Robin,+1,+Yagelski

__ Robin 1 Yagelski __ __ Yagelski __ – “Literacy Matters, Literacy in our Lives, Contradiction and Possibility”, chapter 2 Summary – black type, my commentary – dark blue type, Seybold, Robin, January 17

A literacy memoir and reflection examining his background context of middle class, Polish ancestry, male gender, within family and social perspectives and expectations. Desired: a way of understanding literacy that allows discussion of possibilities and problems that literacy represents for individual students. Not entirely certain I understand Yagelski’s position of difficulty. It seems to me, he is saying mainstream literacy practices cannot be applied in conjunction with writing growth and development. Reflects on differences between himself and brother, sports and academics, parental pride and disapproval. He is corrected to apply & improve in weak area of sports – limited correction for brother to apply & improve in weak area of academics; lack of discernible literary correction for sisters. He receives praise for earning good grades, but is criticized for being a bookworm. Early part is interesting, an attention hook, causes reader to reflect on own early contexts. Recognizes literacy creates a divide between self and family through parents’ uninvolved reading without discussion and his own intricately involved reading and discussions; “...academic literacy represented a foreign world for my family just as surely as it did for Rodriguez and Hooks”. Ethnic assimilation serves to secure place in American culture and society, even while, though not necessarily, distancing from heritage cultural circles. The gap created when Malcolm X self-teaches reading and writing from context of poverty and crime, accelerated Malcolm to social and financial security as success distanced him from early associations. I do not see this as a bad thing – why shouldn’t education be a ticket out – a freedom and independence? Leaving behind a heritage culture does not have to happen, that is a personal responsibility. “Keeping up” friendships, relationships, happens when people mutually put in the time; when they lapse, relationships weaken; sometimes, time itself moves people out of our lives and brings new people in just through the motions and cycles of life – regardless of literacy or activities. Literacy practices, especially as they relate to schooling, marginalizes the female gender –writing and reading figures into young girls lives to construct social identities (1997). Does literacy type create the social role or does the social role determine the literacy engagement? Same social roles creating differing literacy engagements (3 Yagelski sisters in same house – 3 different literary outcomes). Social context different nearly 15 years later, today’s household often is two-income and it is not unusual for women to be equally, or better, educated, well read, and informed. Employment literacy: literacy as job required. Grown brothers: one teacher/professor: academic literacy – the other coach/guidance counselor: educational literacy: overlapping similarities of discourse, yet different. Surprised there wasn’t more written about this topic. It seems to me employment requirements are what drives a large part of literacy direction, people learn what they need to learn as it relates to their employment goals. Much like the gender question: does the employment goal determine the literacy – or does the literacy type determine the employment goal? Inherent differences: experience and exposure to academic language, personal levels of engagement, specific reading and ideas encountered, unique life experiences of challenges and success, personal background and experiences of writing. Literacy lacks a discourse for discussing differences, other than as deficiencies, as possibilities without losing sight of problems and complications associated with teaching writing and reading. Without a method of making sense of such differences and possibilities, we revert to conventional models. Conventional pedagogies as skill sets or personal growth oversimplifies writing and its problems and potential. Mainstream academic writing presents limited vision of literacy, without “critical consciousness” (Freire, 1970/1984), of a literate being. This part, which I fear is the meat of Yagelski’s stance, is the part I do not fully understand. It seems he is saying mainstream writing is a solely negative-based approach focusing only on shortcomings. Whereas I view those unequivocal forms of language as the language, same as all other languages have rules of usage; those could be construed as “problem” areas that require correction. However, it seems to me Yagelski includes all academic commentary as identifying only weaknesses as problematic because mainstream, he feels, does not provide a platform for discussing writing that is different than expected in the mainstream in any way other than an academic weakness. I think there are always strengths that can be found in writing and addressed in commentary – eliminating the problem of commentary that only identifies weakness. I also think that discussions of differences in writing that appear outside the expected mainstream, would fall into the category of style, voice, varying format, dialect, genre; a literary device discourse – at least minimizing the problem of commentary that only identifies difference as weakness. I think this is at least the context Yagelski raises when he discusses individualized influences on writing and writers as literate beings forming their world. Writing alone is not an “agent of change”; its impact is determined by the manner in which human agency exploits it in a specific setting. Harvey Graff, Legacies of Literacy. This quote/idea sounds like what I less eloquently posed, that “life” can’t be blamed or credited through the concepts of literacy – literacy is only the tool or means that when activated by people can be used to bring change in life. You can’t say the hammer built a new deck, but you would be hard pressed to build a deck without a hammer. Then again, you may be able to say early reading was a strong influence on later literacy engagement – so I guess that blows the hammer analogy.