Disciplinary Literacy & New Ways of Reading Texts

The academic article in this week's readings touches on a lot of the issues that we exposed in the first two weeks of class. Namely, the reluctance of teachers to teaching literacy based on misinformation and the ever expanding variety of texts that students engage with. I think it is helpful to note that it is noted in the beginning of the article that "English departments...analyze popular cultural texts such a online fanfiction as almost as eagerly as they embrace canonical texts of English literature" (Moje 96). Now, my distaste for fanfiction aside, I think this example is a valuable reminder to us that ANYTHING with meaning is a text and can be used to promote literacy in students, no matter how unorthodox and strange it may seem. Using pop culture as in tandem with more traditional academic texts can be a way to encourage interest in your students and enable them to see the everyday relevance of the course matter. This juxtaposition of high and low culture and theory also flies in the face of established knowledge and can be used to turn outdated interpretations and knowledge on its head. Sizing up the value of different sources based on origin, author and other contextual components "builds an understanding of how knowledge is produced in disciplines, rather than just building knowledge in the disciplines" (Moje 97).

Using popular texts along with academic ones can in fact be a helpful way of understanding how society at large and not just a small circle of intellectuals understands an issue. This is especially important when looking at the way that people are socialized through media to embrace certain politics and worldviews (American Sniper for propaganda film of the year). Cultural criticism of this nature can be exemplified by the so called "Elvis of philosophy," Slavoj Zizek. A Slovenian Marxist, he is famous for his thick volumes on Hegelian theory and critical analysis of popular Hollywood films. In many of his books, he uses pop culture as a way of explaining high philosophical concepts, like using the novels of Stephen King to understand the work of French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. A lot of his work goes way over my head, but his method of incorporating many different texts to aid in understanding similar ideas is useful to us. Check out his analysis of the hidden ideology in the movie Titanic below:

Zizek makes philosophy more readily comprehensible through pop culture, just like we can show our students that history and physics don't only exist in textbooks but are all around us. His analysis reminds us that we are always being taught and indoctrinated, especially when we don't think we are. Literacy is simply the consumption of meaning. As soon as we can convince our students and other teachers that this is the case, resistance to disciplinary literacy practices will break down. Who doesn't like to watch movies? Ideology, which is the primary focus of Zizek's work, is something I find to be a particularly powerful force in history and science. Plus, that thick Slovene accent is pretty comical.

Moje's article addresses a crucial issue that is posited by secondary school teachers, "that the division of secondary school learning into subject areas drawn from the disciplines reifies a belief (and constructs sets of practices) that implies knowledge is inherently different in different
disciplines" (Moje 99) The instruments and spaces that we see as intrinsic to certain subjects (like protractors to geometry, laboratories to chemistry, etc.) define the ways we can learn. But does it always have to be that way? Can we not learn about physics through examining how the interplay between faith and positivist science? Could we not complicate our understanding of (in)famous historical figures and events by injecting psychology and other sciences? Why exactly do we study our discipline the way that we do? Are we overlooking something? To give an example of how easy it is to be lulled into a false sense of certainty, I'll enlist the help of Rupert Sheldrake, a scientist who in the video below explains how scientists are dogmatic in believing in the scientific laws as immutable.

Some people think Sheldrake's claim is a joke, but it's good to play devil's advocate.

What is key here is that knowledge needs to be looked at as constructed and not a predetermined body of values that needs to be absorbed. Moje illustrates this usefully on page 100 when explicating the normative practices of different scholars, from historian to mathematician. These practices are in place for reasons both practical and political and it is important to analyze the standards in our field. We might even ask ourselves how pedagogy is taught to us and why we learn it in a certain way.

The practices of professional scholars however, will not always be the most practical or attractive for our students. We need to back up and look the situations that our students may find themselves in while reading texts. On page 8 of Buehl, he notes that "reading does not occur in a vacuum." It is easy to forget that students may find themselves in situations that make it more difficult for them to dissect and quantify the meaning of a text. What prior knowledge does a student bring with them? Is the place in which they are working conducive to close reading and critical thought? Do they have the support of their peers and family? For who is reading an isolated act or a social activity? Like we discussed in the previous week, intellectual awareness is an emotional endeavor as well as a rational one. Ensuring the proper environment and attitude for our students critical thinking is paramount to success. We must remember to look up from the page we are wrestling with and ask where we are and how we feel.