Fixing the Text: Controlling the Chaos of Interpretations

"New ways of reading gave ways to new ways of writing texts and both gave rise to new ways of thinking about the world and about the mind" (143).

As I attempt to wrap my feeble brain around the concepts Olson provides for us, I am fascinated by the historical journey literacy has played in our development. As Olson contends, Western society evolved through the development of new ways of reading text. I now understand that in the course of human history writing like any technology was developed in order to solve a problem which in turn created new problems which necessitated new solutions.

The main problem writing creates is its inability to answer the question "What do you mean?" Because the body is removed from the utterance, the lexical system inadequately represents the "illocutionary force" intended by the writer. Thus, although writing solves a myriad of practical problems, it creates a multitude of new problems. The notion of how to control the chaos of numerous interpretations or as Olson refers to as "fixing the text" arises from the limitations of the writing system. The need for "experts" to dictate to the masses the "true" meaning of specific written utterances allowed for new ways of thinking, reading, and writing. In addition, I contend that those who controlled the interpretations controlled the masses.

I knew religion would find its way into the discussion sooner or later. God forbid we have people misinterpreting the Bible (note: intended irony, just in case you were unsure). Olson contends that our (Western Civilization's) reading history is really the history of reading the Bible. I liked how Olson explains the progression of interpreting the Bible and how it mirrors changes in societal ideology. Now in our post-modernistic understanding we recognize unlike Luther that to get at "what was meant" from "what was said" we have to ground our interpretations within a historical and cultural context. As Olson states, at different periods of history, people thought, spoke, and meant differently. It is oversimplification to assume that people viewed the world exactly the same way over time. Because writing created a need to read the world differently, new ways of thinking about the world developed. As Olson argues, "we no longer assume that the ancient writers used categories like our own" (155). Unfortunately, if I may add my "two cents" (this is MY Blog, right?), I doubt that when Olson uses "we", he means everybody. I would argue to the contrary that many still interpret the Bible much in the same way Luther did. . .but perhaps that is off the subject and needs to be the topic of a later discussion.

Deja Vu? Ahhh. . .the Literacy Myth (revisted)

I first encountered the notion of the "literacy myth" last semester. I have to be honest; I found it hard to accept that literacy does not increase cognitive ability. Isn't it obvious that those who read and write are move intellectually advanced then those who are not? Seemed fairly straightforward to me. Yet, although difficult as it was, I have rejected my prior notions on the superiority of literacy. As Olson suggests, I have lost my "naive belief in the transformative powers of simply learning to read and write" (3). Indeed, writing is a tool which in our modern society is clearly a functional necessity, but literacy does not make us a more intelligent society. I think by seeing literacy as a tool and not as something magical, I have been able to rethink my views on literacy.

As I reconstruct my literacy ideology, I am still perplexed by questions: So what? Why should literacy be removed from its pedestal? The answer, as Olson contends, is that our society (Western Ideology) needs to be aware of our arrogance because our beliefs are "a selective way of viewing the facts that not only justifies the advantages of the literate but also assigns the failings of society. . .to the illiterate" (2). How does our concept of literacy give us reason to condemn societies which are less literate. How do our ideologies continue to maintain the current hegemony?

In end this response with my first encounter with the literacy myth.

"Literacy, it is felt, freed some of humanity from a primitive state. . .literacy, it seems, is what makes us civilized" (Gee 26).
"Literacy, leads to logical, analytical, critical, and rational thinking, general and abstract uses of language. . ." (Gee 26).
I must admit I believe or still want to believe these statements to be true. I suppose, as Gee states, my own "literacy myth" is "foundational to how [I] make sense of reality." This reality leads me to believe that what I teach is important. Language Arts is, I have been known to say, facilitates and supports all other disciplines. I usually express to my young people "A Rationale for Learning to Read and Write" and "Why You Need to Learn To Speak Good" (that was intentional), very early in the school year. I have always believed that the more you read and write the better you read and write; I also promote active reading and process writing. I value this "essay-text literacy" because I guess I'm a "cog in the machine" perpetuating the values of the middle-class. After reading references to Scribner and Cole's research with the Vai (Gee 55), I believe I have to rethink my viewpoints (however difficult) on the role reading and writing play in the cognitive development of my students. I am interested in analyzing the influence (or the lack thereof) that schooling has on creative and critical thinking. I am concerned with this conclusion by Scribner and Cole: "School skills, beyond talk, are transitory, unless they are repeatedly practiced in people's daily lives (34). This compels me to question and revisit the skills I teach and activities I have my students do. Are my activities appropriate and useful? Do the skills I teach have a purpose beyond the classroom and a value by all of my students? The latter question is the tricky one. I fear I will always focus on promoting "success" within the dominate Discourse. Am I too indoctrinated to recognize where and when this may be "harmful" to my charges?

On Stage in the Classroom

I have taught for 11 years, and most of my experience in the classroom has been at the middle school level. I fully believe teaching is performance. I have often times equated my classroom instruction to being on stage. To keep my students actively engaged during my instruction, I utilize many acting skills: voice variations, dramatic pauses, wild-gesticulations, facial changes, quick thinking, improvisation techniques, movement. One especially useful skill is storytelling. I love to tell stories to my students. There is something magical to opening the space for a story. My children immediately engage when I signal that a story is forthcoming. Normally, I open the space for a story by saying "Ya know this reminds me of something that happened to me, but you guys don't really want to hear it, do you?" I usually receive a chrous of "yeses." I always bluff for a minute or two and then begin. I don't know if my students revert back to when they were young children, but I usually can keep the normally chaotic and habitually "antsy" 11 year-olds quiet and listening for a considerable length of time. I just have to make certain that my delievery is exciting. There is obviously power in the personal narrative. Why does a story compel us to block out the otherwise distracting impulses and relax and just listen?

To complete the story telling assignment this week, I told a story to my 6th period class. 6th period is my most challenging class. My students have already attended 5 other classes, one homeroom class, and lunch. When they finally come to me, their attention spans, already stunted due to a combination of hormones, PlayStation 3s , and high fructose corn syrup overdoses, are non-existent. Stories seem to calm them down. Last week, I told a story about a time I almost killed my sister (FYI: she's okay. . .no permanent damage . . .she even graduated from med school). For some reason, 6th graders are naturally drawn to stories about siblings and if violence is at all hinted in the plot, well that is an added bonus. I am always amazed at how a simple story can engage a group. When dealing with middle schoolers, content is important, but the delivery is essential. I believe that a bad story told well is much more effective than a good story told poorly.