Critical Literacy and New Technologies
Colin Lankshear and
Michele Knobel
paper presented at
the American Education Research Association
San Diego,
1998
Introduction
In the recent past it has been common
for educators concerned with promoting critical literacy as an
educational goal to think in terms of more or less "discrete"
conceptions, practices, or types of literacy - of which critical
literacy is one. This approach has, indeed, been part of a scene
characterised by influential competing traditions of literacy theory
and practice during the past 15 years or so: notably, discourses of
functional, cultural and critical literacy (Lankshear 1991).
One quite direct outcome of this kind
of thinking for curriculum has been a growing tendency in several
Australian state systems toward amalgamating multiple components
corresponding to these discourses into literacy education programs
and syllabi. Increasingly, we find within subject English, or
Language Education, attention being given to core or functional
literacy conceived as print mastery (often involving competing or
complementary pedagogical approaches such as phonics, drill and
skill, whole language methodologies, process writing and the like),
alongside literature (conceived as familiarity with a literary canon
- although people like E.D. Hirsch have worked with much wider
conceptions), and critical literacy (variously conceived as
applications of critical thinking to texts, versions of critical
social literacy, applications of genre theory, and so on).
Our own local state English syllabus -
the Queensland Years 1 to 10 English syllabus - evinces an attempt to
organise such qualitatively distinct "literacies" under a burgeoning
conceptual and theoretical umbrella. It employs five organising
principles in an attempt to accommodate and legitimate diverse
literacy goals and visions within a single syllabus statement (DEQ
1994). The result is a syllabus which many regard as unwieldy, if not
incoherent, bursting at the seams, and often palpably unsuccessful in
its own terms at the level of classroom implementation.
Recently, a research project in which
we have been involved - which investigates the interfaces between
technology, literacy and learning - has worked with a different
approach to understanding literacy in general and critical literacy
in particular. This is an approach which aims to transcend the
earlier kind of compartmentalised view. It develops a sociocultural
view of literacy as necessarily involving three dimensions:
"operational", "cultural", and "critical" (Green 1997a, 1997b;
Lankshear, Bigum et al. 1997, ch. 2).
From a sociocultural perspective,
literacy must be seen in "3D", as having three interlocking
dimensions - the operational, the cultural, and the critical - which
bring together language, meaning and context (Green 1988: 160-163;
Green 1997a, 1997b). An integrated view of literacy in practice and
in pedagogy addresses all three dimensions simultaneously; none has
any necessary priority over the others.
The operational dimension refers to
the "means" of literacy, in the sense that it is in and through the
medium of language that the literacy event happens. It involves
competency with regard to the language system. To refer to the
operational dimension of literacy is to point to the manner in which
individuals use language in literacy tasks, in order to operate
effectively in specific contexts. The emphasis is on the written
language system and how adequately it is handled. From this
perspective, it is a question of individuals being able to read and
write in a range of contexts, in an appropriate and adequate manner
(bid; Lankshear, Bigum et al. 1997).
The cultural dimension involves what
may be called the meaning aspect of literacy. It involves competency
with regard to the meaning system (Lemke 1984). This is to recognise
that literacy acts and events are not only context specific but also
entail a specific content. It is never simply a case of being
literate in and of itself but of being literate with regard to
something, some aspect of knowledge or experience. The cultural
aspect of literacy is a matter of understanding texts in relation to
contexts - to appreciate their meaning; the meaning they need to make
in order to be appropriate; and what it is about given contexts of
practice that makes for appropriateness or inappropriateness of
particular ways of reading and writing. Take, for example, the case
of a worker producing a spreadsheet within a workplace setting or
routine. This is not a simple matter of "going into some software
program" and "filling in the data". Spreadsheets must be compiled -
which means knowing their purpose and constructing their axes and
categories accordingly. To know the purpose of a particular
spreadsheet requires understanding relevant elements of the culture
of the immediate work context; to know why one is doing what one is
doing now, how to do it, and why what one is doing is appropriate
(Green 1988: 160-163; Green 1997a, 1997b).
The critical dimension of literacy has
to do with the socially constructed nature of all human practices and
meaning systems. In order to be able to participate effectively and
productively in any social practice, humans must be socialised into
it. But social practices and their meaning systems are always
selective and sectional; they represent particular interpretations
and classifications (Green 1997a, 1997b; Lankshear, Bigum et al
1997). Unless individuals are also given access to the grounds for
selection and the principles of interpretation they are merely
socialised into the meaning system and unable to take an active part
in its transformation. The critical dimension of literacy is the
basis for ensuring that participants can not merely participate in a
practice and make meanings within it, but can in various ways
transform and actively produce it (bid).
From a sociocultural perspective, any
concern with reading, writing, literacy, inevitably ends up at social
practices which integrate talk, action, interaction, values, beliefs,
goals, purposes, aspirations, ideals, ways of behaving, and so on.
That is, reading and writing as meaningful practice is always
inherently bound up with some way or ways of being in the world. The
tools or technologies of literacy (from print to computers) are
always situated and employed within contexts of practice which permit
certain productions of meaning and constrain others (see Gee, Hull
and Lankshear 1996: 2-3).
A closer
look at the critical dimension
The critical dimension involves at
least three pedagogical aspects.
Developing critical perspectives on literacy per se.
Learning how to critique specific texts.
Learning how to read Discourses critically.
Three preliminary points are important
here.
First, our position builds on James
Gee's (1991, 1993, 1996) account of Discourses and their relationship
to literacies. Discourses are combinations of ways of acting,
thinking, feeling, believing, dressing, gesturing, valuing, behaving,
speaking, reading and writing, and so on. To be in a Discourse means
that others - who are familiar with the Discourses - can recognize us
as being a "this" or a "that" (e.g., a lawyer, mother, teacher,
netballer, carpenter), or a particular "version" of a this or a that
(e.g., a courtroom lawyer, a traditionalist teacher, progressivist
teacher, beginning teacher, a "middle class" mother, a jobbing
carpenter, a social netballer etc.). They can recognize us as such by
virtue of how we are speaking, reading, writing, believing, valuing,
feeling, acting, gesturing, and so on. Language is a dimension of
Discourse, but only one dimension, and Gee uses discourse (with a
small "d") to mark this relationship. While in his more recent work
Gee defines literacy in terms of mastering Discourses (Gee 1996), we
lean here toward his earlier view whereby literacy refers to mastery
of the language uses of secondary Discourses (i.e., Discourses
associated with social institutions and networks beyond one=s
immediate, or face to face, kinship group).
Second, mastery of the critical
dimension of literacy requires access to relevant forms of
operational and cultural competence. Most obviously, we cannot
produce critical readings and (re)writings of specific texts without
the necessary operational capacities for accessing those texts and
for framing and communicating our critical response. With
conventional printed texts/typographic signs this presupposes at
least requisite encoding and decoding skills. With digital texts it
will presuppose also access to a range of operational capacities with
relevant hardware and software applications and procedures. Beyond
this, it is clear also that we cannot adopt critical stances toward
literacy per se, or toward entire Discourses, without cultural
understandings of social practices and the work done within them by
language and literacy. In addition, of course, being able to read
Discourses critically requires having criteria, ideals, alternative
experiences and standpoints, values, and the like, on the basis of
which we can build on our cultural understanding of a Discourse to
critique it.
Third, in our own experience, critical
literacy activity within classrooms is most often confined to
teaching and learning aimed at critique of specific texts - typically
from some literary or aesthetic standpoint (e.g., via reader
response, literary criticism, textual deconstruction) and/or some
kind of "social" standpoint (e.g., addressing sexist or racist
language in texts). This is hardly surprising given the "schoolish"
nature of classroom learning, where "subjects" define the scope of
learning (as) practice, and where school practices are substantially
divorced from >mature= (or "insider") versions of everyday
practices to which they loosely correspond: c.f., "writing reports"
as compared to "being a reporter"; "doing math or physics" as
compared to "being a mathematician or physicist" (see Gee, Hull and
Lankshear 1996: 4, 15-16).
Discourses,
literacies and new technologies
Pedagogy concerned with critical
literacy and new technologies is starting from a long way back. Many
teachers and, indeed, many teacher educators, are simply not
conversant with operational and cultural aspects of new technologies
and their associated social practices and literacies. Predictably, we
find considerable energy being given over to classroom activity aimed
at merely getting to grips with operational aspects of new
technological literacies. Where attempts are being made to do
critical literacy work with digital texts, it often takes the form of
reducing digital texts to equivalents of typographic texts and
dealing with them in much the same ways that conventional texts are
treated critically: viz., via literacy or aesthetic readings;
detecting sexist or racist language, commenting on generic aspects of
the text; rewriting the text from different perspectives (the big bad
wolf=s point of view), etc.
The extent of the challenge facing
critical engagement with literacy in the new technologies era is
evident in a recent observation by Manual Castells (1996: 328).
Castells speaks of the current technological revolution having
created a "Super Text and a Meta-Language" that integrates "the
written, oral and audio-visual modalities of human communication"
into a single system for the first time in human history. According
to Castells, the increasing integration
of text, images, and sounds
in the same system, interacting from multiple points, in
chosen time (real or delayed) along a global network, in
conditions of open and affordable access, does fundamentally
change the character of communication. And communication
decisively shapes culture, because as Postman writes, "we do
not see Y reality Y as "it" is, but as our languages are.
And our languages are our media. Our media are our
metaphors. Our metaphors create the content of our culture."
Because culture is mediated and enacted through
communication, cultures themselves, that is our historically
produced systems of beliefs and codes, become fundamentally
transformed, and will be more so over time, by the new
technological system (Castells 1996: 328. The reference is
to Postman 1985: 15)
|
Some implications for
critical perspectives on literacy per se
What
is this new meta-language? What does it do or enable that the
previous "language" did not and could not? What does it mean so far
as classroom literacy practices are concerned?
What
kinds of (new) practices does this new "meta-language" mediate, and
how does it mediate them?
What
values are "encoded" in this >meta-language= and the practices
associated with it? What sorts of commitments and believes does it
and its associated practices enlist on our part?
What
forms of identity and subjectivity does it encourage, enhance,
enable? And with what actual and potential consequences?
What
can we say about the way it mediates human relationships and social
relations?
What
operational and cultural forms of knowledge, understanding,
proficiency are called out by the new "meta-language" and the
conditions of digital text production, distribution and
exchange?
Some
implications for critical reading of Discourses
Some of the most important issues
associated with new technologies and their associated practices and
literacies are largely "hidden". But we do well to seek them out as
best we can. The point here is that from a sociocultural perspective,
texts and text production within larger Discursive practices always
mean in a much larger sense than linguistic, aesthetic, literary, and
"communicational" ways alone. They also mean existentially, in ways
that can impact deeply on human interests and well-being. A couple of
examples must suffice, but they are enough to give us a clear sense
of some of what is at stake in learning how to make critical readings
of Discourses.
The first example relates to claims
made about the importance of new technologies and technological
literacies in enhancing productivity and efficiency - getting more
done better quickly. Some important issues about the relationship
between pursuit of productivity gains and what is sometimes referred
to as "articulation work" arise here - especially during the early
stages of a new technology being introduced. Chris Bigum (Bigum and
Lankshear 1997) refers to the work of Ursula Franklin (1990) in this
context. Franklin notes the highly gendered nature of a good deal of
articulation work: that is, the work of engineering new technologies
into sites of social practice and making it work. Articulation work
is often invisible, but it is what holds systems together and enables
them to function. The people who are actually engineering new
technologies into work spaces are the one's who are going to be
engineered out of jobs as their reward for actually making it work.
There are plenty of examples of the social adoption of technologies
where women have played crucial roles in engineering them into the
social fabric. Telephones are a classic example. Franklins book, The
Real World of Technology, provides a telling account of the roles
women played in terms of building the telephone to the point where it
is now a routine part of our lives. The reward for those people (read
"women") who ran the party lines, and the operators themselves, was
to be increasingly displaced by automatic systems of one kind or
another. Much, if not most, of the current articulation work of
engineering new technologies into formal educational spaces is being
done by women.
A second example concerns a factory
that had been made over into high tech space. The worker were women,
primarily, working in a closed space. The windows had been closed
out. The workers were not allowed to talk or drink, although they
could have candy to eat. Their job was processing donations that came
in for charitable causes and their work was closely monitored. They
had to process three envelopes a minute. Those who were key pressing
had to complete around 185000 strokes an hour. The enterprise,
located in the US, was basically a high tech sweat shop. This example
indicates how when it comes to issues relating to the intersection of
technologies and literacies, we cannot afford simply to think purely
in instrumental terms: "I'm just going to do a job using the software
as means to an end; it's just a tool" kind of approach. The "new
frontier" can be a dangerous space. Ordinary individuals are playing
bit parts on a very big screen in a game where they/we have do not
have much control or leverage. We may think we do because we can
drive on the Internet. But to make that assumption is akin to the
analogy offered by Langdon Winner (1989) when he said that to imagine
that a PC is any match for what the large players can put into
operation is a bit like imagining your hang glider is some sort of
competition for the US Air Force. The issues attending the
introduction of new technologies have far-reaching and often
invisible implications, which present worthy subject matter for
practices of critical literacy (Bigum and Lankshear 1997).
Implications
for critique of digital texts
With respect to critical scrutiny of
digital texts, it again quickly becomes apparent that our notion of
texts has to be enlarged considerably beyond that of conventional
(typographic) texts which have long been seen as the province of
"literacy". Here again, the importance of adopting a sociocultural
view of literacy is readily apparent, especially as multi-media texts
operated within cyberspace increasingly displace conventional print
varieties in the everyday experiences and practices of people in
societies like our own.
Critical analysis of particular texts
or combinations of texts is inseparably connected to critical
understandings of literacy per se and critique of Discourses. This is
because literacy - being embedded in social practices - is
fundamental to how social worlds are is "made" and how people fare
within the worlds that are made. While all critical literacy, as we
conceive it here, proceeds from this basis, critical literacy does
not comprise some single definitive approach. Rather, it marks a
broad "coalition of educational interests committed to engaging with
the possibilities that technologies of writing and other modes of
inscription offer for social change, cultural diversity, economic
equity, and political enfranchisement" (Muspratt et al 1997: 1).
Critical literacy educators pursue
"prescriptive models" of "the literate person" and "the social" (bid:
2). They give a distinctive twist to a sociocultural view of literacy
by the way they understand "the social" as a domain of practice. They
define the social as "a practical site characterized by contestations
over resources, representation, and difference" (bid: 3). That is,
the domain of everyday practice is framed as contexts within which
material and discourse resources are disputed, and where different
groups and individuals do not have equal access to "representational
systems and mediational means", to "linguistic knowledge", to
"cultural artifacts", nor to "actual financial capital",
"institutional entry", or "status" (ibid.). Still less do varying
groups and individuals have equal access to social, cultural, and
economic means (power) to determine what (shall) count as (recognized
or accepted - that is, "hegemonic") norms or criteria whereby
hierarchies of allocation and status among these various social
"goods" (Gee 1991) are established and maintained; and, hence, to
their actual distributions within daily life.
From this standpoint, texts - forms of
inscription, whether typographic, digital or other - are instances of
"naming the world" (Freire 1972): "moments" in the intricate
practices and processes whereby "what counts" is established and
reinforced (transmitted, enculturated, learned), and where norms and
criteria shaping access and allocation are played out and resisted.
Texts are, precisely, invitations to explore these things and to
engage in cultural action to "rewrite" them differently: to reveal
them and contest them. Critical readings of texts aim to unveil the
representational and other material effects of texts, and critical
rewritings of texts are "moves" to redress these effects by encoding
alternative possibilities.
At a general level, critical scrutiny
of texts may be seen as engaging (learners) in "ideology critique" -
to invoke an old and often disparaged notion - understood in light of
Gee=s (1996) account of "ideology". Gee defines "ideologies" as
social theories which involve
generalizations (beliefs,
claims) about the way(s) in which goods ["anything that the
people in the society generally believe are beneficial to
have or harmful not to have", such as "life, space, time,
'good' schools, 'good' jobs, wealth, status, power, control,
or whatever"] are distributed in society. When I say
"involves" I mean that the theory either contains
generalizations directly about the distribution of goods or,
at least, generalizations which imply claims about the
distribution of goods. (Gee 1996: 21; the inserted quotation
is also from page 21)
|
Texts which are of interest to
critical literacy educators encode ideologies, more or less
explicitly or tacitly. For example, a text which represents
women/womanhood in a particular way is saying something or other
about what it means to get "being a woman" right (or, by implication,
wrong) and, to that extent, about how women get or fail to get
"goods" attaching to or associated with being a woman. The same
applies to texts which represent what counts as being literate,
successful, "with it", rich (or poor), qualified (or unqualified),
competent (or incompetent), and so on and on.
Reading texts critically, including
our own texts, is about bringing their theories about distributions
(ideology) into the open, addressing our participation in or
complicity with them, and working to "remove our moral complicity"
with them (Gee 1996: 21) to the extent that they are self-advantaging
and, therefore, and to the same extent, disadvantaging of
others.
More specifically, critical reading
employs diverse techniques to get at their representations and
constructions of "reality". These include such tasks as identifying
the ideal reader of the text: that is, what kind of reader would find
this text unproblematic (would be "in sync" with it)? What would they
believe, value, espouse, etc.? This is to identify the "subject
position" the text is inviting its readers to take up (Luke 1992).
Similarly, we may investigate the "possible world" constructed by the
text - i.e., what account of "reality" is provided by the text, and
how does the construct this reality via its wordings,
grammatical/syntactic devices (e.g., nominalisation), and so on.
Various techniques may be employed to locate gaps and silences,
inclusions and exclusions - who is "in" the text and who is "written
out of it"? What and whose interests are at stake in the worlds
created and reading positions invited, and so on. Any number of such
techniques and devices are detailed in the literature (see, for
example, Buckingham and Sefton-Green 1994; Comber and Kamler 1997;
Fairclough 1989; Gee 1996; Gilbert 1989; Janks 1993a and b; Luke and
Kale 1991; Mellor, B. and Patterson, A. 1991; Searle 1998; Wallace
1992).
The crucial point is, however, that
these techniques presuppose theoretical positions, experiences,
availability of criteria and values, some kind of moral point of view
and commitment, and the like for their operation to amount to
critical literacy in any serious sense of the ideal. Critical
literacy is not something that occupies a timetable slot or that can
be turned on and off to demand. It is a discursive commitment, a form
of life, a way of being in the world. Hence, practices of critical
literacy are a call to theorizing the world and
language/texts/inscription/literacy in relation to the world: to
developing an understanding of the social world as an "uneven playing
field", and becoming aware of how language and language users are
implicated in creating, maintaining or challenging this playing field
and the representations that support it. The field, of course, is not
static, but always in the process of being made and remade, albeit in
ways that reflect broad trends and patterns over long historical
periods.
Teaching and learning techniques and
processes of critical language analysis must, then, proceed in tandem
with developing appropriate forms of theoretical and conceptual
awareness. To put it crudely, if learning and using "techniques" to
locate "sexist language" in a text are not accompanied by theoretical
exploration of the operation and effects of patriarchy and of how
work at the level of language mediates material effects that are
patterned and structural, critical literacy pedagogy is stillborn -
analogous to doing noun counts and similar exercises. Similarly, if
critique of advertisements does not proceed in tandem with theorizing
consumerism, the fetishizing work of signs and images, and analysis
of who benefits and how from the commodification of human values,
critical literacy pedagogy is likewise stillborn.
Lessons from
a digital text
Allucquère Rosanne Stone
provides a fascinating perspective on these matters in The War of
Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age (1996).
Indeed, her ironically humorous-poignant account of social relations,
values, processes, and language lying (invisibly, other than to a few
immediate observers) behind the development of a computer game
encapsulates in a concrete way much of what we have said here, and
shows very clearly what the stakes are.
Stone describes a digital sweatshop
(Wellspring Systems) where today's equivalents of the 1980s
programmers "who were pulling down sixty to eighty thousand dollars a
year on royalties" are "kids [who] work on fixed salaries, not
royalties", and "who live in fear of the hundreds of technokids
waiting outside for one of the elect to stumble" (Stone 1996: 158).
The company owners, meanwhile, are multimillionaires who "grimly
enforce the pressure cooker atmosphere of competition"
(ibid.).
It gets worse. Stone recounts
one "move" in what might be called a gender-techno war. The players
are a woman from the marketing division, and Memphis Smith, a
programmer supervising the development of a new game called Battle
Commander, "which promises to be the biggest seller in [the
company's] history" (ibid.: 159).
When the pre-release version of Battle
Commander was demonstrated, it opened with a screen showing "a naked
young women covered by a thin sheet, lying on an army cot", and who
sat up looking "seductively at the player" when the cursor passed
over her. A day or so later the woman from marketing approached Smith
and asked how she might be able to influence the way women were
depicted in the game.
Smith looked her over as if she were a
putrefying fish. He inflated his chest just a bit - something of an
accomplishment, considering his already cocky attitude. Well, little
lady, he said in an exaggerated drawl, "tell you what, why don't you
just take it up with the artist, or better yet - he leaned in at her,
pushing his face close to hers, his voice dripping sarcasm - "Why
don't you just call my boss and get me fired?"
There was a pause. "I see," she said,
and walked away.
"The way women are depicted in the
game," Smith chuckled. "You can always tell the ones that never get
any." (bid: 160)
Some weeks later Wellspring Systems
was phoned by the president of another company which had just
acquired a controlling share of Wellspring stock. The caller demanded
that the opening screen/scene be changed. When informed of the
demand, Smith exploded, accusing "them damn frog women" of trying to
polarize the production team... ("Frog women" referred to women not
meeting Smith's criteria for "attractiveness" - which apparently
extended to "any woman with the temerity to remark on the quality of
his games" (ibid.: 161). Stone narrates what ensued as
follows:
[Smith] "Them damn frog women
don't like what we're doing. Stirring up trouble like that.
Where do they come off saying Battle Commander is sexist"?
He pounded his fist against the door. "There us absolutely
no sexism in this game".
. . .
Roberts [a colleague] calmed
him down. They decided on what they believed was a
compromise. The naked woman stayed. A second cot appeared in
the screen, on which lay a naked man, also covered with a
sheet. He did not sit up when cursored. (bid:
161)
|
Clearly, the stakes for critical
literacy under postmodern conditions of cultural production and
consumption are high.
Cases from
the field
We want to pick up elements of the
framework outlined above and relate them to some examples we have
encountered around Brisbane of young people exploring new
technological literacies in varied settings. None involved an
exercise in critical literacy as such, but they nonetheless help
illuminate ways in which the critical dimension of literacy might
fruitfully be explored. The examples involve school students and
young adults who worked within a community-based space called GRUNT
during 1995-97.
(a) GRUNT and The
Valley
i. The
Valley
Fortitude Valley - "The Valley" - is
located in Brisbane=s inner city. It is a well known part of town
which, in the past, has been associated with marginal life and
activities. On one hand, it is the location of Brisbane's Chinatown,
a bustling and thriving center of restaurants and businesses serving
the long established Chinese community. More recently, other Asian
ethnic groups have also established a cultural presence there, and
different Asian communities find in the Valley a zone of ethnic
familiarity and comfort. On the other hand, it has also for decades
been a magnet for displaced, homeless, drifting folk, many of whom
have addictions or histories of substance abuse. In addition, the
Valley was formerly a well recognized site of vice: prostitution and
various forms of racketeering. In the late 1980s, the Criminal
Justice Commission inquiry into corruption at high levels resulted in
some of the Valley's best known personalities being convicted and
imprisoned.
These days, however, the heart of the
Valley has undergone a dramatic "facelift". The mall has been
upgraded, new shopping centers established, and existing businesses
revitalized. The mall is now home to many outdoor cafés,
sidewalk bars, tourist-related businesses, and trendy nightclubs.
This caters in part to a new clientele of tourists, as well as to
more affluent social groups who are wanting something "a little
exotic" and "on the edge". At the same time, the Valley retains its
traditional gritty base. Street kids, aged alcoholics, young
unemployed men hanging out in video game parlors, bag ladies,
lingering Mafia-like groups, and the like maintain a visible
presence, albeit a lower profile presence than previously.
One consequence of these recent
changes has been the "rewriting" and "sanitizing" of the Valley for
sale as a tourist destination and yuppie playground. As a result, the
long-standing marginal youth users of the Valley - who are among the
traditional "owners" of this space and its activities - have been
written out of the new official representations of the Valley and
pushed still further to the margins.
GRUNT began in 1992 as an idea about
creating a safe and welcoming space for young people in the Valley
area. The driving forces behind GRUNT were two performance artists,
Michael and Ludmila Doneman (<http://mwk.thehub.com.au>),
committed to supporting youth arts, cultural development, and
training. At the time of the Virtual Valley projects described below,
GRUNT was both a physical production and meeting space and an agenda
for cultural productions of meanings and identities. In part, GRUNT
aimed to equip youth with skills and strategies to earn a living.
GRUNT was also, however, heavily involved in offering activities
which would promote a sense of self-identity and interconnectedness
with other identities and contexts in a world where these young
people seemed increasingly to have no place.
As a physical space, GRUNT occupied
100 square metres of warehouse space on the first floor of a building
in the centre of the Valley. It was divided into three spaces. One
area was used mainly for regular art exhibitions and performances. A
second was a general purpose meeting, "hanging out", and
administrative space, furnished with deep comfortable chairs and
decorated with paintings and collages, plus the occasional prop from
previous performances. The third was GRUNT=s main "digital production
area". Making the space as "un-school-like" as possible was an
explicit operating principle. Multimedia equipment available to GRUNT
users included colour flatbed scanners, up-to-date sound, text and
image authoring software, Internet browser software and hypertext
mark-up language (HTML) editors, data panels and projectors, digital
cameras, conventional cameras, video cameras, and the like. The
emphasis was on support for enterprise and self sufficiency. Unlike
drop-in centres and similar facilities, GRUNT, with its online
telecentre and multimedia laboratory, worked to provide inner city
youth with "training in vocational skills, in the mastery of the new
information technology and in planning, management and life skills"
(Stevenson 1995: 4).
GRUNT's cultural production agenda
included a range of web-based projects as well as visits to marginal
communities - especially traditional indigenous communities in
central Australia - and subsequent performance and artistic
productions based on what participants have learned through these
visits about others and themselves. Web-based projects covered
diverse interests and identities. Prior to forming GRUNT, the
Donemans had established Contact Youth Theatre to undertake a series
of indigenous and cross-cultural projects. Initially, these took the
form of touring performances and created the need for a physical
base, which became GRUNT. At the same time, similar groups were
operating in other parts of Australia. It was decided to make known
and connect the work of these groups by creating a common web space:
Black Voices. This site is accessed from GRUNT's main web page
(unfortunately, we aare not longer able to point you to the GRUNT
website - a lack of funding for the project has brought about its
demise). The Black Voices site broadcasts information about these
theatre groups and their performance-based projects. For example, the
Contact Youth Theatre production, "Famaleez" (a phonetic rendition of
"families"), was "based on the extremely sensitive issue of alcohol
and substance abuse in indigenous communities". The project focus was
on "the traditional aboriginal construction of 'family' and the way
it was used to give people structure and meaning", and built on the
historical reality of the invasion of Australia by Europeans which
had resulted in "a whole range of social dislocations and problems
through the destruction of the extended family structures of many
groups" (originally written at
<http://www.odyssey.com.au/ps/GRUV/contact/confama.htm>). A
second example is "Digitarts" (<http://digitarts.va.com.au>),
an on-line "new wave" feminist zine written by young women for young
women, exploring alternative perspectives on fashion, and expressing
different conceptions of female identity through poems, narratives
and digital images. Hotlinks to similar web sites on the Internet
also defining each writer=s self, and her self as connected with
other selves.
The Virtual Valley
Projects: Virtual Valley I and Virtual Valley II.
Between 1995 and 1997, GRUNT conducted
two projects, each with an "on-line" (or "virtual") component, based
on the Valley. These projects were Virtual Valley I and II. They
focused on the way in which young people, who have strong affinities
with the Valley and whose identities were bound up with it, were now
being pushed out of its redefinition and "development".
a) Virtual Valley I ran in 1995. It
aimed to produce "an alternative user's guide" to the Valley, which
would provide different readings and writings of the Valley from
those in official municipal promotions and tourist brochures.
As an oppositional cultural response,
Virtual Valley I presented work by nine young people who used the
Valley in a daily basis for "work and recreational purposes". These
youth "hold strong opinions about the valley's role" in the life of
Brisbane, which was being promoted by the State government as
"Australia's most liveable city". Participants' work was presented in
two formats: a web site, and a booklet to help guide visitors
"through a number of interesting sites using maps and postcard
images" (which could be pulled out and used as real postcards) based
on these young people's identities, values, world views, experiences,
and ways of locating themselves personally and collectively in time
and space within the Valley (original text was from
<http://www.odyssey.com.au/ps/GRUV/vvalley/welcome.html>). The
focus was on encouraging young people "to map the Valley area in ways
that are culturally relevant to themselves and their peers". Places
of interest presented in the Virtual Valley web site included the
location of a large clock (used by youth who do not have or wear
watches to check the time), and favourite places for dancing, eating,
getting coffee, finding bargains, and meeting friends. These were
incorporated into web pages built around an on-line street map which
contrasted graphically with tourist maps, such as an official
>heritage trail= which mapped points of interest from the
standpoint of colonialist history. The hard copy booklet provided a
postcard picture collage of images - including some from the web site
- which ranged from snapshots of a gutter and a tidy line of garbage
bins, to a crowded Saturday market scene in the Mall.
b) Virtual Valley II involved students
from two elementary schools near the Valley. One of these was an
Aboriginal (Murri) and Torres Strait Islander independent community
school, which aimed to provide a pedagogical balance between
Aboriginal funds of knowledge and culture and those of mainstream
white Australians. Students would spend half a day each week at GRUNT
exploring aspects of identity using conventional artistic means of
painting, drawing, and collage, as well as learning technical aspects
of web page construction - including basic HTML and web page design
principles, using digital cameras, manipulating digital images and
anchoring them to web pages, and using flatbed scanners. Students
gathered material for their web pages on walks through the Valley,
using digital and disposable cameras, sketch books and notepads. They
began putting together their individual web pages by creating
large-scale, annotated collages of aspects of the Valley that were
significant to them. These collages comprised photocopies of digital
and camera images they had taken of themselves, their friends, family
members, and the Valley area, plus drawings and found objects (e.g.,
food labels, ticket stubs, bingo cards, etc.). They were then pared
back to key images and passages of text as each student prepared a
flowchart depicting the layout and content their web page. During the
last month of the project these flowcharts were used to guide the
design and construction of web pages.
The result is a series of compelling
and evocative readings and writings of everyday cultural
(re)productions of the Valley seen through the eyes of these Murri
children. The web pages combine photographic images of themselves in
relation to the Valley=s topography and aspects that serve as icons
or tropes for the multicultural life of the Valley. For example, one
image shows a Murri student - identified as the writer=s cousin -
sitting in the lap of a large statue of a Chinese doll in the heart
of Chinatown. Others capture distinctive Chinese architectural shapes
in the form of pagodas and symbolic gates, or shop windows displaying
the headless bodies of plucked ducks ready for cooking. These
pictures graphically portray the enacted identity of these Aboriginal
young people "rubbing up against" key elements of Asian ethnic
identities. Further images capture elements more directly involved in
their own identities, such as photographs of Aboriginal mosaic
designs set in the sidewalks, and others bring kinship together with
vital aspects of popular youth culture and taste, such as the
photograph of a Murri student drinking a McDonald's milkshake
purchased by an aunty he met on his "field trip". Additional images
of popular culture abound: such as pictures showing students lined up
at a McDonald's counter, and photographs taken while playing video
games at Time Zone and Universal Fun City. All of these photographs
are accompanied by vivid texts. For example,
When I walk
past in the morning the ice-cream lady is just sitting
there.
In the middle
of the day she yawns.
In the
afternoon she eats the ice-cream she's supposed to sell.
In the
evenings she goes home with no profit.
Justin's page is typical. His virtual
tour of the Valley begins with a short poetic description of images
and activities he sees around him.
People
allsorts
Ice-cream
parlour allkinds
Timezone
fun
Dragons
Temples
colourful
China Town
lots of people
Justin's text is printed in large
multi-coloured fonts (Courier and Times New Roman). Capital letters
and italicised words, plus two photographic images, add further
details to his stripped-down text. The first image captures the
cultural diversity of the people in the Valley. The second
underscores fun experiences at Time Zone by showing a video game in
action. Following this description of his response to the Valley,
Justin shifts to a recount genre and recalls the highlights of a
particular stroll through the Valley with his class and activities at
GRUNT, which included a role play about issues facing Aboriginal
people in the Valley.
susan
pretended to be opal
winney [Oprah
Winfrey] and we was the audience
one group was
police the others
was murries
and shop owners after all
that we did
some drawings
then we had
lunch I had two banans
and three
sandwhiches
I also had a
drink of coke cola
there was
plenty for us to have
seconds. My
friend Louis ate lots of
cakes and so
he had an belly
ache. After
that we went for a walk
in the valley
we saw dead ducks
with their
heads still attached.
Beyond Virtual Valley
I and II:
Imagining a critical
literacy pedagogy
The Virtual Valley projects were not
conceived as any kind of systematic critical literacy project. They
were about making space for marginal "voices" and validating
identities that are typically marginalised within the normal routines
and values of dominant groups in daily life. By the same token, the
projects definitely stimulated the beginnings of critical engagement
with dominant/high status representations of reality. With texts
representing dominant accounts of Valley reality already in place,
and with Murri youth having produced their own representations of
existential situations steeped in their lived realities, it would be
possible to use the Web page and other cultural artefacts produced in
the Virtual Valley pedagogy as resources for problem-posing education
- and to introduce dominant representations as problematic
texts.
From this point we can begin to
envisage possibilities for a critical literacy pedagogy built around
the use of new technologies. In the case of the Murri School students
this work could proceed in various directions.
1. The text of Justin's poem could be taken as
codifying problems concerning constructions of school-based literacy
in relation to wider cultural practices of meaning-making. If we look
at Justin's story-poem in terms of "official" constructions of school
literacy it becomes problematic. In Queensland state, and in
Australia more generally, there is a strong move to establish student
profiles and benchmarks for English language literacy. Teachers are
required to assess students, report their performances against the
benchmarks, and to identify "at risk" students and enrol them in
packaged remedial literacy programs. The benchmarks establish narrow
"technicist" indicators for literacy, and define literacy in relation
to meeting standards of technical accuracy (spelling, grammar, etc.).
Justin's text would almost certainly fail against the national
benchmarks for his grade level. It could be used as a basis for
identifying and relating the operational, cultural, and critical
dimensions of literacy and the relationships between the. To this
extent it would provide a basis for developing a critical perspective
on literacy per se, for example by engaging the kinds of cases
provided in collections like Prinsloo and Breiers' (1996)
Social Uses of
Literacy.
Official constructions of literacy
framed in terms of such benchmarks "domesticate" literacy, reducing
it to matters of technical accuracy, and to the ability to encode and
decode text. They negate constructions of literacy in terms of
relating word to world, of learning to read both word and world, and
so on. This is not to say that matters of technical accuracy are not
important, because to a considerable extent they are. It is, however,
to say that Justin's text - like others at the Virtual Valley web
site - is a powerful expression of meaning; a powerful statement of
cultural understanding and of the relationship between language and
identity/ies. It is also to say that this power is very often absent
in technically accurate and "proficient" texts. Texts like Justin's,
then, can provide a window on the cultural dimension of literacy,
allowing learners to explore meaning making among different social
groups.
2. A critical literacy pedagogy could use work like
Justin's to investigate the values and norms underlying
"benchmark-based" accounts and indicators of literacy, and contrast
these with the values and norms underlying other social practices of
literacy - including some of those which may be very powerful, but
where the power has little to do with technical accuracy and more to
do with breaking rules and conventions (such as in advertising,
various popular cultural forms - e.g., gangsta rap - and so
on).
3. The students' artefacts could be used to
problematise other aspects of school knowledge and school-based
pedagogy. For example, the Virtual Valley web pages graphically
contest the "banking" model of classroom learning (Freire 1972), and
the construction of learning as an interaction between teacher and
learner that occurs within classrooms. The presence of kin -
especially aunties - in so many of the students' photographs and
drawings stimulate wider conceptions of learning resources and
learning guides than teachers and conventional classroom materials
alone. They remind us that the gates and walls between the
traditional classroom/school and the community are artificial
barriers that serve to enclose official learning within particular
sites and under the subjection of particular regimes of truth -
resulting in learning grounded in school discourses which generally
have very little to do with "mature" (or "insider") versions of
social practices in the world beyond school; inviting the question of
what school learning is for (Gee, Hull and Lankshear 1996: 1-23;
Knobel 1999). They remind us also that subject boundaries are
themselves in many ways artificial demarcations which can impede our
efforts to know the world in ways which relate "parts" to
"wholes".
4. Components of the students' web pages have the
potential to support problem-posing pedagogy that opens up crucial
epistemological themes related to questions of power and advantage in
ways learners and teacher-facilitators together can relate to their
own circumstances as members of socially marginalised groups. Such
codes could stimulate questions about how conventional school-based
learning opportunities differ from learning opportunities available
in GRUNT space. They could also provide opportunities for asking
whether it would be effective - or possible - to try and reinvent
their school learning in ways that are more like learning
opportunities at GRUNT within the Virtual Valley project, and how
this might be done.
5. The students' cultural investments themselves
contain problematic elements which could be codified for closer
investigation. Time Zone is commodified entertainment, part of a
commercialised youth culture, which costs regular players - usually
young people - large amounts of money each year. At the same time,
the video games at Time Zone and similar parlours contain values and
storylines which are very often highly sexist, racist and violent.
They often mystify power - reducing power to considerations of
physical strength - and encourage vicarious living. In many ways
these genres operate on the "logic" described by Freire as "taking
the oppressor within": individuals who experience disempowerment in
many areas of their lives are encouraged by video game playing to
enter virtual worlds where they experience illusions of power. This
process diverts attention and energy away from reflection-action to
address issues of social power in the real world. It is a form of
"bread and circus" diversion. It is also an invitation into
conceptions of power as individualised property - the winners and
heroes in the games are very often individuals. In addition, of
course, the kinds of considerations raised by Stone, and addressed
above, come into play here.
Part of what is attractive to youth
who "hang out" at parlours like Time Zone is the opportunity to meet
as a group, to belong to a community of practice where they achieve
success and status. Student produced codifications of cultural
practices in spaces like Time Zone could be used as a stimulus to
explore issues of community as well as issues of power, and to decode
the ideologies of the games and relate the various elements of these
ideologies to larger social processes - particularly, processes which
create and sustain hierarchies of dominant and marginal social
groupings. Indeed, for many of these young people new electronic
technologies memberships in quite different communities of practice
which are grounded in quite different purposes and possibilities.
Within Time Zone, the technologies provide a focus for alliances and
practices associated with youth culture, street culture, hanging out,
and being entertained. In the postmodern educational setting of
GRUNT-space, the technologies mediate opportunities to acquire new
technological skills and understandings within contexts of exploring
cultural identity and creating spaces for expressing this identity to
and among audiences who will accept and relate to it on its own
terms.
Conclusion
Of all the elements which shape and
shape postmodern times, few are more palpable than the new electronic
technologies. Yet, as critically informed commentators increasingly
observe, new technologies can be employed for very different
purposes. Freire, of course, made exactly the same observation about
education - which can be seen as an age-old, albeit evolving,
technology. Like education, new information and communication
technologies can be turned to purposes of oppression or liberation:
both in their own right and in their more specific roles as
educational or learning technologies. These who are interested in the
theory and practice of liberatory education in current times cannot
afford to ignore this new dimension of educational mediation and
engagement.
References
Bigum, C. and Lankshear, C. (1997).
The literacy-technology interface in workplace and adult learning
contexts. Invited keynote address to the NCELTR International
Seminar, Sydney, October.
Buckingham, D. and Sefton-Green, J.
(1994). Cultural studies Goes to
School: Reading and Teaching Popular Media. London: Taylor & Francis.
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Comber, B. and Kamler, B. (1997).
Critical literacies: politicising the language classroom.
Interpretations. 30 (1).
DEQ (Department of Education,
Queensland) (1995). English in
Years 1 to 10 Queensland Syllabus Materials: English Syllabus for
Years 1 to 10. Brisbane:
Department of Education, Queensland.
Fairclough , N. (1989).
Language and Power. Harlow: Longman.
Franklin, U. (1990). The Real World of Technology. Montreal: CBC Enterprises.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gee, J. (1991). What is literacy? In
C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting Literacy: Culture and the Discourse of
the Other. New York: Bergin &
Garvey.
Gee, J. (1993). Literacies: tuning
into forms of life. Education
Australia. 19.
Gee, J. (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in
Discourses. 2nd ed. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Gee, J., Hull, G. and Lankshear, C.
(1996). The New Work Order: Behind
the Language of the New Capitalism. Sydney and Boulder, CO.: Allen & Unwin and
Westview Press.
Gilbert, P. (1989). Writing, Schooling and Deconstruction: From Voice
to Text in the Classroom. London:
Routledge.
Green, B. (1988). Subject-specific
literacy and school learning: A focus on writing. Australian Journal of Education. 32 (2).
Green, B. (1997a). Literacy,
information and the learning society. Keynote address at the Joint
Conference of the Australian Association for the Teaching of English,
the Australian Literacy Educators' Association, and the Australian
School Library Association. Darwin: Darwin High School, Northern
Territory, Australia, 8-11 July.
Green, B. (1997b). Literacies and
school learning in new times. Keynote address at the "Literacies in
Practice: Progress and Possibilities" Conference. Adelaide: South
Australian Department of Education and Children's Services and the
Catholic Education Office, 1 May.
Janks, H. (1993a). Language and Position. Johannesburg and Randburg: Witswaterland
University Press and Hodder & Stoughton Educational.
Janks, H. (1993b). Language, Identity and Power. Johannesburg and Randburg: Witswaterland
University Press and Hodder & Stoughton Educational.
Kale, J. and Luke, A. (1991). Doing
things with words: early language socialisation. In E. Furniss and P.
Green (Eds.), The Literacy Agenda:
Issues for the Nineties. South
Yarra: Eleanor Curtain Publishing.
Knobel, M. (1999). Everyday Literacies: Students, Discourse and
Social Practice. New York: Peter
Lang Publishing.
Lankshear, C. (1991). Getting it right
is hard: redressing the politics of literacy in the 1990s, in P.
Cormack(Ed.), Selected Papers from
16th Australian Reading Association National
Conference. Adelaide: ARA, pp.
209-228.
Lankshear, C., Bigum, C. et al (1997).
Digital Rhetorics: Literacies and
Technologies in Education - Current Practices and Future Directions.
3 vols. Project Report.
Children's Literacy National Projects. Brisbane:
QUT/DEETYA.
Lemke, J. (1984). Action, context and
meaning. In Education and
Semiotics (Toronto Semiotic
Circle Monograph). Toronto: University of Toronto.
Luke, A. (1992). Conference materials.
Working Conference on Critical Literacy. Brisbane: Griffith
University, July.
Mellor, B. and Patterson, A. (1991).
Reading character: Reading gender. English in Australia. no. 95.
Muspratt, A., Luke, A. and freebody,
P. (Eds.), (1997). Constructing
Critical Literacies. Cresskill,
NJ & Sydney: Hampton Press and Allen & Unwin.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing Ourselves To Death: Public Discourse In
The Age Of Show Business. New
York: Penguin.
Prinsloo, M. and Breier, M. (Eds.),
(1996). The Social Uses Of
Literacy: Theory And Practice In Contemporary South
Africa. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Searle, C. (1998). None but Our Words. Buckingham & Philadelphia: Open University
Press.
Stephenson, P. (1995). Making space:
for those who invent tomorrow, a report on the feasibility of a
multi-purpose youth facility for Brisbane. Brisbane: Queensland
Department of Tourism, Sport & Racing and Queensland University
of Technology Academy of the Arts.
Stone, A. (1996). The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of
the Mechanical Age. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Wallace, C. (1992). Reading.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winner, L. (1989). Mythinformation in
the high-tech era. In T. Forester (Ed.), Computers in the Human Context. Oxford: Blackwell.
back to
text index/back to main
index/to book
index