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?

Jarratt

Evoking Lunsford and Ede, Jarratt claims that the goal of rhetoric is to create an expanding, dynamic sense of ethos between author and audience (1390). At first, I didn’t understand this, but considering Kinneavy who emphasizes writing’s primary role as the articulation of the individual, Jarratt, Ede, and Lunsford begin to make more sense. What Jarratt is analyzing are the metaphoric and metonymic ways in which Spivak, Minh-ha, and Menchú Tum disrupt “first world” constructions of postcolonial female identities; each person whose work Jarratt analyzes does so by deconstruction.

Remembering structuralism from the Critical Theory class I took two years ago, structuralism looks at the relationship between constituents of a whole—how the individual elements of a text relate to the construction of the whole. Thus the accompanying assumption of structuralism is that the relationship between the constituents and the whole, as well as a sense of the whole, hinges on some sort of stable center. In other words, in order to have a notion of the whole, we have to have some central meaning associated to it, like a theme in literature. Post-structuralism/deconstruction on the other hand, de-stabilizes a sense of the whole, undoing the notion of centrality (Derrida called this “de-centering”). In deconstruction, therefore, the notion of one whole is abandoned. This paved the way for what amounts to cognitive dissonance in textual interpretation: feminist, queer, postcolonial, postmodern, historicist, and race lenses can all be applied to a text with equal validity.  

Jarratt’s subjects, each in her own way, disrupts the identity thrown over them by people who have materially different realities—people who lack the authority to do so, in other words. Metaphor and metonymy are the specific things Jarratt examines. Spivak, for example, creates reactive personae that contradict white, first world metaphors of Indian women(1386); Minh-ha replaces the context by which first world authors construct metonymy by redefining the relationship between the self and the collective (1389-90); and Menchú Tum—she’s another matter entirely.

Rather than leading the reader to assume that deconstruction and distancing one’s identity or one’s group’s identity from the audience is the modus operandi of feminists reacting to first world constructions of their identity, Menchú Tum actually seeks to close the gap between audience and author (1394). Jarratt wants to establish frameworks for subjectivity that do not so easily divorce themselves from context (1395). It is this context that gives rise to the individual dynamic, one that is too often placed out of that context or replaced altogether. Here, Jarratt moves to a pithy statement about advocacy: “And by enabling our students to write multiple versions of themselves informed by a knowledge of rhetoric in its political and figurative functions, we may give them access to their own experiences of conjunction and disjunction” (1396). Further, she responds implicitly to Bartholomae, who assumes that all students are trying to gain entrance into academic discourse communities: postcolonial feminist restructurings “might help us as we read student writing about the self to discover how students resist or refigure ethos and audience to characterize their own relations to the academy” (1391). If the way we characterize our identities through writing (and other rhetorical activities) is my establishing ourselves as similar and different to established identities, and by substituting the unknown with the known, then Jarratt’s considerations of that ever-dynamic process influence how we read the writing of students with disabilities as well as disability involves as much the ablist unauthorized metaphoric and metonymic construction of identity as first world [white male] constructions of postcolonial woman identity.

Romano, Field, and De Huergo

In the article “Web Literacies of the Already Accessed and Technically Inclined,” Romano, Field and De Huergo discuss student answers to whether or not they “sometimes choose the Spanish-language option” when searching on the web (1486).  Many of the students responded in a way that shows how they view English and Spanish as existing in a hierarchical relationship (with Spanish marginalized). A few of the students, however, responded in a way that reveals their awareness of kairos:  for these few students, there is an “understanding of language as situation specific rather than hierarchical. For them, context dictates usage” (1487).  Unfortunately, Romano, Field, and De Huergo do not know why some students “came to kairos when others did not” (1487). 

One way to help students come to kairos would be to explicitly teach it.  It appears that the rhetorical analysis unit may be a good place to introduce this concept (with all the talk of “social context”).  Understanding context seems to be a great way for students to understand how a variety of discourses can be useful.  Delpit has suggested that varieties of English other than the accepted standard be acknowledged in the classroom.  Doing this will, hopefully, help groups of students who have historically been marginalized (Delpit speaks of African Americans, but Romano, Field, and De Huergo’s discussion of the Monterrey, bilingual children applies—especially when considering how the children have marginalized their first language internally). 

Although context dictates accepted usage, Brandt and Clinton’s reminder that texts can transcend context and connect the local to the global be must acknowledged as well.  According to Brandt and Clinton, the autonomous model of texts was rightfully rejected, but texts still have autonomous traits. Brand and Clinton’s ideas do not actually contradict Delpit’s or Romano, Field, and De Huergo’s.  If students are taught about texts as being attached to certain contexts, part of the context for some texts is that they will transcend local context and become part of a global context. The idea that one language is simply superior to another is not true, and teaching students about context will, hopefully, teach students why a certain language or dialect will be more desirable in some contexts than others.  If you want your text to have a global effect, then it is wise to choose a global language.  If you want a text to affect a very specific group of people on a more local level, then in that context, non-standard English or another language altogether may be more desirable. 

I think a fun assignment might get students to start playing with context specifically.  If students had to redo an assignment based on a changing context (moving from the global to the local, perhaps?), what would they change as a result?  Why would these certain changes be more effective?  Such an assignment would help students understand kairos.  

Webb-Sunderhaus (1600-1616)

This essay talks about the effect that family members have on the literacy of college students taking English Composition classes in Appalachia.  The author researched “the interplay of literacy and identity among Appalachians enrolled in college composition courses” (Webb-Sunderhaus 1601).  Through her research, the author found that the colleges that the students attended certainly played a role in the development of students’ beliefs about literacy and their identity, however, she also discovered that colleges are not the only sponsors of literacy for the students.  Colleges are not necessarily the largest or most influential sponsors either.  The group of sponsors that the author specifically focused on was students’ family members.  One thing that the author found is that Appalachian college students’ families were not always supportive sponsors of their literacy.  Instead, some families also inhibited the student’s developing literacy.  In some cases, one single family member both supported and inhibited the student’s literacy.

Webb-Sunderhaus conducted research by observing and recording college composition classes at two different colleges, taking a demographic survey, and conducting interviews.  The study the author conducted found that college students in these composition classes had multiple sources of literacy sponsorship.  The first influence was spiritual.  Many of the study participants talked about the role of church and religion in their interviews.  Students get most of their values and meanings from the Bible.  Other literacy sponsors include pastors or family members, such as siblings.  The second influence was immediate family members.  Examples of this sponsorship include “recommendations of specific readings, writing notes, making Biblical analogies, and e-mailing (Webb-Sunderhaus 1605).  Extended family members were the third influence.  People such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins helped to develop the college students’ literacy.  One student in the study talked about how her grandparents gave her lunch and a quiet place to study at their house during the day.  Another student discussed how her aunt gave her strategies for talking to her professors and seeking out other literacy sponsors.  The fourth influence was parents.  Sometimes parents would help their children connect with other literacy sponsors.  Other times, the parents would discuss the child’s homework with them or encourage them to stay in school.

In addition to the sponsors of literacy, Webb-Sunderhaus also found in her study that there are inhibitors of literacy.  One inhibitor is sharing conflicting meanings about literacy.  Another inhibitor is social forces, like poor health care and stereotypical gender roles.

Miller/Shepherd and "Blogging as Social Action"

"Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog" by Carolyn R. Miller and Dawn Shepherd attempts to situate blogs into a specific genre. It provides a background about the needs of individuals to express themselves more publicly and receive more private information about others.  Additionally, it describes the evolution and history of weblogs in the 1990s.

While reading the article, I reflected on some of my previous experiences with blogs.

I had my first blog during high school. It was hosted on a site called Xanga and it was overly personal. I just looked it up and I can't believe that I wrote some of the stuff that I wrote. Throughout all of the posts that I read, I don't think I ever used a capital letter. I also had this habit of including random curse words and typing "uhmmm" a lot. Overall, it seems to relate closely with the diary genre. However, many of my friends were active on the site and knew it was my blog, so it had an intended audience.

Throughout my undergrad, I had to create a few blogs for classes. The one that I became most involved with was a blog that I wrote during Electronic Community with Dr. Brooks last year. I posted quite regularly (3-5 times a week) and tried to mesh my personal perspective with somewhat academic topics. Although I intended to keep up the blog after the class ended, that only lasted for a little while.

Now, as a teacher, I am requiring my students to keep a blog. They each have their own blog that is listed as a link on the class blog. I provide them with prompts each week and they are supposed to write a post that is at least 200 words. During many of the initial posts, I observed very informal language that was the equivalent of text-speak. Also, they seemed to forget that I was going to read it. Many of the posts were blatantly honest and critical. I assume that this type of reaction would not have been the same if I had asked them to write a reflection in class.

At the end of the article, Miller and Shepherd concluded, "The blog-as-genre is a contemporary contribution to the art of the self" (1469). In many cases, I think this designation fits. In each of my different experiences, blogs cause individuals to open up and expose more about themselves.

Poor Flowers and Hayes: Another Critique by Atkinson

Last week we talked a lot about Flower and Hayes’ process theory model, particularly about its shortcomings.  Dwight Atkinson presents another critique of their model that we hadn’t discussed: Flower and Hayes were looking at the cognitive processes at work in mainstream Western citizens, not taking into account how different cultures may approach writing.  This is related to Delpit’s article we read earlier (which I also blogged about): academic writing tends to limit itself to the dominant discourse and excludes many other voices.  However, instead of looking at word choice, Atkinson is discussing the very methods of writing that L2 learners use.

It just so happens that I presented on a similar topic last Friday at the Methods of Social Research conference.  My presentation was on contrastive rhetoric, which is a field within English studies that examines how writing styles differ among different cultures.  One of the most common and basic illustrations of these differences are shown in the diagrams by Robert Kaplan (shown above).  It’s easy to imagine why Flower and Hayes’ step-by-step approach would appeal to English writers, who like to have writing that also entails a linear logic.  However, this is not the way that all writers structure their papers, and therefore it’s likely that they are not comfortable approaching writing in the same way.  For example, look at the diagram for Romance writers.  At my presentation, when I confessed that I didn’t understand the Romance diagram, Massimo was kind enough to explain it to me.  He said that people in Italy put a strong emphasis on personal genius.  Thus, when writing, one doesn’t always go straight from point A to point B.  Italian writers are given more room to go off on tangents, giving the readers insight into how the inner genius works.  I imagine that a process approach would be very limiting to these writers, but something closer to expressivism might appeal to them.

So where does this leave us as composition instructors?  Although we are not teaching ESL composition, I’m sure all of us have had students in our classrooms who are from different cultures.  Should we just throw out our brainstorming, drafting, and revising strategies?  I was asked a similar question during my conference presentation: should we just ignore non-standard writing patterns?  My rather flimsy answer is the same: open up the lines of communication.  Make your expectations clear to your students, and ask them to describe their expectations and experiences with writing.  It can be a good learning experience for both of you.

Brand Part Deux

“Every act of knowing there enters a passionate contribution of the person knowing what is being known.” -- Michael Polanyi

We did not get a chance to talk about Brand on Wednesday and she creates a decisive argument regarding affect or emotion. To be clear, she does not think that the model presented by Flower and Hayes or other cognitive writing theorists are wrong, “just incomplete” (p. 711). In the larger picture, what Brand is taking on is this notion that expressive discourse and emotions are not valuable, are not a tool that should be used, and something that is certainly NOT scientific. Motivation may be talked about as something to consider in writing education, but often it is pushed out by cognitive concepts as they “…patterns itself after the harder sciences” (p. 708). Affect is simply not taken seriously in writing or research about writing. If affect is used to justify or talk about writing, especially in cognitive theory, it is only to be “…pulled out when other explanations fail” (p. 708). Therefore continuing emotions less-than value. In David Winter’s research, “emotional neutrality is considered morally the most advanced” (p. 708). Brand goes on to critique that being “aloof from one’s emotions” is the “hallmark of the liberally educated” according to Winter (p.708). Therefore something that writers should strive to do.

Brand declares, “But aloofness really is impossible” (p. 708).  She then goes on and creates a list of different items that we are “looking at” and ultimately relate to one another on page 708. Although even she states that her argument may be oversimplified, what she is saying is that all paths lead back to emotion. As humans, everything is grounded in emotion.  Brand says “we need reminding that the very idea of being both human and impartial is a contradiction in terms” (p. 709). She goes on to discuss that logic is not the normal mode of human thought and that we must create language so that we can study and deal with emotion in writing. She does not discredit cognition in writing. Although she does question this computer-centered idea that this is how we think. Cognition is important in the sense-making process, however, “…it is in emotion that this sense finds value” (p. 711).

This article made a lot of sense to me. When I think of powerful and meaningful writers that have inspired the world (Maya Angelou, Gloria Steinem, bell hooks, Jennifer Baumgardner, ANGELA DAVIS…pick your own author), how can emotion not play a part in what they are writing, what inspires them to write, and the political issues that have created the environment of their writing? As far as feminism goes, I do not think it is possible to separate feminist writing/critique/analysis from emotion. The work done to create equality is fueled by emotion. Whether it be writing to further the cause or wearing black because your legislature sucks. To build on this Brand talks about making sense of words. She briefly talks about Vygotsky and how he talks about the sum of all psychological events associated with a particular word is what makes sense. Meaning if I throw out a word like assault, this word may have a similar cognitive meaning for people (similar denotative meaning for people), but the events in your own life will also come into play. Life circumstances will create a different or more or less vivid meaning and picture in your mind or where your mind goes when you hear the word (signifier/signified). And this is where emotion comes into play. This is where we have to combine cognitive reasoning and emotion.

I have never taught composition, however, when I assign projects and papers in class I always say, find something that is meaningful to you. Your best work will be something that you are invested in or interested in, something that you care about. So far, this has been true. The work that I have seen students create on their own and choose has been far better than what I choose for them. Does this have something to do with emotions? I don’t know, but I’d like to think so.