Well, I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I really struggled with Vygotsky. I'm not sure if it was just the really dense plethora of information, or just fighting off cold and migraines, but boy, did Vygotsky have a lot to say. Okay, end rant...
It was really interesting to read his critique of Piaget, who we very briefly covered in our linguistics class. In fact, I felt like I had to re familiarize myself with his theories besides the information Vygotsky provided. One of the parts that interested me the most was the section on egocentric speech. According to Vygotsky, "egocentric speech does not provide communication...Egocentric speech is, therefore, useless. It plays no essential role in child behavior" (29).
I felt many aspects of Vygotsky's criticism of the role of egocentric speech in child development was really insightful and just made a lot of sense. I thought the example with the child drawing the streetcar really highlighted it. Although the child did not communicate directly with the people he was upset that his pencil broke, he communicated it verbally "It's broken" but also physically through the representation of the broken streetcar in his picture. The connection between language and activity I thought was crucial, as the child was showing he understood the meaning of broken through the drawing of a streetcar. So while Piaget thought egocentric speech was something that happened when children are small (and that they would eventually grow out of) I feel this show it is an important step in development of not only verbal speech, but the consequences behind meanings of words. He may have heard the word "broken" but not had truly understood it until it happened to him. And then he showed his understanding of the word through the drawing. It reminded me a lot of our discussion from a few weeks ago and how children naturally change the verb tenses. With regards to the tenses, as a child naturally grows, the syntax he or she develops almost corrects itself. I feel the same type of idea could be seen with egocentric speech, whereas its a fuller understanding of the word because its happening to him, and he is experiencing it, even if the only communication he is having is between himself and that paper.
It would seem that egocentric speech is imperative to human being growth, as it never really leaves us, only manifests itself in a form of "inner speech" as Piaget refers to it. Vygotsky makes the argument that adults "thinking out loud" is no different than egocentric speech, and this seems like a really good observation (32). I'm pretty sure I can think of several dozens of situations where I have talked to myself out loud.
The other aspect of the egocentric speech I thought was interesting was when Vygotsky compared the schema of development, "first social, then egocentric, then inner speech--contrasts both with the traditional behaviorist schema--vocal, speech, whisper, inner speech--and with Piaget sequence--from nonverbal autistic thought through egocentric thought and speech to socialized speech and logical thinking" (35-36). Comparing all the developments of speech, thought, and language side by side when I think about all the developments we have made in discovering thought and language and the connection between, and yet how far we have to go. It almost seems to a degree, that each child may respond differently in growth, so I wonder how much of nature v. nurture plays in to the child's development..
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
From the very beginning of this reading I became focused on a comment Vygotsky made about the importance of developmental changes in the interrelatedness of thought and language. Once he moved on to the discussion of ontogenetics, one question permeated my thoughts throughout the reading. How does the relationship and development of the relationship between thought and language differ between individuals? The first instance that hinted at an answer was Vygotsky's claim that "development of speech creates a favorable environment for autistic thinking." (23) This seemed at first contradictory, as Vygotsky had referred to Piaget's hypothesis that autistic thought was unconscious and uncommunicative, which seems elementally incongruous with language development. Also, the idea was postulated that imagination, a large function of autistic thinking, was based on memory. Both imagination and memory rely heavily on the senses, imagery and therefore, symbols. We think of words as symbols of what they represent, but not in the sense of symbols associated with non-linguistic units of memory. However, if true, this raises the question of children whose socio-economic position has forced them into reality at an earlier age than other children, and so further away from an existence dominated by imagination; whether or not the language development of these children suffers as a result?
Furthermore, Vygotsky's arguments seem to regularly return to the utilitarian nature of language. If there is not a purpose or stimulus for a certain type of language use, whether it be social/communicative or autistic, then, obviously, the language is not used or left at a stage of underdevelopment. If types of thought development are linked to types of language development, then the corresponding thought processes of neglecting speech development will also become underdeveloped. Correct? So, students who are not challenged or engaged communicatively are more likely to be underdeveloped in both speech and thought? If true, this directly affects literacy in that it is not a person's knowledge of canon or the legitimacy of a person's thoughts that are questionable, but the ability to think and express thought that becomes problematic.
Furthermore, Vygotsky's arguments seem to regularly return to the utilitarian nature of language. If there is not a purpose or stimulus for a certain type of language use, whether it be social/communicative or autistic, then, obviously, the language is not used or left at a stage of underdevelopment. If types of thought development are linked to types of language development, then the corresponding thought processes of neglecting speech development will also become underdeveloped. Correct? So, students who are not challenged or engaged communicatively are more likely to be underdeveloped in both speech and thought? If true, this directly affects literacy in that it is not a person's knowledge of canon or the legitimacy of a person's thoughts that are questionable, but the ability to think and express thought that becomes problematic.
No answers, just more questions...
I found the first section in Vgotsky very difficult. I'm reading this thinking, "I'm an English teacher damn it. Why can't I understand this?" Then I got out my unabridged dictionary and started hunting. I was surprised to see the word "autism" used the way he did. I had a difficult time divorcing myself from thinking of autistic children each time I read that word. What does that tell you about thought and language. The idea and the word were so closely associated in my brain, that I just couldn't subconsciously separate the two. It was only when I stopped and corrected my thinking, that I could move on to try to understand the point.
What is the age of crisis in psychology mentioned on page 15?
Vgosky writes on page 15 that "...facts are always examined in light of some theory..." Aren't facts also DISCOVERED in light of some theory?
On page 21 Vgostky writes that animal psychoogy knows only the reality function. How can this be tested?
I enjoyed Vgotsky's discussion of the two types of egocentric and socialized language. I wondered about socialized language...Without others, would a child never learn to think or speak anything other than egocentric speech?
On page 39 Vgotsky quotes Lenin, "For even in the simplist generalization, in the most general idea, there is a certain bit of fantasy". I just thought that was a cool way to look at ideas because they are just a fantasy in the brain until they are tested or discussed.
After reading this chapter, I kept thinking about how we perceive those who cannot or will not speak. If someone is physically incapable of speaking, we sometimes assume he is incapable of higher level thinking. If we did not know who Stephen Hawking was, would we assume he was incapable of thought?
Chapter 4 was fun to read. On page 75 Vgotsky states that there is no physiological reason why chimps cannot speak. Where does the thought process fail them? (I am already making a judgment here)
We've come a long way since Vgotsky. He writes on page 75 that there is no hope that antropoids can learn to speak and, "Not a hint of their using signs has ever been heard of". I remember Koko, (was he a chimp or a mountain gorilla?) and several articles in National Geographic and a woman working with him on sign language.
On page 78 Vgostky writes that some animals do have a speeh of their own and that Learner "compiled a dictionary of 32 speech elements, or 'words' ". In light of some of our recent discussions on literacy, isn't Vgotsky saying that animals have their own literacy? I know this is not the point of his research, but this made me think that there are probably thousands of literacies in thousands of cultures and cultures within cultures, so who's saying ours is best? What's so superior about Western civilization and its academia?
What is the age of crisis in psychology mentioned on page 15?
Vgosky writes on page 15 that "...facts are always examined in light of some theory..." Aren't facts also DISCOVERED in light of some theory?
On page 21 Vgostky writes that animal psychoogy knows only the reality function. How can this be tested?
I enjoyed Vgotsky's discussion of the two types of egocentric and socialized language. I wondered about socialized language...Without others, would a child never learn to think or speak anything other than egocentric speech?
On page 39 Vgotsky quotes Lenin, "For even in the simplist generalization, in the most general idea, there is a certain bit of fantasy". I just thought that was a cool way to look at ideas because they are just a fantasy in the brain until they are tested or discussed.
After reading this chapter, I kept thinking about how we perceive those who cannot or will not speak. If someone is physically incapable of speaking, we sometimes assume he is incapable of higher level thinking. If we did not know who Stephen Hawking was, would we assume he was incapable of thought?
Chapter 4 was fun to read. On page 75 Vgotsky states that there is no physiological reason why chimps cannot speak. Where does the thought process fail them? (I am already making a judgment here)
We've come a long way since Vgotsky. He writes on page 75 that there is no hope that antropoids can learn to speak and, "Not a hint of their using signs has ever been heard of". I remember Koko, (was he a chimp or a mountain gorilla?) and several articles in National Geographic and a woman working with him on sign language.
On page 78 Vgostky writes that some animals do have a speeh of their own and that Learner "compiled a dictionary of 32 speech elements, or 'words' ". In light of some of our recent discussions on literacy, isn't Vgotsky saying that animals have their own literacy? I know this is not the point of his research, but this made me think that there are probably thousands of literacies in thousands of cultures and cultures within cultures, so who's saying ours is best? What's so superior about Western civilization and its academia?
Symbols and structure (aka there is no escape)
Preface: Ray is ill. He had an awesome time in Florida, then his immune system gave out. 3 words: Jenna's Jello Shots.
Alrighty then. Diving in at the wrong end (and hoping I won't injure myself in the process), let's start with p. 92--"...for a long time to a child a word is a property, rather than a symbol of an object." Simple, right? As always seems to be the case, yes and no. Earlier on the same page, Vygotsky quotes Wallon regarding children making words into attributes of an object. The fact of Vygotsky delineating these details means he thought them notable, but why? Here's my take; it's probably not his. i like to follow an idea outwards till it is concrete, absurd, or both. Bonus points if you know the technical term for this type of argument. Not recognizing the symbolic function of words is an immature form of thinking. This is applied to children in the text, but how often do we naively operate the same way as supposed mature adult intellects? I feel as if I'm dancing around what I'm trying to get at, mainly because it's difficult to generate a nominal example, so I will instead give a few adjectives instead.
Corrupt.
Dirty.
Traditional.
Pure.
Alien.
Attractive.
Ok. Pick the object you want to use any of the above adjectives on. If you (or I) do not recognize that the words are linguistic tools, culturally created symbols, we may pair up "Corrupt" and "Senator," making the adjective an inseperable part of the object's structure. This limits our thinking, strengthens the artificial limitations of our world, and makes us unable to see the possibility of any potential change in that sphere of our world.
This is even more powerful when we recognize that children (speakers generally) are capable of using a symbolic tool before recognizing it as one. Getting used to a limited set of these linguistic tools is the way we all start the process of verbal thought, but the acquisition of new tools allows the expression of more thoughts.
I'm trying to stick with short and sweet, so just ask me about the chimps on the "Planet Earth" video in class.
Alrighty then. Diving in at the wrong end (and hoping I won't injure myself in the process), let's start with p. 92--"...for a long time to a child a word is a property, rather than a symbol of an object." Simple, right? As always seems to be the case, yes and no. Earlier on the same page, Vygotsky quotes Wallon regarding children making words into attributes of an object. The fact of Vygotsky delineating these details means he thought them notable, but why? Here's my take; it's probably not his. i like to follow an idea outwards till it is concrete, absurd, or both. Bonus points if you know the technical term for this type of argument. Not recognizing the symbolic function of words is an immature form of thinking. This is applied to children in the text, but how often do we naively operate the same way as supposed mature adult intellects? I feel as if I'm dancing around what I'm trying to get at, mainly because it's difficult to generate a nominal example, so I will instead give a few adjectives instead.
Corrupt.
Dirty.
Traditional.
Pure.
Alien.
Attractive.
Ok. Pick the object you want to use any of the above adjectives on. If you (or I) do not recognize that the words are linguistic tools, culturally created symbols, we may pair up "Corrupt" and "Senator," making the adjective an inseperable part of the object's structure. This limits our thinking, strengthens the artificial limitations of our world, and makes us unable to see the possibility of any potential change in that sphere of our world.
This is even more powerful when we recognize that children (speakers generally) are capable of using a symbolic tool before recognizing it as one. Getting used to a limited set of these linguistic tools is the way we all start the process of verbal thought, but the acquisition of new tools allows the expression of more thoughts.
I'm trying to stick with short and sweet, so just ask me about the chimps on the "Planet Earth" video in class.
I think my brain needs a band-aid...
All this meditation, clarification, and metacognition as the result of reading Vygotsky has made my brain hurt. Sore, even. I've thought of so many questions, I don't know where to start. Of course, the answers may have been right before my eyes. . . but I just don’t know where. If the ego develops through external contact, how do people who are born deaf and blind think? If the cognitive process benefits from the presence of inner speech, again, how do they think? How do they communicate when inner speech (which is learned from one’s environment) doesn’t develop? How can they imprint and organize their conscious content? All the theories certainly make sense for what we consider “normal” individuals, to a certain extent, but how can they make sense when one is hearing impaired or both hearing and sight impaired? Especially when word meaning and sound is so important to thought and our thought process, how is reality perceived without the benefit of hearing? Or of seeing? Vygotsky maintains that thought and speech cannot be studied separately. But what about those individuals who for some reason cannot speak? They understand what is being said to them, but they cannot respond verbally. And, if speech movements facilitate reasoning, can people with disabilities involving hearing and/or speech reason the same as a person without such disabilities? Does the brain find a different avenue to reason, to think, to explore reality? If thought and speech unite into verbal thought, wouldn’t there have to be other possible theories of the thought and language connection (problem) for those who cannot hear and/or speak?
Enquiring minds want to know the answers to these questions and more. Of course, I understand the broader implications of Vygotsky, that environment (connected to one’s socioeconomic status) plays a huge role in a child’s development, something we have been discussing since day one. I had never actually considered, though, that a child may understand a word, but not be able (no matter how many times you explain it) to understand the adjoining concept, that it’s a matter of maturity. By the way, if I begin talking to myself out loud, am I being childish or immature? Or am I enhancing my reasoning capabilities?
And, does all of this explain how sometimes I just can’t put my thoughts into words? How I can just have a thought and not really be able to express it. You mean it’s not a sign of senility? That others have this problem, too? I’m so looking forward to our discussion!
Can’t help but wonder if I really am thinking. Or do I just think I’m thinking?
Enquiring minds want to know the answers to these questions and more. Of course, I understand the broader implications of Vygotsky, that environment (connected to one’s socioeconomic status) plays a huge role in a child’s development, something we have been discussing since day one. I had never actually considered, though, that a child may understand a word, but not be able (no matter how many times you explain it) to understand the adjoining concept, that it’s a matter of maturity. By the way, if I begin talking to myself out loud, am I being childish or immature? Or am I enhancing my reasoning capabilities?
And, does all of this explain how sometimes I just can’t put my thoughts into words? How I can just have a thought and not really be able to express it. You mean it’s not a sign of senility? That others have this problem, too? I’m so looking forward to our discussion!
Can’t help but wonder if I really am thinking. Or do I just think I’m thinking?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Thought is speech minus sound...
...I wish my mother would do that. No sound. Just thoughts that never come out of her mouth. I don't even want to see her email thoughts. Nothing. Ok...moving on...
So the whole process of inner speech and the roots of the mind...The whole idea that if our inner thoughts were spoken they would be unintelligible, or rather, it would not resemble language as we know it, is really intriguing. Inner speech is almost a language all its own. I would give a page number here but there are so many pages that loosely refer to this, there would be a list of pages and it seems unnecessary. Well, more in chapters one and four than in three. I read in one sitting and didn't really stop...my mind kept going with the words on the pages. So this is the idea I want to talk about-the idea that one thought is almost uninterpretable in language and has to be revised to make it understandable when it is spoken.
It's relatively often that I am talking to someone, and I am thinking of something I want to tell them. Seems simple enough. But when I try to tell them, I feel like I have to rearrange my thoughts completely in order for what I am thinking to make sense when it comes out of my mouth. I didn't realize I did this until I read these chapters and actually thought about it. If I said what I was actually thinking, Vygotsky is right--I know that my thoughts would almost sound like a cross between gibberish and English. It's like I can think of what I want to say with one or two words, but actually speaking--it's a whole different story. The person wouldn't know what I was talking about. I have to put this word or two into an intelligible English sentence. Turning thoughts into words is second nature, but I suppose when you pick each word and each thought and each process apart, it's a task that takes some...thought. But the process is so quick that nobody thinks to do that unless you are asked to read this book. I've been thinking about my thoughts. I'm not one to try to over analyze, and since I am now aware of thought, I've had trouble figuring out if I am over analyzing my own thoughts or if I'm just simply trying to analyze my process of thinking. Is it the same difference? Julie, why do you do this to me every week?
We don't think in terms of topics or subjects. Well, that what Vygotsky says. I've been trying to analyze that one, too...when I am thinking, is it a subject or is it just all expressive thought with no direct correlation to the subject of that expressive thought? I suppose not. They're just thoughts about something I read or saw or heard. I guess that's where the subject part of it ends. The thought process just picks that subject apart without any direct relation to it...I guess that would be considered redundant. Your own thoughts know what they are thinking about.
The whole idea of analyzing thinking and speaking is intriguing. It makes me wonder about the inner speech of people when I know they are trying to re-word what they are thinking before it comes out of their mouth.
So the whole process of inner speech and the roots of the mind...The whole idea that if our inner thoughts were spoken they would be unintelligible, or rather, it would not resemble language as we know it, is really intriguing. Inner speech is almost a language all its own. I would give a page number here but there are so many pages that loosely refer to this, there would be a list of pages and it seems unnecessary. Well, more in chapters one and four than in three. I read in one sitting and didn't really stop...my mind kept going with the words on the pages. So this is the idea I want to talk about-the idea that one thought is almost uninterpretable in language and has to be revised to make it understandable when it is spoken.
It's relatively often that I am talking to someone, and I am thinking of something I want to tell them. Seems simple enough. But when I try to tell them, I feel like I have to rearrange my thoughts completely in order for what I am thinking to make sense when it comes out of my mouth. I didn't realize I did this until I read these chapters and actually thought about it. If I said what I was actually thinking, Vygotsky is right--I know that my thoughts would almost sound like a cross between gibberish and English. It's like I can think of what I want to say with one or two words, but actually speaking--it's a whole different story. The person wouldn't know what I was talking about. I have to put this word or two into an intelligible English sentence. Turning thoughts into words is second nature, but I suppose when you pick each word and each thought and each process apart, it's a task that takes some...thought. But the process is so quick that nobody thinks to do that unless you are asked to read this book. I've been thinking about my thoughts. I'm not one to try to over analyze, and since I am now aware of thought, I've had trouble figuring out if I am over analyzing my own thoughts or if I'm just simply trying to analyze my process of thinking. Is it the same difference? Julie, why do you do this to me every week?
We don't think in terms of topics or subjects. Well, that what Vygotsky says. I've been trying to analyze that one, too...when I am thinking, is it a subject or is it just all expressive thought with no direct correlation to the subject of that expressive thought? I suppose not. They're just thoughts about something I read or saw or heard. I guess that's where the subject part of it ends. The thought process just picks that subject apart without any direct relation to it...I guess that would be considered redundant. Your own thoughts know what they are thinking about.
The whole idea of analyzing thinking and speaking is intriguing. It makes me wonder about the inner speech of people when I know they are trying to re-word what they are thinking before it comes out of their mouth.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Hard Reading-The Theories, The Children, The World Today
Well, Lev Vygostsky is difficult. After reading and rereading I have put him in a place of my mind.
I enjoyed the sociocultural elements of Vygostsky's psychology addressed in the updated Thought & Language title. The original Thought & Speaking title (translation limitations?)seemed to be limiting. Our society does gets bogged down with the spoken word as a sign of intelligence. The babbling of very young children to their gestures expressing needs to communication with others and finally self reflection offer a way of social interaction to progressive cognitive growth of thought and language. The words children are exposed to become meaningful through their experience. First Egocentric speech is discussed as it directly relates to self while socialized speech builds into a relations to and between self and others. "To put it quite simply, we may say that the adult thinks socially, even when he is alone, and that the child under seven thinks egocentrically, even in the society of others" (27). Experience gives meanings to words for the child. That experience is grounded in interaction with others. Today non-human and impersonal interactions are rampant in children's lives. Play has become about tasks rather than the imagination which I believe is the first step to inner thoughts.
When we address the social construct of the 21st Century, maybe we are seeing a regression where humans of all ages have regressed into egocentric speech that carries into the internal speech. The thought and language that is all about "the me". Today logic, morals, and ideals may be losing ground in the social construction thanks to wars, famines, politicians, media,inequalities, etc. The second hand experience of the news and the background sound bits for technological toys bombard children. What would be the findings in any of the studies today? Would children progress in their development or would they stagnate? Possibly the studies can be proof of what we need to do as a society to facilitate the development of thought & language.
For children with limited speech capabilities, the lack of development of external spoken words is often assumed by the community as a lacking of developmental skills. Our society places a great importance on the verbal communication often to the exclusion of the non-verbal and the shy. While the external speech requires a common reference for group understanding, internal speech can be anything you want-you could be trying to figure concepts out in your mind until you might desire to put the concepts into verbal utterances. Our society places much value on how people speak vs. how they think. We need to help those children who learn outside the accepted education.
All children can participate in the "equal realities-the world of play and the world of observation" (47). Humboldt's work with play goes beyond imagination into role-playing and acting for life. He documented the importance of play not only for the socialization of children but for the contemplation for adults. Piaget did say, "the child never really comes into contact with things because he does not work. He plays with them, or simply believes them without trying to find the truth" (55). Today the child does not always come into contact with people because things are integral to the child's world. The influences of home and pre-school (or lack of either)can not be ignored.
I believe everyone should make time for play as well as reflection. If children learn by observation and socialization, what are our responsibilities as adults?
I could not get into the chapter on animal developement. Sorry, years of Jane Goddall in Africa have tainted and tired my belief in the value of cross-over of studies of animals and humans.
I enjoyed the sociocultural elements of Vygostsky's psychology addressed in the updated Thought & Language title. The original Thought & Speaking title (translation limitations?)seemed to be limiting. Our society does gets bogged down with the spoken word as a sign of intelligence. The babbling of very young children to their gestures expressing needs to communication with others and finally self reflection offer a way of social interaction to progressive cognitive growth of thought and language. The words children are exposed to become meaningful through their experience. First Egocentric speech is discussed as it directly relates to self while socialized speech builds into a relations to and between self and others. "To put it quite simply, we may say that the adult thinks socially, even when he is alone, and that the child under seven thinks egocentrically, even in the society of others" (27). Experience gives meanings to words for the child. That experience is grounded in interaction with others. Today non-human and impersonal interactions are rampant in children's lives. Play has become about tasks rather than the imagination which I believe is the first step to inner thoughts.
When we address the social construct of the 21st Century, maybe we are seeing a regression where humans of all ages have regressed into egocentric speech that carries into the internal speech. The thought and language that is all about "the me". Today logic, morals, and ideals may be losing ground in the social construction thanks to wars, famines, politicians, media,inequalities, etc. The second hand experience of the news and the background sound bits for technological toys bombard children. What would be the findings in any of the studies today? Would children progress in their development or would they stagnate? Possibly the studies can be proof of what we need to do as a society to facilitate the development of thought & language.
For children with limited speech capabilities, the lack of development of external spoken words is often assumed by the community as a lacking of developmental skills. Our society places a great importance on the verbal communication often to the exclusion of the non-verbal and the shy. While the external speech requires a common reference for group understanding, internal speech can be anything you want-you could be trying to figure concepts out in your mind until you might desire to put the concepts into verbal utterances. Our society places much value on how people speak vs. how they think. We need to help those children who learn outside the accepted education.
All children can participate in the "equal realities-the world of play and the world of observation" (47). Humboldt's work with play goes beyond imagination into role-playing and acting for life. He documented the importance of play not only for the socialization of children but for the contemplation for adults. Piaget did say, "the child never really comes into contact with things because he does not work. He plays with them, or simply believes them without trying to find the truth" (55). Today the child does not always come into contact with people because things are integral to the child's world. The influences of home and pre-school (or lack of either)can not be ignored.
I believe everyone should make time for play as well as reflection. If children learn by observation and socialization, what are our responsibilities as adults?
I could not get into the chapter on animal developement. Sorry, years of Jane Goddall in Africa have tainted and tired my belief in the value of cross-over of studies of animals and humans.
The chicken or the egg
I looked through some old textbooks from my master's degree days to see what they had to say about Lev Vygotsky and his work. One book dedicated a chapter to his work and the other book mentioned him twice. I am glad that this is required reading because I really didn't know much about his own thoughts about his work. I knew some theories - like the Zone of Proximal Development, but that's about it.
So Piaget and Vygotsky don't agree on the order that speech develops. Has there been a landmark study [that, perhaps I should know but I don't] that definitively defines the order that speech and thought develops? Somebody enlighten me if one exists.
I want to focus on Vygotsky's discussion of the effects of environment on speech. "Whether the child's talk is more egocentric or more social depends not only on his age but also on the surrounding conditions" (Vygotsky 55). I attended a reading conference today and heard two different speakers refer to Hart and Risley landmark study of children's exposure to vocabulary. I believe we touched on this in class once before, but I'll give some additional background information about that study. In their book, Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children, Betty Hart and Todd Risley discuss their longitudinal study (lasting 2-1/2 years) involving 42 families. Each month they recorded one hour of conversation (every word uttered) between professional, working class, or welfare parents and their children. They estimate that a 3 year-old from a professional family will hear 11 million words in a year, children in working class families hear about 6 million words, and a child from a welfare family will hear only 3 million. That means that 3 years into life, some children already have an 8 million word listening vocabulary advantage over other children.
Although Vygotsky was referring to a child's spoken language and not his listening vocabulary, this would obviously have a huge impact on that as well. So, yeah, Vygotsky is right - the social aspect in a child's speech at home is huge. Hart and Risely also discovered that welfare kids heard more negative statements like, "Don't do that" or "Get the remote control" and professional children were the recipients of more positively couched statements like "Good for you" and "That's right!"
I'll bet Vygotsky would love to weigh in on the ramifications of this study in regards to the development of speech and thought. Without a doubt, the "surrounding conditions" and "social milieus" (56) DO matter.
So Piaget and Vygotsky don't agree on the order that speech develops. Has there been a landmark study [that, perhaps I should know but I don't] that definitively defines the order that speech and thought develops? Somebody enlighten me if one exists.
I want to focus on Vygotsky's discussion of the effects of environment on speech. "Whether the child's talk is more egocentric or more social depends not only on his age but also on the surrounding conditions" (Vygotsky 55). I attended a reading conference today and heard two different speakers refer to Hart and Risley landmark study of children's exposure to vocabulary. I believe we touched on this in class once before, but I'll give some additional background information about that study. In their book, Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children, Betty Hart and Todd Risley discuss their longitudinal study (lasting 2-1/2 years) involving 42 families. Each month they recorded one hour of conversation (every word uttered) between professional, working class, or welfare parents and their children. They estimate that a 3 year-old from a professional family will hear 11 million words in a year, children in working class families hear about 6 million words, and a child from a welfare family will hear only 3 million. That means that 3 years into life, some children already have an 8 million word listening vocabulary advantage over other children.
Although Vygotsky was referring to a child's spoken language and not his listening vocabulary, this would obviously have a huge impact on that as well. So, yeah, Vygotsky is right - the social aspect in a child's speech at home is huge. Hart and Risely also discovered that welfare kids heard more negative statements like, "Don't do that" or "Get the remote control" and professional children were the recipients of more positively couched statements like "Good for you" and "That's right!"
I'll bet Vygotsky would love to weigh in on the ramifications of this study in regards to the development of speech and thought. Without a doubt, the "surrounding conditions" and "social milieus" (56) DO matter.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Ong, Whorf, and the Test Craze
And now a word (or two) about Ong’s “The Orality of Language” from Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word:
I found it interesting to consider the ways in which we can never leave our literacy, such as the example Ong provides with the word nevertheless. It’s true—I cannot think of a word like that without thinking of what the word looks like. However, with nouns, I believe it’s different. I would imagine that most people who are familiar with a noun would conjure the picture in their mind. But if one is not familiar, than the brain would attempt to form the word in the mind’s eye, ready to make some connection to a picture as soon as the opportunity arises. Additionally, I found it intriguing that although we have made great technological strides by the invention of the telephone to be able to communicate using oral verbalization only, many of us insist on texting and emailing to communicate, keeping us tethered to our need for the written word. And, I just noticed as I was typing this blog, that texting is not part of acceptable grammar according to my software. And, for the record, blog also falls into that category. Is our grammar even able to keep up with our literacy?
But isn’t it interesting, though, how a great deal of meaning can get lost in written verbalization? Think about how many times you’ve received an email, not really certain of the tone or intention. Or, when you send an email, you are ever so careful to word it, because you do not want your message to be misconstrued or misjudged. Or maybe it’s just me. Anyway, this essay also made me think about poetry and song lyrics and how much is lost with just reading the words, rather than gathering all the beautiful sounds and figurative language and allowing them to blossom in your mind.
This essay tapped into a world I had not previously considered, a place where written verbalization had never existed and, thus, where those functions derived from literacy had not developed. It’s difficult to imagine a world where orality is primary, just as it would be difficult to perceive a horse having only seen or had contact with automobiles using only automobiles as the reference point (I’m such a nerd that I loved Ong’s “punnage” here). I’m not sure as a literate society that we can truly perceive a world without the written word, but I can fully appreciate that “without writing, human consciousness cannot achieve its fuller potentials, cannot produce other beautiful and powerful creations” (14-15). But “to die to continue living” (15)? How would entering literacy create a death for those living in such a world? Friere would likely cringe at the thought.
Now onto Mr. Whorf’s thoughts in “An American Indian Model of the Universe”:
Personally, I think he could have explained the premise as he did through perhaps page 58 or even 59 and concluded that “the Hopi language gets along perfectly without tenses for its verbs” and I would have been perfectly content. I don’t think I would have missed the references to geometry, phenomena of the universe (seriously, what is a nadir—in layman’s terms?), metaphysics, manifested and manifesting as objective and subjective, the realm of expectancy, Whorf’s terminology of Hopi grammar, and some Hopi words translated to some verbose English as the message would have been delivered to me. I did find some of the discussion on the absence of Hopi words for time and space to be fascinating, especially on page 59, where Whorf describes the Hopi’s “definition” of the future. We are all connected, and this philosophy, so to speak, puts the future into a fascinating perspective.
Interestingly, I thought of Friere as I read the following on page 60: “It is the realm of expectancy, of desire and purpose, of vitalizing life, of efficient causes, of thought thinking itself out from an inner realm (the Hopian heart) into manifestation.” Isn’t this what becoming fully human is all about? I think many of us have lost this ability or perhaps it’s just the desire that’s missing. Where do I sign up for some "Hopi" training?
Imagine English without all those irritating tenses! Could it work? Could we speak without tenses? Could we write without tenses? Likely, we could speak without them because we would have other ways of communicating at our disposal. But writing without tenses? Interesting point to ponder. Could we, as a society, be less annal about time? Likely, no.
Test Craze:
I wasn’t sure whether we were to blog about the articles Julie gave us, but I did find them interesting and enlightening. I must admit, some testing is important, but I guess it’s this craze that we find nowadays in many schools is what makes teachers throw up their arms in confusion and disgust. I do know that many schools have these “test pep rallies,” and I thought they were silly when I first heard about them. During my first year of teaching, when I was a PSSA coach (and yes, my salary was funded by a grant from the state), we administered Foresight tests to our 6th, 7th, and 8th graders. Not only did I get sick of collecting the data, but the students certainly tired to taking basically the same test five times. The only way I found that truly motivated most of the students was to offer some extrinsic reward. Most of these “remedial” students could easily score proficient, but were just didn’t care. The tests were annoying and meant nothing, to them anyway. When we offered monetary and other types of rewards for score improvement, we typically got them. Only a few tried, but they just didn’t have the skills. Motivation seems to be the key, and that’s where it can get tricky. More tests and rallies are definitely not the answer, in my humble opinion. Finding a way to motivate is where it’s at, and that won’t be found in teaching to the test or in LFS.
I found it interesting to consider the ways in which we can never leave our literacy, such as the example Ong provides with the word nevertheless. It’s true—I cannot think of a word like that without thinking of what the word looks like. However, with nouns, I believe it’s different. I would imagine that most people who are familiar with a noun would conjure the picture in their mind. But if one is not familiar, than the brain would attempt to form the word in the mind’s eye, ready to make some connection to a picture as soon as the opportunity arises. Additionally, I found it intriguing that although we have made great technological strides by the invention of the telephone to be able to communicate using oral verbalization only, many of us insist on texting and emailing to communicate, keeping us tethered to our need for the written word. And, I just noticed as I was typing this blog, that texting is not part of acceptable grammar according to my software. And, for the record, blog also falls into that category. Is our grammar even able to keep up with our literacy?
But isn’t it interesting, though, how a great deal of meaning can get lost in written verbalization? Think about how many times you’ve received an email, not really certain of the tone or intention. Or, when you send an email, you are ever so careful to word it, because you do not want your message to be misconstrued or misjudged. Or maybe it’s just me. Anyway, this essay also made me think about poetry and song lyrics and how much is lost with just reading the words, rather than gathering all the beautiful sounds and figurative language and allowing them to blossom in your mind.
This essay tapped into a world I had not previously considered, a place where written verbalization had never existed and, thus, where those functions derived from literacy had not developed. It’s difficult to imagine a world where orality is primary, just as it would be difficult to perceive a horse having only seen or had contact with automobiles using only automobiles as the reference point (I’m such a nerd that I loved Ong’s “punnage” here). I’m not sure as a literate society that we can truly perceive a world without the written word, but I can fully appreciate that “without writing, human consciousness cannot achieve its fuller potentials, cannot produce other beautiful and powerful creations” (14-15). But “to die to continue living” (15)? How would entering literacy create a death for those living in such a world? Friere would likely cringe at the thought.
Now onto Mr. Whorf’s thoughts in “An American Indian Model of the Universe”:
Personally, I think he could have explained the premise as he did through perhaps page 58 or even 59 and concluded that “the Hopi language gets along perfectly without tenses for its verbs” and I would have been perfectly content. I don’t think I would have missed the references to geometry, phenomena of the universe (seriously, what is a nadir—in layman’s terms?), metaphysics, manifested and manifesting as objective and subjective, the realm of expectancy, Whorf’s terminology of Hopi grammar, and some Hopi words translated to some verbose English as the message would have been delivered to me. I did find some of the discussion on the absence of Hopi words for time and space to be fascinating, especially on page 59, where Whorf describes the Hopi’s “definition” of the future. We are all connected, and this philosophy, so to speak, puts the future into a fascinating perspective.
Interestingly, I thought of Friere as I read the following on page 60: “It is the realm of expectancy, of desire and purpose, of vitalizing life, of efficient causes, of thought thinking itself out from an inner realm (the Hopian heart) into manifestation.” Isn’t this what becoming fully human is all about? I think many of us have lost this ability or perhaps it’s just the desire that’s missing. Where do I sign up for some "Hopi" training?
Imagine English without all those irritating tenses! Could it work? Could we speak without tenses? Could we write without tenses? Likely, we could speak without them because we would have other ways of communicating at our disposal. But writing without tenses? Interesting point to ponder. Could we, as a society, be less annal about time? Likely, no.
Test Craze:
I wasn’t sure whether we were to blog about the articles Julie gave us, but I did find them interesting and enlightening. I must admit, some testing is important, but I guess it’s this craze that we find nowadays in many schools is what makes teachers throw up their arms in confusion and disgust. I do know that many schools have these “test pep rallies,” and I thought they were silly when I first heard about them. During my first year of teaching, when I was a PSSA coach (and yes, my salary was funded by a grant from the state), we administered Foresight tests to our 6th, 7th, and 8th graders. Not only did I get sick of collecting the data, but the students certainly tired to taking basically the same test five times. The only way I found that truly motivated most of the students was to offer some extrinsic reward. Most of these “remedial” students could easily score proficient, but were just didn’t care. The tests were annoying and meant nothing, to them anyway. When we offered monetary and other types of rewards for score improvement, we typically got them. Only a few tried, but they just didn’t have the skills. Motivation seems to be the key, and that’s where it can get tricky. More tests and rallies are definitely not the answer, in my humble opinion. Finding a way to motivate is where it’s at, and that won’t be found in teaching to the test or in LFS.
I like the idea of "availing ourselves of such concepts" (58) when referring to our own cultural norms, in the attempt to understand concepts outside of our own social construction. It has interesting implications, not just between disparate linguistic groups, but between differing groups within the same social construct. In understanding that groups of people can conceive of time and space in opposite, yet valid, ways between cultures, we can extend that principle to people within one culture, learning that perception of the same world often results in differing views of that world.
Considering from where our concepts of our world are generated is a helpful exercise towards a goal of understanding the world of others. Whorf mentions the invalidity of intuition as a source of knowledge when discussing the Hopi concepts of space. Can knowledge really be intuitive or innate? Is anything learned outside of one's social construct. Hence the supremacy of "functional" literacy, and the literacy of dominant ideologues? Concepts of space and time are just as dependant upon one's positional culture as are religion and politics. As strongly as one may believe in the existence of past, present, and future, we see the equal existence of manifested and unmanifest. So, a Christian vehement in his or her beliefs may be equally vehement in the belief of Islam had their cultural position originated in a Muslim family.
The value humans place on the concepts that constitute their reality differ between and among cultural groups. This value system is expressed through language, naming what is important and focusing attention on what knowledge is needed for one's ability to function. The Hopi language reflects the value system and social construction of its people, as every language does for its people. One's ability to understand the value system of a particular society, use its language, and obey the social 'norms' establishes their cultural, social and functional literacy.
Considering from where our concepts of our world are generated is a helpful exercise towards a goal of understanding the world of others. Whorf mentions the invalidity of intuition as a source of knowledge when discussing the Hopi concepts of space. Can knowledge really be intuitive or innate? Is anything learned outside of one's social construct. Hence the supremacy of "functional" literacy, and the literacy of dominant ideologues? Concepts of space and time are just as dependant upon one's positional culture as are religion and politics. As strongly as one may believe in the existence of past, present, and future, we see the equal existence of manifested and unmanifest. So, a Christian vehement in his or her beliefs may be equally vehement in the belief of Islam had their cultural position originated in a Muslim family.
The value humans place on the concepts that constitute their reality differ between and among cultural groups. This value system is expressed through language, naming what is important and focusing attention on what knowledge is needed for one's ability to function. The Hopi language reflects the value system and social construction of its people, as every language does for its people. One's ability to understand the value system of a particular society, use its language, and obey the social 'norms' establishes their cultural, social and functional literacy.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Can't think of a catchy title
So, let me get this straight. The Hopi essentially have no concept of time (60-61). What a wonderful culture to be part of. They must not rush to go anywhere or do anything. They all just wait for each other. Eventually, someone will show up...for something. It's their cultural literacy. I'd go crazy. My cultural literacy is time-driven. So is the cultural literacy of everyone I know. Even if they are on vacation. It's still rushed and time-driven and can potentially be unenjoyable if too much is planned. The Hopi do not question where they are, how they ended up there, or where they are headed (61). They go with the flow. I really wish I could do that. But I, along with countless others, overthink everything. What a great world they live in...no concept of time, including past, present, or future. Just hope. Interesting and scary. This must be the fear of freedom Friere was referring to.
I read the Ong chapter on the heels of having visited the urbandictionary.com website. As a side note, I have officially dubbed a teacher as Lego Hair. This means: a particularly shitty male haircut in which the sides cover the ears and the hair appears to be "snap on". Perfect. Now I can make a seamless transition to orality. I usually do not latch on to something in the reading as early as the second page, but I really connected with Saussure's definition of writing: "a compliment to oral speech." Writing is not merely expressing thoughts in words on paper. Communicating is not just talking. (7) I suppose, like I've said before, that this is one of those things that we all know, but just don't articulate often, if at all. Seeing it in writing clarifies it, for me anyway. It's all related to cultural literacy.
I thought of my grandmother's stories and Italian translations of stories and her hand motions when I read certain portions of this article. I made a Heritage scrapbook of photos and stories and family trees for her before she died while she was in a nursing home. The pages were well worn and viewed. After she died and I read the things I had written with her help, I knew that the true story was not there. No hand motions. No faces. No broken English imitations as she imitated her mother's accent, who came right from Belvedere, Italy to Ellis Island. No imitating her mother crawling down the fire escape in the No Hair story. All of that escapes in my written translation of her words. I never did ask why my great-grandmother was doing that, but anyway, her mother came down the escape and back into their Brooklyn apartment and in shocked Italian exclaimed that she saw her upstairs male neighbor through his window...naked...no hair! Anywhere! No hair no hair no hair. And she pointed to various locations on the body that needed hair. I heard the story dozens of times, laughed hysterically each time watching my short Italian grandmother get up and do the no hair no hair no hair hand gestures. I laugh when I read it, but nobody else will see what I saw when the story was told each time. We really are a culture of "orality."
I read the Ong chapter on the heels of having visited the urbandictionary.com website. As a side note, I have officially dubbed a teacher as Lego Hair. This means: a particularly shitty male haircut in which the sides cover the ears and the hair appears to be "snap on". Perfect. Now I can make a seamless transition to orality. I usually do not latch on to something in the reading as early as the second page, but I really connected with Saussure's definition of writing: "a compliment to oral speech." Writing is not merely expressing thoughts in words on paper. Communicating is not just talking. (7) I suppose, like I've said before, that this is one of those things that we all know, but just don't articulate often, if at all. Seeing it in writing clarifies it, for me anyway. It's all related to cultural literacy.
I thought of my grandmother's stories and Italian translations of stories and her hand motions when I read certain portions of this article. I made a Heritage scrapbook of photos and stories and family trees for her before she died while she was in a nursing home. The pages were well worn and viewed. After she died and I read the things I had written with her help, I knew that the true story was not there. No hand motions. No faces. No broken English imitations as she imitated her mother's accent, who came right from Belvedere, Italy to Ellis Island. No imitating her mother crawling down the fire escape in the No Hair story. All of that escapes in my written translation of her words. I never did ask why my great-grandmother was doing that, but anyway, her mother came down the escape and back into their Brooklyn apartment and in shocked Italian exclaimed that she saw her upstairs male neighbor through his window...naked...no hair! Anywhere! No hair no hair no hair. And she pointed to various locations on the body that needed hair. I heard the story dozens of times, laughed hysterically each time watching my short Italian grandmother get up and do the no hair no hair no hair hand gestures. I laugh when I read it, but nobody else will see what I saw when the story was told each time. We really are a culture of "orality."
Ong widda ong, dang a dang Hopi Hopi
Cheesiest title yet. Moving on...
"We are not concerned with the so-called computer languages..." (Ong 7) But perhaps we should be. My co-worker, Victor, is a self taught wizard at any sort of computer based editing. Video, audio, digital imaging. And before everyone relegates that to pasting Sarah Palin's head on a gun and bikini body, I want to point out a feature of some new software he got the other day. It allows him to type in a phrase (e.g. "and then Bam fell of the wall") and it can search through a collection of audio and video clips for every oral instance of that phrase. Here's why this is significant: Ong's intoduction portays a linear development from oral, to written, to electronic. No problem there. We must not confuse development with purpose and usage though. The secondary reality of the electronic medium is circling us back into the oral, from storytellers, to novelists, to YouTube, as it were. What could the next development possibly be? Each medium depends on the chronologically prior to come into existence, but the danger lies in assuming that a new development makes the earlier ones obsolete.
Whorf (I'm sorry, I'm not going to make the Star trek joke, but I couldn't get it out of my head.)
I'm not going to be quoting Whorf's Data (or his Ryker, or his Picard. Ok, sorry, I'll quit it, a little punchy this week).
2 points: Maybe I've got a little Hopi in me, I've argued for the non-existence of time since my undergrad metaphysics course 14 years ago. Their spatial concept being wrapped up in the relation of manifesting to manifested is actually more coherent than our view of space and time as entirely different kinds of conceptual fields. Ours space and time may interpenetrate each other; their manifesting and manifested actually touch each other.
Point 2: What does this reading have to do with a classroom, or Literacy discourse, anyway? Here's my take. I doubt I'll frequently have a Hopi in my classes. However, I will have people with different weltanshauungs shaped by their out of school language. I need to be ready to for the confusion I and they will experience when our linguistic universes don't match, and treat those instances as opportunities for both our worlds to grow. Otherwise, I'll become a Freirean oppresor-educator, by forcing the student to accept my language as the "proper" one.
"We are not concerned with the so-called computer languages..." (Ong 7) But perhaps we should be. My co-worker, Victor, is a self taught wizard at any sort of computer based editing. Video, audio, digital imaging. And before everyone relegates that to pasting Sarah Palin's head on a gun and bikini body, I want to point out a feature of some new software he got the other day. It allows him to type in a phrase (e.g. "and then Bam fell of the wall") and it can search through a collection of audio and video clips for every oral instance of that phrase. Here's why this is significant: Ong's intoduction portays a linear development from oral, to written, to electronic. No problem there. We must not confuse development with purpose and usage though. The secondary reality of the electronic medium is circling us back into the oral, from storytellers, to novelists, to YouTube, as it were. What could the next development possibly be? Each medium depends on the chronologically prior to come into existence, but the danger lies in assuming that a new development makes the earlier ones obsolete.
Whorf (I'm sorry, I'm not going to make the Star trek joke, but I couldn't get it out of my head.)
I'm not going to be quoting Whorf's Data (or his Ryker, or his Picard. Ok, sorry, I'll quit it, a little punchy this week).
2 points: Maybe I've got a little Hopi in me, I've argued for the non-existence of time since my undergrad metaphysics course 14 years ago. Their spatial concept being wrapped up in the relation of manifesting to manifested is actually more coherent than our view of space and time as entirely different kinds of conceptual fields. Ours space and time may interpenetrate each other; their manifesting and manifested actually touch each other.
Point 2: What does this reading have to do with a classroom, or Literacy discourse, anyway? Here's my take. I doubt I'll frequently have a Hopi in my classes. However, I will have people with different weltanshauungs shaped by their out of school language. I need to be ready to for the confusion I and they will experience when our linguistic universes don't match, and treat those instances as opportunities for both our worlds to grow. Otherwise, I'll become a Freirean oppresor-educator, by forcing the student to accept my language as the "proper" one.
Write about Talking
I enjoyed Ong's piece on orality and literacy. He made me reconsider my views about what literacy really is. Many personal moments came to me as I read this...
I teach Beowulf to seniors in high school. We read the written word and it's a great story. Wouldn't it be a bigger and more genuine story if we were to hear it from a storyteller as it was intended to be told? What would those nuances that Ong discussed be like? What gestures would accompany the story of Grendel coming into the mead hall to feast on human flesh? What inflections would the storyteller use as Beowulf fights his last battle as a broken man? The story changed over time, and I imagine some of those changes had to come about as a reaction to what was going on in the world around them. Once it is written it stays in the same basic form. Is this a loss or a gain?
My father is from a VERY rural part of Virginia. I'm always at a loss for words (pardon the pun) when I try to describe it to others. You have to see it and hear it. My uncle Albert was a great storyteller. At family gatherings, we would sit on my Aunt Rena's front porch and listen to stories. Albert always had the biggest and the quietest audience. My dad was the youngest of ten children, so Albert's stories often revolved around siblings, their parents, or life on the farm...but they were riveting. You can't copy that with words on a piece of paper. There are no films or voice recordings of his stories and I feel a great loss there. So even if I do write down what I remember from him, something is lost in that oral tradition.
That culture was and still is an oral culture. Farmers still gather at breakfast and discuss the weather and its effects on the crops. To listen to the cadence, the pauses, the music of their oral language is an education. You don't see someone pulling out a manual to fix a broken tractor. A father teaches his kids by explaining and showing them how to do it. There aren't a lot of books in their homes. I'm not saying they're stupid or uneducated. On the contrary. The language of their lives is rich. The culture I'm used to seems more sophisticated, but I'm not convinced it's better.
I thought Whorf's piece was more difficult. I loved his discussion of the two cosmic forms in the Hopi language, manifested and manifesting. He says, "The subjective or manifesting comprises all that we call future, BUT NOT MERELY THIS, it includes equally and indistinguishably all that we call mental - everything that appears or exists in the mind..." (59). He ties this in with the "striving of purposeful desire" (60). Here again, language seems to have this possibility for change in its matter. The oral language cannot be contained like the written word. That expectancy is just not inherent in written language.
I recently took some students to the Dodge Poetry Festival in New Jersey. I got to hear Joy Harjo speak about language and poetry. She's from New Mexico, a member of the Muskogee people. She said that she has to hear the music of a poem before she can write it. Seeing her perform a poem is nothing like you've seen before. She begins with what you would expect, words from the page, but then she is casually shifts to the voice, the song, of the Muskogee people. This oral presentation of her work is much more alive than the words on the page. She spoke about language and our modern use of it. She said that with cell phones and computers, we are distilling language, compacting it to suit our needs and in the process we are losing the inherent metaphors that she thinks are so much a part of our language.
For me, the most important words she spoke that day were her ideas about the spoken word. She said that we gain nourishment from speaking to each other and being near each other, and you can't get that from words on a paper. I know that books help us realize that we are not alone. All kinds of emotions are communicated in books and poetry. But there's nothing like sitting with actual human beings and sharing an oral tradition. That will cure your feelings of angst in the 21st century.
I teach Beowulf to seniors in high school. We read the written word and it's a great story. Wouldn't it be a bigger and more genuine story if we were to hear it from a storyteller as it was intended to be told? What would those nuances that Ong discussed be like? What gestures would accompany the story of Grendel coming into the mead hall to feast on human flesh? What inflections would the storyteller use as Beowulf fights his last battle as a broken man? The story changed over time, and I imagine some of those changes had to come about as a reaction to what was going on in the world around them. Once it is written it stays in the same basic form. Is this a loss or a gain?
My father is from a VERY rural part of Virginia. I'm always at a loss for words (pardon the pun) when I try to describe it to others. You have to see it and hear it. My uncle Albert was a great storyteller. At family gatherings, we would sit on my Aunt Rena's front porch and listen to stories. Albert always had the biggest and the quietest audience. My dad was the youngest of ten children, so Albert's stories often revolved around siblings, their parents, or life on the farm...but they were riveting. You can't copy that with words on a piece of paper. There are no films or voice recordings of his stories and I feel a great loss there. So even if I do write down what I remember from him, something is lost in that oral tradition.
That culture was and still is an oral culture. Farmers still gather at breakfast and discuss the weather and its effects on the crops. To listen to the cadence, the pauses, the music of their oral language is an education. You don't see someone pulling out a manual to fix a broken tractor. A father teaches his kids by explaining and showing them how to do it. There aren't a lot of books in their homes. I'm not saying they're stupid or uneducated. On the contrary. The language of their lives is rich. The culture I'm used to seems more sophisticated, but I'm not convinced it's better.
I thought Whorf's piece was more difficult. I loved his discussion of the two cosmic forms in the Hopi language, manifested and manifesting. He says, "The subjective or manifesting comprises all that we call future, BUT NOT MERELY THIS, it includes equally and indistinguishably all that we call mental - everything that appears or exists in the mind..." (59). He ties this in with the "striving of purposeful desire" (60). Here again, language seems to have this possibility for change in its matter. The oral language cannot be contained like the written word. That expectancy is just not inherent in written language.
I recently took some students to the Dodge Poetry Festival in New Jersey. I got to hear Joy Harjo speak about language and poetry. She's from New Mexico, a member of the Muskogee people. She said that she has to hear the music of a poem before she can write it. Seeing her perform a poem is nothing like you've seen before. She begins with what you would expect, words from the page, but then she is casually shifts to the voice, the song, of the Muskogee people. This oral presentation of her work is much more alive than the words on the page. She spoke about language and our modern use of it. She said that with cell phones and computers, we are distilling language, compacting it to suit our needs and in the process we are losing the inherent metaphors that she thinks are so much a part of our language.
For me, the most important words she spoke that day were her ideas about the spoken word. She said that we gain nourishment from speaking to each other and being near each other, and you can't get that from words on a paper. I know that books help us realize that we are not alone. All kinds of emotions are communicated in books and poetry. But there's nothing like sitting with actual human beings and sharing an oral tradition. That will cure your feelings of angst in the 21st century.
oral, the poetry of words
I have been doing a bit of reading that includes Native American poetry of the 20th Century and a great little book This Craft of Verse, Jorge Borges lectures @ Harvard from the late 60's. They both fit into the work by WJO. The overlapping and disconnects of oral cultures and chrographic(what an exclusive term) cultures today seem to center around the purpose of the communication. The face-to-face basis of both are still communication. I love his comment, "Writing, commitment of the word to space, enlarges the potentiality of language almost beyond measure" and then the key, "restructures thought" (7). What is the word meaning? What might be lost in the translation from the verbal to the written? Sometimes in the judgement of "literacy" possibly we make a judgement of higher and lower, more intelligent and less intelligent with the written word. But without the possibility of oral and the verbal art, might there not be disconnect in our communication with others? Speech sets the spoken word in a time, place,with a person and purpose. Can not the written change? Yet, the variances of an oral story can switch meaning with a gestures, an intonation, the audience, the occasion. Perhaps the variance in written is more academic? "Though words are grounded in oral speech, writing tyrannically locks them into a visual field forever"(12). And yet the many different languages that are written must be translated when those of us not fluent in the original language must depend on others for placing the word choice and even the nuances into the words and therefore the meanings. There can be no denying the importance of the written word in our modern world. We need to read and write on some level to live in our lives, but the face to face of oral communication even today needs to be cultivated.
Just a short mention of some of the connections between "Orality and Literacy" and Borges lectures. [ties to the theories of dialogue from Freire?} He is discussing the contribution of poetry (a written verbal art, if that can exist?) when he recollects, "I think Emerson wrote somewhere that a library is a magic cavern which is full of dead men. And those dead men can only be reborn, can be brought back to life when you open their pages". It is then that we have a resurrection of the words. Even those words that are resurrected through time, place, and person find another expression in the life or the oral use of the written word.
Well, I am rambling ...but check out some Native American poetry, The Iliad, Odyssey, The 4 Gospels, and perhaps 1001 Arabian Nights and the words will become oral even if only in your head. Written Words of hope, courage, remembering, and fun-"the voices of Humankind" put into a time and space. That is how the oral and the written connect for me. In our place and time there is value in the beauty of the oral and the written. Neither one is "more literate than the other"-just set in a time and place based on our purpose.
Just a short mention of some of the connections between "Orality and Literacy" and Borges lectures. [ties to the theories of dialogue from Freire?} He is discussing the contribution of poetry (a written verbal art, if that can exist?) when he recollects, "I think Emerson wrote somewhere that a library is a magic cavern which is full of dead men. And those dead men can only be reborn, can be brought back to life when you open their pages". It is then that we have a resurrection of the words. Even those words that are resurrected through time, place, and person find another expression in the life or the oral use of the written word.
Well, I am rambling ...but check out some Native American poetry, The Iliad, Odyssey, The 4 Gospels, and perhaps 1001 Arabian Nights and the words will become oral even if only in your head. Written Words of hope, courage, remembering, and fun-"the voices of Humankind" put into a time and space. That is how the oral and the written connect for me. In our place and time there is value in the beauty of the oral and the written. Neither one is "more literate than the other"-just set in a time and place based on our purpose.
Monday, October 6, 2008
"Writing can never dispense with orality" Yep.
I liked Walter Ong much more than Benjamin Whorf. He hooked me in his introduction where he mentioned the synchronicity factor between orality and script and our need to keep time as a frame of reference in order to absorb the idea that cultures survived without writing for at least 24,000 years. Wow! I stayed with Whorf while he discussed the lack of "time" words in the Hopi language. I understand his points about the non-existence of "time" words in the Hopi language. Therefore, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to study orality and script diachronically from the Hopi perspective. (!)
So, let's talk Ong and some of his most thought-provoking lines:
"Language is so overwhelmingly oral..." I completely agree. I see this regularly when working with my students. Their fluency with written language (whether reading it or writing it) pales in comparison to their fluent use of oral language. I've had more than one student tell me that he'll (it's usually a male) never read once he leaves school. Well, I guess in some cultures, he could seriously survive that way.
"Of the some 3000 languages spoken that exist today only some 78 have a literature" WOW! I think they're missing out on a powerful component of language. I wonder if they'd agree.
"The basic orality of language is permanent." I never really thought of it that way, but duh. Yeah. We obviously can survive without the written component (as many cultures have proven over time), but it's the orality that we can't live without. That's the human's primary means of communication.
"Writing, commitment of the word to space..." Deep.
"Written texts all have to be related somehow, directly or indirectly, to the world of sound...Reading a text means converting it to sound, aloud or in the imagination..." I am going to discuss this with my students. They read aloud daily in class but it's not their favorite activity. However, it's the sense of hearing that is most important in the delivery of language. Reading aloud is yet another way to sharpen that sense.
"Writing can never dispense with orality." Yep.
"Rhetoric was and had to be a product of writing." I thought it was interesting to note that, back in "the day", the sign of a poor orator would have been his need to write things down before speaking. It's funny how things reverse in time - now it's often the opposite. Shooting from the hip (no matter how thoughtful or planned) is often seen as less professional than the polished written speech.
"Written words are residue. Oral tradition has no such residue or deposit." It makes writing sound so dirty.
"A literate person cannot fully recover a sense of what the word is to purely oral people." I don't think I can.
..."to disassociate words from writing is psychologically threatening, for literates' sense of control over language is closely tied to the visual transformations of language: without dictionaries, written grammar rules...how can literates live?" Here's another indication that I'm a control freak. I think I could live - but it doesn't seem like it'd be nearly as much fun or rewarding.
So, let's talk Ong and some of his most thought-provoking lines:
"Language is so overwhelmingly oral..." I completely agree. I see this regularly when working with my students. Their fluency with written language (whether reading it or writing it) pales in comparison to their fluent use of oral language. I've had more than one student tell me that he'll (it's usually a male) never read once he leaves school. Well, I guess in some cultures, he could seriously survive that way.
"Of the some 3000 languages spoken that exist today only some 78 have a literature" WOW! I think they're missing out on a powerful component of language. I wonder if they'd agree.
"The basic orality of language is permanent." I never really thought of it that way, but duh. Yeah. We obviously can survive without the written component (as many cultures have proven over time), but it's the orality that we can't live without. That's the human's primary means of communication.
"Writing, commitment of the word to space..." Deep.
"Written texts all have to be related somehow, directly or indirectly, to the world of sound...Reading a text means converting it to sound, aloud or in the imagination..." I am going to discuss this with my students. They read aloud daily in class but it's not their favorite activity. However, it's the sense of hearing that is most important in the delivery of language. Reading aloud is yet another way to sharpen that sense.
"Writing can never dispense with orality." Yep.
"Rhetoric was and had to be a product of writing." I thought it was interesting to note that, back in "the day", the sign of a poor orator would have been his need to write things down before speaking. It's funny how things reverse in time - now it's often the opposite. Shooting from the hip (no matter how thoughtful or planned) is often seen as less professional than the polished written speech.
"Written words are residue. Oral tradition has no such residue or deposit." It makes writing sound so dirty.
"A literate person cannot fully recover a sense of what the word is to purely oral people." I don't think I can.
..."to disassociate words from writing is psychologically threatening, for literates' sense of control over language is closely tied to the visual transformations of language: without dictionaries, written grammar rules...how can literates live?" Here's another indication that I'm a control freak. I think I could live - but it doesn't seem like it'd be nearly as much fun or rewarding.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The Machine
Welcome my son
Welcome to the machine
Where have you been?
It's alright we know where you've been
You've been in the pipeline
Filling in time
Provided with toys and scouting for boys
You brought a guitar to punish your ma
And you didn't like school
And you know you're nobody's fool
So welcome to the machine
Welcome my son
Welcome to the machine
What did you dream?
It's alright we told you what to dream
You dreamed of a big star
He played a mean gituar
He always ate in the Steak Bar
He loved to drive in his Jaguar
So welcome to the Machine
--Pink Floyd
Welcome to the machine
Where have you been?
It's alright we know where you've been
You've been in the pipeline
Filling in time
Provided with toys and scouting for boys
You brought a guitar to punish your ma
And you didn't like school
And you know you're nobody's fool
So welcome to the machine
Welcome my son
Welcome to the machine
What did you dream?
It's alright we told you what to dream
You dreamed of a big star
He played a mean gituar
He always ate in the Steak Bar
He loved to drive in his Jaguar
So welcome to the Machine
--Pink Floyd
Welcome to our inauthentic world!
Apparently I only thought the first part of Friere was the most difficult thing I have ever read and tried to comprehend. This second part was undeniably challenging, and the only thing that saved me was his (finally) concrete examples toward the end of Chapter 3. Again, my dictionary (online and otherwise) got a workout, and even then the words weren’t so kind. So, let’s see if I understand Friere’s message.
Put your money where your mouth is! We shouldn’t just talk about action; we must be ready to participate. Haven’t we all seen this scenario? A group of people meet to discuss a matter and either it never gets resolved because people tend to just want to share their opinions, even at the expense of ignoring others’, (verbalism, as Friere puts it) without the commitment to make the solution work, or a resolution is easily found but no one wants to carry it out. But then, we can’t have action without dialogue for this is action for action’s sake or perhaps only one person’s solution to the problem. We cannot create without dialogue, and we cannot have dialogue among only a few. As Friere has consistently reminded us, dialogue is the right of everyone, but is that even possible?
I got a bit hung up with Friere’s discussion on the “naming of the world.” Was he referring to the necessity of dialogue to create and re-create the world as it needs to be to meet the needs of all? I would appreciate any insight on this. I did, agree, though (as I understand it) that love truly needs to be part of the dialogue process. If we do not love others, how can we act in their best interests? This is quite an obstacle—is it surmountable? Can we sincerely love others in whom we find very few redeeming qualities?
One quote that especially spoke to me is on page 91 when Friere discusses the necessary elements of dialogue and how these create trust. He writes, “To say one thing and do another—to take one’s own word lightly—cannot inspire trust. To glorify democracy and to silence the people is a farce; to discourse on humanism and to negate people is a lie.” This certainly brought to my mind two types of people. First is the unethical politician who takes his (I use the male pronouns for sake of brevity, but it can apply to either sex) own words so lightly, he forgets what he says or who he says it to. He wants everyone to believe he has their best interests at heart, but he doesn’t really care what his constituents want or say. Second is the religious zealot who professes he does God’s work, but not all people have equal footing in his world. He may preach pro-life, but sees nothing wrong with murdering doctors who perform abortions. He may preach that God loves everyone, but excludes those who “sin” from his circle. Hypocrisy is a valuable and effective tool used by oppressors everywhere. Buy some today!!!
I must be honest—when Friere began discussing generative themes, epochs and thematic universes, I struggled. I even went back to the beginning of Chapter 3 to see if perhaps I missed the light switch the first time around. I continued to read, hoping that eventually my brain could absorb and comprehend, but it all seemed a blur till I hit the concrete examples! When he addressed the need for the oppressed to address their own problems and create their own solutions, I couldn’t help but think of the California migrant camps in the 1930s. No one but those who lived in the camps could truly understand the unique culture. This was likely the reason they sought to govern themselves through democratic style meetings. They were poor and fought to exist (yes, I use that in Friere’s terminology), but only they themselves could recognize problems and formulate solutions. And each camp was different and had different rules; it just depended upon the themes (am I using this correctly?) of those who lived there. Then the government (among others) had to step in . . . .
I have just one more question: with regards to education, is Friere advocating that the students (teacher-students) come up with their own curriculum and their own time line? One page 108, I understood him to suggest that educators should not plan each day ahead, that they should see what each day brings. I can see how this would bring reluctant learners on board, but is it practical? Is it even possible? As much as I try to add flexibility into my plans, I would not be able to take everyone's wants and needs into consideration. I would go mad.
Put your money where your mouth is! We shouldn’t just talk about action; we must be ready to participate. Haven’t we all seen this scenario? A group of people meet to discuss a matter and either it never gets resolved because people tend to just want to share their opinions, even at the expense of ignoring others’, (verbalism, as Friere puts it) without the commitment to make the solution work, or a resolution is easily found but no one wants to carry it out. But then, we can’t have action without dialogue for this is action for action’s sake or perhaps only one person’s solution to the problem. We cannot create without dialogue, and we cannot have dialogue among only a few. As Friere has consistently reminded us, dialogue is the right of everyone, but is that even possible?
I got a bit hung up with Friere’s discussion on the “naming of the world.” Was he referring to the necessity of dialogue to create and re-create the world as it needs to be to meet the needs of all? I would appreciate any insight on this. I did, agree, though (as I understand it) that love truly needs to be part of the dialogue process. If we do not love others, how can we act in their best interests? This is quite an obstacle—is it surmountable? Can we sincerely love others in whom we find very few redeeming qualities?
One quote that especially spoke to me is on page 91 when Friere discusses the necessary elements of dialogue and how these create trust. He writes, “To say one thing and do another—to take one’s own word lightly—cannot inspire trust. To glorify democracy and to silence the people is a farce; to discourse on humanism and to negate people is a lie.” This certainly brought to my mind two types of people. First is the unethical politician who takes his (I use the male pronouns for sake of brevity, but it can apply to either sex) own words so lightly, he forgets what he says or who he says it to. He wants everyone to believe he has their best interests at heart, but he doesn’t really care what his constituents want or say. Second is the religious zealot who professes he does God’s work, but not all people have equal footing in his world. He may preach pro-life, but sees nothing wrong with murdering doctors who perform abortions. He may preach that God loves everyone, but excludes those who “sin” from his circle. Hypocrisy is a valuable and effective tool used by oppressors everywhere. Buy some today!!!
I must be honest—when Friere began discussing generative themes, epochs and thematic universes, I struggled. I even went back to the beginning of Chapter 3 to see if perhaps I missed the light switch the first time around. I continued to read, hoping that eventually my brain could absorb and comprehend, but it all seemed a blur till I hit the concrete examples! When he addressed the need for the oppressed to address their own problems and create their own solutions, I couldn’t help but think of the California migrant camps in the 1930s. No one but those who lived in the camps could truly understand the unique culture. This was likely the reason they sought to govern themselves through democratic style meetings. They were poor and fought to exist (yes, I use that in Friere’s terminology), but only they themselves could recognize problems and formulate solutions. And each camp was different and had different rules; it just depended upon the themes (am I using this correctly?) of those who lived there. Then the government (among others) had to step in . . . .
I have just one more question: with regards to education, is Friere advocating that the students (teacher-students) come up with their own curriculum and their own time line? One page 108, I understood him to suggest that educators should not plan each day ahead, that they should see what each day brings. I can see how this would bring reluctant learners on board, but is it practical? Is it even possible? As much as I try to add flexibility into my plans, I would not be able to take everyone's wants and needs into consideration. I would go mad.
Sometimes educators get stuck in the cycle of mystifications that depict students as incapable of thought before they hit the classroom, despite the best of intentions. We stereotype teenagers from all backgrounds as developmentally or culturally unprepared to face the realities of the world, but this discounts the existence of their lived experience. I believe this it what Freire is asking us to consider when rejecting the metaphor of a student as a empty receptacle waiting to be filled. Students already have consciousness, it is the “consciousness of consciousness”(79) that they lack. On the Friere handout, under the Glossary of Freirean Terms, is the definition of praxis. Included in the definition is its components, one of which is creativity. It is the creativity of the teacher as a sort of moderator in classroom dialogue, posing codifications that empower students to realize their pre-existing abilities for critical thinking in connection to their experience, or helping them to further develop critical thinking through consciousness of their own consciousness that demystifies student realities.
The most important of realizations I had while reading Freire was that I had to be completely honest with myself about my own mystifications. Do I understand the consequences as well as the benefits of liberation for everyone, starting from a capitalistic position? For all Freire’s talk of love, hope, and humanization, he makes it clear that the trade off will be materialism, giving up the “wants” we have been mystified into believing are our “needs”.
The education system is a microcosm of and a preparation for life within the social structure. A libratory education seeks to reform the economic and political structure of our world. However, our country has a history of demonizing, of mystifying, the political and economic structures that threaten the free market and promote equity and humanity across the board.
I love this guy.
The most important of realizations I had while reading Freire was that I had to be completely honest with myself about my own mystifications. Do I understand the consequences as well as the benefits of liberation for everyone, starting from a capitalistic position? For all Freire’s talk of love, hope, and humanization, he makes it clear that the trade off will be materialism, giving up the “wants” we have been mystified into believing are our “needs”.
The education system is a microcosm of and a preparation for life within the social structure. A libratory education seeks to reform the economic and political structure of our world. However, our country has a history of demonizing, of mystifying, the political and economic structures that threaten the free market and promote equity and humanity across the board.
I love this guy.
All you need is love.... and a little dialogue
I was fascinated by the relationship between dialogue and love that Freire brings up. Of course, after reading more closely, I realized how Freire defined love was far more complex than what I had been thinking of. Freire notes that "Dialogue cannot exist, however, in the absence of a profound love for the world and for people...love is at the same time the foundation of dialogue and dialogue itself...Because love is an act of courage, not of fear, love is commitment to others" (89).
If TRUE dialogue between two people is the way to break free from the chain of oppression, then really, what Friere is saying, love is a revolutionary force that causes it. In fact, in his footnotes, Freire tells us that even Guevara said revolution could not happen without "strong feelings of love." What I felt Freire was getting at here was the society of oppression is one without real strong feelings on anything. The teachers who don't engage in dialogue with their students (or any dominant/submissive relationship) because they don't want to give them power to think on their own. If people feel passionately about something, or get behind a cause they believe in, this may lead to revolutionary acts.
As I read the latter chapters of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I couldn't help but to think that after all this talk about the oppressor and oppressed, Friere really showed us how they are more alike than they may even realize. The sad part of all of this is that the oppressors don't really seem to get any true pleasure out of it, in fact, they are being oppressed themselves. Again, as pg 156 illustrates, it really boils down to fear: "To renounce invasion would mean ending their status as dominated and dominators. It would mean abandoning all the myths which nourish invasion, and starting to incarnate dialogical action...and so the fear of freedom takes hold of these men" It must be an interested place to be in, both oppressed and oppressor. But it also makes perfect sense. If people are in a position of power, perhaps not the highest one, but an influential one, such as teacher, then they are the oppressive force against those they are teaching. But they are also influenced by a higher agenda, one they know, that if they do not follow, will result in further oppression unto themselves. Like I said before, it must be a really sad place to be in...
Even the revolutionists must not reply on the banking style of knowledge, as Freire notes that, "Many political and education plans have failed because their authors designed them according to their own personal views of reality, never once taking into account the men in a situation to whom their program was ostensibly directed" (94). I couldn't help but to think about the PSSAs and such that we have been talking about, or teachers who teach what they want to teach not because its in the best interest of the student, but because the teacher feels this is whats important for them to learn.
If TRUE dialogue between two people is the way to break free from the chain of oppression, then really, what Friere is saying, love is a revolutionary force that causes it. In fact, in his footnotes, Freire tells us that even Guevara said revolution could not happen without "strong feelings of love." What I felt Freire was getting at here was the society of oppression is one without real strong feelings on anything. The teachers who don't engage in dialogue with their students (or any dominant/submissive relationship) because they don't want to give them power to think on their own. If people feel passionately about something, or get behind a cause they believe in, this may lead to revolutionary acts.
As I read the latter chapters of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I couldn't help but to think that after all this talk about the oppressor and oppressed, Friere really showed us how they are more alike than they may even realize. The sad part of all of this is that the oppressors don't really seem to get any true pleasure out of it, in fact, they are being oppressed themselves. Again, as pg 156 illustrates, it really boils down to fear: "To renounce invasion would mean ending their status as dominated and dominators. It would mean abandoning all the myths which nourish invasion, and starting to incarnate dialogical action...and so the fear of freedom takes hold of these men" It must be an interested place to be in, both oppressed and oppressor. But it also makes perfect sense. If people are in a position of power, perhaps not the highest one, but an influential one, such as teacher, then they are the oppressive force against those they are teaching. But they are also influenced by a higher agenda, one they know, that if they do not follow, will result in further oppression unto themselves. Like I said before, it must be a really sad place to be in...
Even the revolutionists must not reply on the banking style of knowledge, as Freire notes that, "Many political and education plans have failed because their authors designed them according to their own personal views of reality, never once taking into account the men in a situation to whom their program was ostensibly directed" (94). I couldn't help but to think about the PSSAs and such that we have been talking about, or teachers who teach what they want to teach not because its in the best interest of the student, but because the teacher feels this is whats important for them to learn.
Freire Part Two
First, it's not wonder that this book is not published in the United States. I can't help but see the political ramifications of Freire's theories and they don't exactly fit in with the capitalism gone mad in this country. This book made me ask some big questions. Do we really live in a free society? Do we have a representative government? Could our lawmakers be perceived as oppressors? Am I one of the oppressed? Am I an oppressor?
Freire says that dialogue with all parties is the most important element in revolution. If I consider this in my own little world, then for most of my teaching career has been spent at the mercy of decisions that have been forced upon me without any of my input. Decisions are made by the few and often negatively affect the many. New initiatives , paraded as pedagogy that's in our best interest, are established by administrators who are far removed from the classroom (the antithesis of Freire's theory of immersion) with little or not input from teachers or students. These decisions are made with our "best intentions" in mind. Often, however, major changes in the education system where I teach are made to pad a resume for an administrator who is working on his doctoral thesis. They're also made to pad a resume so he can move on to a higher paying job somewhere else. Just in the last five years changes have been made in curriculum, grading, and scheduling only to have the administrator move on to another district. We are then stuck trying to implement programs we don't want or need.
How is this different from government? We're stuck in a war that most people don't want, and the current president is soon leaving us the oppressed, stuck with paying 18 billion dollars a month for something we did not want in the first place. Was there ever a genuine dialogue?
My favorite line in this book comes from chapter one where Freire writes, "Within their inauthentic view of the world and of themselves, the oppressed feel like 'things' owned by the oppressor. For the latter, to be is to have, almost always at the expense of those who have nothing" 964-65). What's the impetus for change? Freire says that revolution only happens with the oppressed and the oppressors "...both acting together in unshakable solidarity. This solidarity is born only when the leaders witness it by their humble, loving, and courageous encounter with the people. Not all men and women have sufficient courage for this encounter - but when they avoid encounter they become inflexible and treat others as mere objects; instead of nurturing life, they kill it" (129). How can leaders have these humble and loving encounters when they have been born, to borrow Ann Richards' words, with a "silver spoon in their mouths"?
I enjoyed the end of the book where Freire summarizes how oppressors continue to oppress. I liked even more, however, the discussion of the means by which the oppressed together with the oppressors, can enact change. I love the part in the book where Freire says that change cannot happen FOR the oppressed, but WITH them. He reiterates it again when he writes, "No one can, however, unveil the world for another...the adherence of the people is made possible by this unveiling of the world and of themselves, in authentic praxis" (169). A dialogue must take place; total immersion has to happen. I suppose the good news is that this can happen on a small scale. I kept thinking about Mike Rose and his immersion into the lives of his students. In that relatively small world, he did enact change and we can too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
