[Previous entry: "Arafat"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Ol' Dirty Bastard"]

11/13/2004 Archived Entry: "Literacy"

Literacy
I'm thinking about literacy these days.
Maybe because I was hired within a "digital literacy" initiative.
Maybe because I have been reading posts on WPA-L about technology and outcomes.
Maybe because of a recent NCTE bulletin which arrived in the mail yesterday. Big heading: "Taking a Look at Literacy Coaching."
But most of all, maybe because I don't think there is such a thing as literacy.
By that I mean: the conditions and terms which gave rise to a concept we now identify as literacy no longer exist. The means by which we produce and understand knowledge are different today than they were in the 19th century. Using the language of 19th century literacy initiatives to make sense of technology and the overall technological apparatus in existence today no longer works.
I see.....
The idea I am working with is based on the notion of conservatism. By that I don't mean Republican politics/right wing campus stances/etc. I mean preservation. The desire to preserve a position regarding knowledge acquisition. When composition begins to think through the influence of technology, for instance, it does so through a conservative lens (technology outcomes interpreted as basically the same as non-technology outcomes: students will learn how to critically analyze information that….students will understand purpose and audience…blah blah blah). This conservatism is centered around the concept of literacy.
Multimodal. Multiliteracies. Visual Literacies. etc. They are all still concepts of literacy.
What we experience today does not necessarily erase much of what we have traditionally attributed to literacy and literacy studies (thus, it doesn't set up a binary division) but it also doesn't necessarily include all of what we have previously understood as literacy. Key figures in understanding what is going on include McLuhan (of course), Ulmer (of course) and big parts of the 1950s/60s Toronto School of Media and Communication. I find poststructuralist thinkers relevant as well, particularly Barthes, for the ways that their writings often move around the traditional categories associated with literacy acquisition. The punctum is not a literate convention of meaning making – it resists the referentiality literacy contends as central to such processes. If I was more of a D&G person (and maybe I will have to return to them again more seriously since the Convergences crowd influences me greatly as well), I could think about how key D&G concepts like nomadology/affect are anything but literate as well.
The challenge is to situate the conservative influence of literacy studies and work out – if not to break out of it – how to respond to it, counter it, teach beyond it….(?)
Yup. I smell project here…..

Posted by Matthew Abraham @ 11/20/2004 11:40 PM EST

Well, Matthew
I don't know what that post you left is supposed to mean. I'm not a fan of Imus and I'm not sure what it has to do with what I wrote earlier on the Oz post.
But I *do* see the one-sidedness of your posts on Pre-Text. If you want to post someone calling someone a "filthy animal" you don't need Imus for that. You can listen to a number of Imans preaching that Jews are pigs and sons of monkeys.
If you want to seriously engage with discussion which will include a full look at Arab-Moslem thought - its racism and discriminatory practices - and which doesnot put Israel as the sole reason for Middle East conflict, feel free to give me a buzz.
There's no controversy in being one-sided btw.

Posted by jeff @ 11/20/2004 01:21 PM EST

Dear Jeff:
In light of the story below, shouldn't educated folks like you and me be collaborating together and proposing good-faith solutions rather than engaging in mindless bickering about the Israel-Palestine issue? I was disheartened that you decided to take your leave from the Pretext discussion when your voice would have been vital to complicating what is far from a "simple" conflict? With this being said, let's collaborate on some work together within R/C that would develop more nuanced ways of thinking about the conflict. It does little good for us to engage in the silly partisan bickering that plagues 99.9% of all discussion on this issue. Look forward to hearing from you. There shouldn't be, and I hope there aren't, any hard feelings about the Pretext discussion. Open "discussion," which can't be open until it's controversial--often hurtful, and perhaps one-sided, will only take place if you're willing to work with me.

Best, Matthew

p.s. I tried to post this under your comment about Oz but couldn't do it for some reason.

Palestinians Called 'Stinking Animals' on MSNBC's 'Imus'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Muslims urged to demand apology for hate-filled remarks

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/18/04) – A prominent national Islamic civil rights
and advocacy group today called for an apology from the MSNBC cable
television network over comments on its "Imus in the Morning" program that
referred to Palestinians as "stinking animals" and suggested that they all be
killed.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also
urged that the program's host, Don Imus, be reprimanded for failing to
challenge his colleagues’ inflammatory remarks. CAIR, which says it
received numerous complaints about the comments, quoted a transcript of
Imus’ November 12th program in which he and his on-air colleagues engaged
in the following discussion about live coverage of Palestinian President
Yasser Arafat's funeral:

DON IMUS: They're (the Palestinians) eating dirt and that fat pig wife of
his is living in Paris.
COLLEAGUE: They’re all brainwashed, though. That’s what it is. And they're
stupid, to begin with, but they’re brainwashed now. Stinking animals. They
ought to drop the bomb right there, kill ‘em all right now…
IMUS: Well, the problem is we have (reporter) Andrea (Mitchell) there; we
don't want anything to happen to her.
COLLEAGUE: Oh, she's got to get out. Andrea, get out and then drop the bomb
and kill everybody…
COLLEAGUE: Look at this. Animals. Animals!

In a letter to MSNBC President Neal Shapiro, CAIR stated: "We are firm
defenders of the First Amendment, but these hate-filled and racist remarks
can only serve to legitimize anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry in our
society and could lead to further discrimination against members of the
Islamic and Arab-American communities." (CAIR also filed a complaint with
the FCC because "Imus in the Morning" is a nationally-syndicated radio
program.)

This is not the first time Imus has been involved in a controversy over
anti-Arab and Islamophobic remarks. As early as 1985, he was forced to
apologize for referring to Arabs as "goat-humping weasels." (Sunday Mail,
4/21/85) He has also been criticized for using the derogatory term
"raghead." (Accuracy in Media) In a reference to the crash of an Iranian
airliner earlier this year that killed 43 passengers, Imus said, "When I
hear stories like that, I think who cares.” He then stated: "Too bad it
wasn't full of Saudi Arabians." (National Iranian American Council)

Earlier this year, CAIR announced a campaign designed to counter hate
speech on talk radio. The campaign, called "Hate Hurts America," is based
on the premise that the increasing attacks on Islam by talk show hosts harm
the United States by creating a downward spiral of interfaith mistrust and
hostility. As part of that campaign, Muslims were given step-by-step
instructions on how to monitor local and syndicated radio programs, report
anti-Muslim hate, file FCC complaints, and contact advertisers to register
their concerns.

SEE: http://www.cair-net.org/hatehurtsamerica/

Reports of anti-Muslim hate may be filed at:
http://www.cair-net.org/hatehurtsamerica/hatewatch.asp

To learn "How to Challenge Anti-Muslim Hate on the Radio," go to: http://www.cair-net.org/hatehurtsamerica/hatehurtsamerica.asp?page=challengeradio

ACTION REQUESTED: (As always, be POLITE and RESPECTFUL.)
Contact NBC and MSNBC to demand an apology and a reprimand for all those
involved in the program.

CONTACT:

Mr. Neal Shapiro
President
NBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-0002

FAX: 212-664-2264

Mr. Rick Kaplan
President
MSNBC
1 MSNBC Plaza
Secaucus, NJ 07094-2419

E-MAIL: rick.kaplan@msnbc.com, neal.shapiro@nbc.com
COPY TO: imus@msnbc.com, fccinfo@fcc.gov, cair@cair-net.org

Posted by Matthew Abraham @ 11/20/2004 12:16 PM EST

Well, I might have come back a little too late, but, Jenny, your question is very important. When I said that people usually think talking about electracy means doing away with literacy, I was disagreeing; doing so is not possible, since I don't see orality-literacy-electracy as linear progressions, with one eclipsing the next. So, talking about electracy doesn’t suggest a full on dumping of literacy. But I think it’s extremely difficult to redescribe literacy (or multiple literacies) without implicating print, epistemology, or hermeneutics. There are so many historical/political connotations as well, like the use of so-called literacy tests and the shame associated with being “illiterate.” Ulmer tries to get out of this by tying together electracy and heuretics, as you know.

But I can also see how electracy might be called affective literacy, and I have even attempted to describe it to students in a similar way. I sometimes teach a course called theories of writing and literacy, so we read all the literacy “stuff” and then move toward electracy, or as my Chair likes to say, “visual literacy.” One semester I used the book Multiliteracies and another I used Internet Invention. The differences in the students’ responses were huge, and it made me rethink how I was using electracy, electronic literacy, visual literacy, digital literacy, etc. With electracy, it becomes evident that we are not only talking about all of the above literacies but also different ways of structuring thought.

Posted by sarah @ 11/19/2004 01:24 AM EST

Okay. I apologize if I misunderstood you.

Posted by jenny @ 11/17/2004 11:57 AM EST

Well, since you started this engagemnt, I don't know why you're getting testy. I don't recall anybody saying "grad student" but you.
I disagree with how you are positioning literacy. And I do think you are not considering the meanings that term carries. If you don't want to agree with me, fine. But please don't insult me on my website.

Posted by jeff @ 11/17/2004 11:27 AM EST

BTW, Dr. Rice, if you'd like, I could send you a list of things to read in order to talk more knowledgeably about affect.

It might help you in order to contextualize the question of affect and electracy.

Just let me know if you'd like that reading list.

Posted by jenny @ 11/17/2004 11:26 AM EST

I have read Goody and the other people you have in mind, thank you very much. And I don't think that it's too much to ask that we, yes, aknowledge what these folks have contributed, but that we ALSO think about the possibility of rehabilitation. One doesn't exclude the possibility of the other.

But thanks for tutoring me. I am only a grad student, after all.

Posted by jenny @ 11/17/2004 11:21 AM EST

Um...it's not patronizing to ask you to contextualize the question of literacy by thinking about the ideas put forth by a number of folks. Here, I would recommend Jack Goody, but there are other important writers as well who tie the concept of litearcy to the listing, naming, categorizing, defining, etc.

Posted by jeff @ 11/17/2004 11:12 AM EST

"I think you're missing the point. I recommend you read through the stuff on literacy, its origins, its roles in creating specific means towards structuring information as well as its ability to shape the apparatus we work/study/teach within. Literacy is not just reading/writing."

Uh, yeah. Thanks for the lesson, Dr. I have read through "the stuff" on literacy. And I made many of these same arguments a few years ago in a seminar called "understanding modern literacy" w/ Linda Ferrieria-Buckley. So, um, thanks for the patron-ization, Patron.

Posted by jhe @ 11/17/2004 11:08 AM EST

I think you're missing the point. I recommend you read through the stuff on literacy, its origins, its roles in creating specific means towards structuring information as well as its ability to shape the apparatus we work/study/teach within. Literacy is not just reading/writing. It is tied up in very specific conventions which I don't think you're seeing. Affect is not about literacy. Just isn't. Once you start moving out of the question of representation and signification, you are not talking about literacy anymore. Call it affective literacy if you wish, but it's not literacy and I can easily see how that project will quickly get absorbed as literacy and not what you are intending. We've already see that with the issue of the visual.

Posted by jeff @ 11/17/2004 10:58 AM EST

The minute you say "affective literacies" you are connecting the notion of affect to print.

That connection can be there, sure. But that's why the term itself needs careful re/description. Recupteration.

That familiarity, as I think you know, causes others to read the idea through the lens of emotions (i.e the category most closely associated with affect; the category a function of literacy).

Hmm. I don't follow how one follows the other. How does the presumption of print literacy lead to a connection of affect with emotion?

In fact, what you mean by affective literacy, or affect in general, is not a function of what is meant by literacy. They are very different concepts.

Well, I think I said below that they are different concepts. But what I said was that the notion of "reading" (or "literacy") can be rehabilitated through non-epistemic means. Lynn Worsham makes a similar call for non-epistemic literacies.

I mean, if we can recuperate the concept of "writing" from print-based logic, why can't the same be done for "literacy"? So what if it originated in epistemic logics? I just don't get it. It originated in print. . . so?

Posted by jhe @ 11/17/2004 10:52 AM EST

I disagree
The minute you say "affective literacies" you are connecting the notion of affect to print. That familiarity, as I think you know, causes others to read the idea through the lens of emotions (i.e the category most closely associated with affect; the category a function of literacy).
In fact, what you mean by affective literacy, or affect in general, is not a function of what is meant by literacy. They are very different concepts.

Posted by jeff @ 11/17/2004 10:44 AM EST

The very familiarity of "literacy" as concept keeps all its historical and cultural meanings alive, thus shutting down the ability to think within the terms of new media logic - much of which doesn't resemble the conventions which gave birth to literacy in the first place. Familiarity can be the biggest obstacle to any new work or understanding.

Well, this is understandable. But, in that case, I reluctance still stands. I almost always choose recuperation over dumping. In this case, too. I don't think it's the case that "literacy" as a concept must always be tied to the "print-based logic" that you describe. I'd rather call for affective literacies, for example, that aren't bound to epistemology. This is really what electracy is: affective literacy.

Posted by j to the e to the n n y @ 11/17/2004 10:36 AM EST

Jenny
The problem is that the term "literacy" is itself a convention of print. Once it is employed to describe ways to make meaning not dependent on print, we find that the print conventions still stand in these new definitions (visual literacy, multimodal literacy, etc.).
Obviously, folks feel very comfortable using the term; we see the popularity of its cache. But that very comfortability prevents us from understanding the (for want of a better term) "newness" media has been creating in terms of knowledge acquisition, selfhood, etc. The very familiarity of "literacy" as concept keeps all its historical and cultural meanings alive, thus shutting down the ability to think within the terms of new media logic - much of which doesn't resemble the conventions which gave birth to literacy in the first place. Familiarity can be the biggest obstacle to any new work or understanding. Check out what is meant by visual literacy/multimodal etc. Very little is being described that is different than what we already recognize as literacy. New term/same idea.

Posted by jeff @ 11/17/2004 10:24 AM EST

Okay, here's what I don't quite understand. . .

Can we talk about "literacy" (just bracket the bad feelings you might have against that term for a sec) without necessarily talking about "print-based literacy?" And this would include "print-based literacy" that masks itself under the name of things like "visual literacy" or "digital literacy." (i.e., when "print-based literacy" tried to pass itself off as something different.)

But I can't understand why we can't talk about new kinds of literacy--literacies that are not based in epistemology or hermeneutics or alphabetic literacies.

IOW, why the absolute shut down of "literacy"? Can't we talk about new ways of reading? If we really wanted to use the notion of "felt," we could talk about literacies that read the world through feeling/affect. Sensual literacy.

So, Jeff and Sarah, could someone set me straight on this one? I'm just not quite ready to jump on the dump-the-literacy-vocab train just yet.

Posted by j e n n y @ 11/17/2004 08:36 AM EST

Jeff, cool, this is what I was asking at Convergences. I am interested in how we can talk about electracy without using terms created by and for literacy. I don't see a way out, of teaching and talking beyond literacy, at least now. D and G's intensities and Ulmer's use of D and G's felt begin to work, but the problem with most people comes from the assumption that to talk about electracy is to do away with literacy, which connects to your description of pedagogical conservatism, maybe.

Posted by Sarah @ 11/16/2004 08:49 PM EST

I am the real Deleuze, writing from Heaven. Stop taking my name in vain, you phoney. I'm up here in the heavens, teaching at that great college in the sky "Flows-n-Flights University" (aka F. U.).

Now you can carry on.

Posted by The real Deleuze @ 11/14/2004 01:48 PM EST

Sorry. That was not the real Deleuze. That was G. Retwieler, well known faker and Steven Johnson admirer.

I am the real Deleuze. Carry on.

Posted by G. Deleuze @ 11/14/2004 12:18 PM EST

Felix told me that this blog deletes readers' comments, but I didn't believe him. Now I see for myself. Thanks for NOTHING. You want nomadology? I got your nomadology right here.

--G. Deleuze

Posted by G.D. @ 11/14/2004 11:28 AM EST