A New Perspective on an Old Text

The optional reading this week, "I Allow Myself to FEEL Now....": Adolescent Girls' Negotiations of Embodied Knowing, the Female Body, and Literacy by Christine Woodcock was fascinating to me; especially thinking back to the beginning statement of my last blog “your weight has gone up.”  This society’s somewhat obsessive fascination with our bodies has always been a point of contention.  But the relation of literary practices to such a hot topic was one that I had never considered before taking this class.  Realizing that Woodcock is referencing adolescent girls and making valid points that cause us to consider much more than I am about bring up; a surface realization caused me to pause in my reading and begin my own writing as I came to page 359.   Woodcock at this point references Cameron (2007) and “her witness of many students in her creative writing classes gain more awareness of their bodies, lose weight, and become healthier as they simultaneously wrote in a creative, deliberate, conscious way about their emotions, experiences, and a variety of other important phenomena in their lives.”  This reference gave me a sudden change in perspective, or lens perhaps, of my own view of a text that had been handed to me many months ago.  I am (and may forever be) a member of Weight Watchers.  I have always had struggles with my weight and, after the birth of my second child; have struggled to rid myself of all of the “baby weight”. (Can you still call it that after 6 years by the way?)  So, while I may be bordering on a bit of TMI here, I thought it important to mention this because the text that I refer to is the Success Handbook by Elizabeth Josefsberg distributed to members of Weight Watchers.  The statement found on the cover introduces the text’s purpose in assisting the member in the creation of their “very own blueprint for success”.  Their support for this belief is then provided in the introduction.  Josefsberg is a Weight Watchers leader that also went through the weight loss process herself.  During that time she found that taking the time to write down and reflect on her own experiences provided her with the tools to understand what worked for her and what didn’t.  In essence it helped her to learn more about herself and her body.  On page 8 she goes on to explain that this method of reflection helps one to “learn how not to have too many indulgences or too much restriction and how to have enough activity and the right kinds of support.”  This for me connected what Cameron realized and Woodcock points out in our readings this week.  In this “handbook”, Josefsberg and Weight Watchers are attempting to aid WW members in their own collaborative style of learning perhaps.   A fascinating thought as I reconsider something that I previously overlooked.  This article has truly helped me to reconsider it and its potential in my own struggles with learning about my own body.  Perhaps it is time to pick up the text and test this theory for myself….

A quick look at fast capitalism

For this week's blog, I thought I would try critical discourse analysis (CDA) of  The New Work Order: Behind the Language of the New Capitialism (Gee, Hull, & Lankshear, 1996).   I set out to learn  more about James Gee, the author and linguist whose ideology is evident (to me) in his work.  Since we proceed on the assumption that all text is positioned, I took that one step further and included the author as part of the context.  I see the individuals who create text as inseparable from the context in which the text is situated.

To that end, I began reading one of Gee's papers,  Discourse Analysis: What Makes It Critical?  thinking it would be a good source of information about  CDA and the author.  I quickly realized this text was above my level.  What I was able to gleen from it was that CDA is not just  a critique of the content, rather, it is an examination, from a critical perspective, of the words, tone, message, way a text positions itself and others.  It is an analysis of the assumptions and argument.   I think Janks (chp. 4) said it in a way that made more sense to me: "all text is positioned and positioning." 

Therefore, with respect and humility, I will offer some CDA on the New Captialism text from the position of outsider, or at least one who is just on the periphery.  A few weeks ago I was not even part of its Discourse; CDA was not yet part of my vocabulary.   Gee talks about this as pretending to know what you are doing by watching others, learning to do what they do, until you become more knowledgeable.   

The prompt for this assignment was to look at page 38 of  New Captialism and render an opinion on how well Gee et al. make transparent or conceal their own biases.  My opinion of Gee is that there is deliberateness and calculation in every word he uses, in the syntax of each sentence, in the way he structures and presents his ideas.  I don't think anything is concealed, but, I should back up and start at the beginning.

Gee et al. begin their "simple" (p. 1) argument that literacy is a social practice and that all text is positioned in a social practice.  The "simple" cue seemed to be aimed at the average person, the student or outsider who may be reading this text for educational purposes.  The authors' argument for literacy as a social practice is compelling, it legitimizes their position.  Their tone seemed intimidating, their use of words such as "fast capitalism," "utopian," "midwives at the birth of the new work order," are, in keeping with what I learned about Gee,  deliberate.  These words seem like the linguistic mirror of the fast capital texts that they criticize. Gee et al.lay out their position that "literacy and a sociocultural approach are ...deeply political matters" (p. 13).  I feel the authors are transparent about their position.

In keeping with their argument that all text belongs in a social practice, I put  New Capitalism  in the context of scholarly journals, written by and for scholars.  I find this a bit ironic given that the authors criticize those who control what is valued as knowledge.  They are openly critical of the powers of science and technology as "one of the core utopian aspects of fast capitalist texts" (p. 28), yet they are scholars, positioned in universities, maintaining the standards of what is considered knowledge in their fields of expertise.

Finally, in as much as "fast capitalist texts" such as America's Perfect Storm use fear and manipulate facts to disguise their case, Gee et al. are transparent but intimidating, even and a little too bold (sarcastic?) with their linguistics to present a counter position.  "There is no doubt that symbols and information....in the fast capitalist literature...." (Gee et al., pg. 38, underlining added by me).  I humbly submit that a dualism has been created.  The reader is left to choose a side, if she can even begin to understand the deeper meaning of the argument at all.  From my position on the periphery, many of us may not even be aware of, or able to understand, the underlying issues of this argument.

Thank you.  Susan Wa


   

Pedagogy and priesthoods

"…their expertise more and more an artifact of their manipulation of the machine"

                                                                                                                (Gee, et al, 1996)

Although Gee and friends give the above statement in reference to drafting and design engineers losing stature as computer programs take over their jobs, I could put this reference directly into my higher education experiences with online learning - not as a subject matter expert (e.g., professor) but as a lowly graduate student.  To frame this discourse, I worked as a GTA during my master's program assisting professors in the business school to get class materials "online."  I was definitely a computer novice at the time (a mere 10 years ago) but I had learned not to be afraid of the technology. Looking back, I think both my age (40 something) and eagerness to master WebCT (a platform similar to Blackboard) put me in the priesthood status among professors who were a bit older than I and who did not care in the least for the new technology they were being pressured to use.  I recall one in particular, a high-powered individual who relished "toughening-up" his protégés for the corporate world.  He would need to post documents, grade papers, or monitor discussion boards, pretty mundane things by today's standards. He would log me in to his account - watch a few minutes - shudder- and leave me to take care of whatever the issue was.  I would call over my shoulder, "what if I need you to okay something?"   "You have my full confidence," he would call back and leave the immediate area. Talk about power.  There were a couple of very tech savvy young people (also GTA's) I learned a lot from. The power dynamics in the department were very interesting around the implementation of technology, too. The most empowered male professors seemed to prefer my assistance (although I was a woman) to the young, quick men. They were more intimidated by them than me … hmmm. Female professors did not seem to care who helped them just as long as they got help.  Please recall that online teaching was just gaining credence and there was a great deal of resistance to it. Nevertheless, having some technological expertise gave the online GTA's status and power.

Thinking about it now, I see the text on page 37 were Gee et al., state "in a knowledge society there needs to be a renewed and vigorous debate about what sorts of knowledge bring flexibility and power, and what sorts do not," with fresh eyes.  This was written around the time this "new" format of online teaching was gaining ground and threatening a good many people in higher education just as it was in the corporate sector.  Could it be that the "vigorous debate" needed to make sure that those who had acquired power held onto it? And what about the authors transparency? As you follow the article on into page 38, there is definitely some antagonism toward these new knowledge workers (foot soldiers of the information economy) in back offices - linked to the worldwide web - sucking up all your information in a "mania" of data collection, etc. These priests filtering and assessing information and deciding what is….truth.

Skeptical Third World Kid

I saw this picture on Facebook and it stays with me. It is funny at the first glance. But the picture and the words are conveying much more than it appears to be when analyzed with the topics we have discussed in our class.

The first thing comes to me after I read the lines is that how the context and specific word choice change the meaning and the tone of a sentence. If the sentence is "we use water to wash food off my dishes", it sounds perfectly normal to me and to most people like me. It is what we do everyday in our life. It is what we were taught to do when we where young. And this is what we teach the next generation to do. However, when put in the context, where both water and food are scare, and use "clean" and "extra" to modify "water" and "food", it becomes such an strange behavior. The skepticism of the little child shows that how the context decides people's common sense and how the common sense influences the meaning of literacy. The target audiences of the picture share the common sense that we wash extra food off plates with clean water. But the child in the picture don't. He doubts it because it violates his common sense. Therefore, when talking about this topic, he cannot participate in the conversation without deliberately identifying and confirming his grasp of the "common sense" that there is more than enough clean water to drink and extra food to wash off.

When I shared this in last class, Susan Watson brought up a point that led me to a deeper analysis of the picture and my ideas about it. She asked that what our assumption was when we read the words and got the punch line. Did we read it with our single story of the poverty-sticken Africa? Her question opened up my mind because it was right on target. I ask myself why I get the humor here. Will it be equally interesting if it is a white boy asking the same question? No. I wont's get the humor then because I assume that a white boy should have got used to things like this and there is no reason for him to be skeptical about it. When it comes to a black boy, the situation is different because I automatically assume that he does not share the common sense with "us". I look at the picture again and focus more on the image of the child. Honestly, he is not as skinny as the starving Africa kids on TV. Maybe he also lives in city and have access to clean water and sufficient food just like we do. However, since my pre-assumption of the poorness in Africa is so deep and powerful, I censored the other possibilities in my mind and came of my conclusion directly.

In this case, I think the assumptions indicate not only sociocultural factors in literacy, but also the power around it. As an audience, I feel pity for the child's living condition and want to help to change it. On the one hand, my idea is well-intended and show my good will towards him. On the other hand, based on the critical theories, I am  presenting myself with some privilege and putting my power above him. Unconsciously, I put myself on the position to decide what he need and what his life should be like without asking what he really wants. This is not just what I do when I see this picture, but also many countries do when trying to help Africa fit in the temporary world. They are using their power to change Africa into the way they want it to be, regardless of how African people want to present themselves.

Another thing that relates to power relationship is the phrase "Third world" in the name of the picture. It is an amazingly powerful phrase that separates the woman in the picture and the audience of the picture from the "poor" boy and his fellows. It is "othering". The hidden message is that we are different from those needy people in Africa. They are desperate for our help and we need to save them. However, the truth is that we are not that different. To be more explicit, I am from the so-called "biggest Third World country". I understand that how situations are much more complicated than what people may believe about the "Third World". But this phrase has been used for so many years to "other" people. In western countries, it has been used to convince people that they are living in a better world, while in others, such as China, it is used to advocate the evilness of the wealthier country. It is fascinating that how those labels are created with artificial meanings by power.

Some of the ideas were generated while I wrote them, so that I am not quite sure if they make sense to you ( I sincerely apologize if they don't). Maybe I am over-thinking about a funny picture. But it is so interesting to read a text as if I am peeling an onion. There are layers under layers to analyze, which makes a simple text so juicy and rich.

Our Enchanted Workplace

Gee, Hull & Lankshear use the term ‘enchanted workplace’ in The New Work Order to describe the ideology of fast capitalism.  The term amused me, as I’d underlined multiple statements leading up to the use of ‘enchanted workplace’.  Are we not enchanted to be submerged in a fast-paced and stressful work environment?  Imagine Disney’s Snow White scrubbing and cooking for seven unkempt working men.  Enchanting; no!  Yet eliminate the seven middle men and consider the work conditions she endured on her slate bed and her duties of waiting for the Prince.  Now we’re enchanted.  Gee, Hull & Lankshear mention Disney’s Core Values, number one being no cynicism allowed!  Instead let’s ‘bring happiness to millions and celebrate… wholesome American values’.  In other words, “Let’s get to work”!

The repeated descriptions in this article rang so true to today’s workforce that I was anything but enchanted which I suspect was the goal of the Gee team.  The middle management has been eliminated; the bosses are bossier and richer.  The hub workers are doubly responsible, highly devoted to their tasks, working over forty hours a week, training for additional tasks in their off hours, answering calls at all times of the night, checking e-mails while out to dinner with family and smiling while doing it all.  And the bosses are saying “We want you to be eager to stay, but ready to leave.”

Competition is the only thing that matters.  Our products need to be unique, of high quality, with excellent customer service and marketed at the best price.  In order to achieve these goals our companies are now ‘lean and mean’.  We have increasingly sophisticated consumers, but are the hub workers as sophisticated without the middle?  The missing middle management is potentially creating a workforce of ‘partners’.  These partners are described by the Gee team (and translated by me with additional cynicism) as practically dancing through the endless forest looking for Snow White.  Their jobs are meaningful to them, they seek to improve their performance, and they control their jobs because they are ‘supported, developed and coached’. 

I imagine that those hub workers that have managed to preserve their jobs in these corporations without middle management are anything but enchanted.  They are overworked, overstressed, over-trained (but it won’t all be retained), over-committed, and over-the-top in their efforts just to keep their positions.  In today’s economy we are told everyday how lucky we are to have jobs.  We’ve been told this so many times that we have ‘reengineered’ our own thinking or have we?  I admit I feel many of the same things being pushed at me in the workforce, even in the public education system.  There’s always room to do more!  Yet ultimately as someone who believes in capitalism; given the chance financially I would quit my job as ‘partner’.  Ultimately I continue to go to work for the paycheck; I am no longer enchanted with my career. 

(To follow up on facilitated class discussion:  This blog has been typed in Tahoma font, the font we’ve been coached to use at school, as the student’s SOL tests use it.)