school, but it will relieve the pressure of men being the sole-breadwinners. It would also help fathers feel more comfortable taking a nurturing role in their children’s education and would not inhibit women from desiring to be successful in arenas outside of mothering. I think this is a win-win situation. What do you think?