There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, is absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all- Michel Foucault.
Central to the issues of race, class and gender in literacy has been the need for shifts in perspectives by the teachers charged to bring meaningful literacy experiences to students’ lives. Foucault’s quote represents the importance of perceiving differently. Every time we encounter new thoughts, observations or philosophies can we reflect and truly see in order to continue to see and reflect at all? As a teacher, these shifts in perspective are considerable if I am to understand and see my students’ situated histories. There is a need to not just celebrate diversity but to see further and deeper, layer-by-layer: to see the ‘whole child’s’ hybrid identity.
The readings challenged me to think and perceive differently about my current literacy practices. As Noll notes, meaningful literacy opportunities that link home and school “ Can serve to make visible students cultural knowledge and perspectives” and reveal the literacy strengths of students”. Whilst I recognize the importance of this in my teaching, Hicks discussion of literacy has produced a significant shift in my thinking. Literacy is not just reading and writing, but a cultural and social activity. The children that I teach are not approaching “literacy practices as autonomous reasoners who then individually construct knowledge about literacy practices” (p.15). Daniel and Zonnie were wonderful at “re-authoring” themselves outside of school. They were dancers, poets, and musicians. In these roles they displayed an identity that made sense to them. If their teachers had been more aware of literacy as a social activity and had valued this home discourse then Daniel and Zonnie would not have experienced such conflict and separation. Staples in particular seemed to find a way to help her students bridge the gap. By using relevant movies and books, she was able to engage students in purposeful literacy that encompassed cultural and social practices.
Henry’s discussions about the roadblocks students encountered in ‘coming to voice’ further reinforced the need for a shift in my perceptions. Voice is identity and part of the whole child. I need to think beyond the notion of ‘one right answer’ in the classroom. As I discussed in recent posts, too often we experience teachers who expect the ‘right answer’. These are classrooms where the teacher does all of the thinking; discussion and imposing of a correct ‘view’ or ‘voice’ and students sit silently without giving voice to their ideas. Planning for discussion, without the teacher always being at the center of it with defined roles for student ‘voice’ is essential. Delpit’s article reinforced the necessity of ‘code switching’ in all of our lives. Henry summed up the needs that our students have: ‘they are anxious for spaces” and we must strive to provide them because ‘voice is identity, voice is power and a sense of purpose’. Continuous reflection will help me to attempt to ‘read the lives’ of children as they negotiate their hybrid discourses of home and school.
Recognizing the power of narratives in students’ histories also necessitates reflection on my current practices. Storytelling is a necessary and powerful tool that I am in a unique position to give to student ‘voice’. It can succeed in developing a strong sense of self. Perry’s discussion of the lost boys of Sudan spoke volumes about transformative storytelling in the lives of students. This type of storytelling maintained their cultural identities but also motivated them to push for change and engage in print literacies.
This class highlighted how competing identities shape literacy and how important it is to truly teach what matters to my students. To try to perceive deeper, to see my students, I could encourage them to write their own literacy histories, specifically as we did and continue the power of narratives in my Writer’s workshop. Students like Laurie that Hicks discussed would have benefitted from discussing and writing about media texts and social events that would have helped her to move between her two worlds. I can also strive to teach critical literacy that addresses the varying diversities that I will encounter: “those involving relations of ethnicity, race, gender and class”. (Hicks). There is a need to offer a curriculum that “embraces listening, watching, feeling and understanding” (p.13). This serves to create those spaces in an otherwise full day and recognize the hybrid languages of inquiry that my students have (Hicks, p. 157).
It is evident that these shifts in perspective need to not just take place within my instruction and knowledge about my students’ communities and cultures. There is a need for what Hicks terms “a moral shift”- “a willingness to open oneself up to the possibilities of seeing those who differ from us”. (p. 152). This means truly ‘listening beyond’ language form and how we think certain types of people will behave. We cannot ignore the impact of the middle class values of schools that we work in. This is uncomfortable but vital. I am not just turning the lens on my teaching but on the very beliefs and values that I shared when writing my own literacy history for this class.
Hicks explores these necessary shifts in teaching and in self. She defines the struggles of Jake and Laurie as “one of confronting the hegemony of an educational system still deeply informed by the myths and metaphors of mainstream psychology”. These myths construct a politics of learning and achievement that can be devastating for students. “They distance the field from the histories and practices that could be the starting point of social action”. (p. 158). Through the work of Williams (1977) Hicks argues for “confronting a hegemony in the fibers of self”. As teachers we struggle with our own histories and the hybrid discourses we shift between. We also have to recognize that just as we struggle so do our students. We have to be patient and attentive within our self otherwise students will distance themselves from us and learning and children will be reduced to mere labels. We have to be moved by what we see in the whole child, their situated histories and hybrid discourses: a necessary ‘sense of oughtness’ (Hicks). The critical struggle is then to teach without assimilation or social criteria and value the uniqueness of each child. This class brings hope for renewal and that “In the midst of struggle lie the seeds of poetic transformation”. (Hicks, p.159).
Karen Massey-Cerda