9.4.13

Discourse Analysis

Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method by Marianne Jorgensen and Louise Phillips Chapters 4-6

After last week’s fiasco with the reading, it was nice to see my old friend, Discursive Psychology.  I was reminded of the difference between the social constructionists beliefs and those of the cognitivists.  It is amazing to me how much of the cognitive view of the world is assumed and continued through our talk. I am aware now of statements I make that support that view, even though I am beginning to question that view and am leaning more toward a social constructionist orientation.

Speaking of orientation…I was thinking about that on page 110 and the whole idea of a ‘self’.  Last week, you said in class that a self doesn’t exist outside of interactions with others.  Sara and I made eye contact across the room…as I was taking it in and thinking it over, and I assume (by her expressions) that she was doing the same.  I am right handed, I am always going to be right handed…and that is part of my “self”.  Does that apply to sexual orientation?  A friend (yes, really…a friend) is in this current debate with herself – her “identity” as gay (which she has identified since she was 18…she is now 49) is in conflict with her “identity” as Christian.  She cannot resolve the dilemma by existing as both, so she is choosing the Christian identity and leaving her gay identity…thinking that if she isn’t in a gay relationship, she isn’t gay and she can be fully Christian.   Being in this class and DP has given me a new way to consider this.  To me, being gay or straight is like being left handed or right handed or ambidextrous.   It is part of the self that I think is more settled or determined than other aspects, like being quiet or studious or scoring a particular way on the Myers-Briggs personality scale.  I can see how the later descriptors can change depending upon where you are or who you are around or what the situation calls for (subject positioning)…but her dilemma, the gay vs. Christian and just choosing seems a very different thing to me.   The paragraph on the bottom of 111 disagrees with me… “Across all three strands of discursive psychology, the dominant view is that identities are constructed on the basis of different, shifting discursive resources and are thus relational, incomplete, and unstable, but not completely open.  In Hall’s terms, we form a ‘sense of self’ by choosing one version of the self out of all the possible versions of ‘me’.”  My friend is choosing her ‘Christian’ self because she cannot reconcile two aspects of herself that seem to be in conflict with one another.  I think I might need to read Wendy Hollway’s work!  (referenced on page 113).

            I liked the section that talked about the 10 steps of the research design and methods in DP.  A nice review and a nice way to think through how DP can be applied to my areas of interest – which is similar to what I did for the DP final paper.

            I underlined this quote on page 130 – “The Maoris become exotic and the white majority becomes the normal mode.  It is the Maoris that represent difference; the broader Pakeha society surrounds the Maori culture and determines its limits.”  In the margin, I wrote that this is done to all “minority” groups.  Men are the ‘norm’ and women are different (thinking about medical research and what we know about how heart attacks happen.  All the common symptoms are men’s symptoms and women’s symptoms are “different”), heterosexuals are ‘normal’ and homosexuals are ‘different’, white is seen as the ‘norm’ and non-white is ‘different’.  I think if you exist in the ‘normal’ groups you really don’t see the issues or problems with that…you just aren’t aware of those characterizations until you are in a non-‘normal’ group.

            This quote on page 190 stood out to me – “…discourses fix meaning by excluding all other meaning potentials.  Two discourses can collide in an antagonistic relationship to one another when they try to define the same terrain in conflict ways.”   This made me think of the debates in education – between phonics people and whole language people – between school psychologists who test and label and teachers who want to instruct and improve.  These groups really speak different languages and when they try to interact, it can be disastrous.

A Review of Discourse Analysis in Literacy Research: Equitable Access – Rex et. al

            Wow!  I loved this!  For my article critique/lit review, is it okay to read some of these?

            I have absolutely hated the book A Framework for Understanding Poverty by Ruby Payne since I read it in 2006.  I found it condescending and patronizing and insulting.  As a kid who came from home where there wasn’t a lot of income and no college degrees, I was pissed off that someone that didn’t know me, or my family or what we valued was making large generalizations about us and lumping us with other people who were also unknown by the author.  UGH!  So, I cannot wait to read Dworin and Bomer’s article. I want to see the line by line dissection of that insulting text.

            This quote was in important one for me “Educators must do the work of making connections between seemingly conflicting identities if they hope to increase access for students with marginalized language and literacy practices” (pp. 102).   I am not sure how prepared teachers are to do this…there is a great deal of “blaming” of families and kids that fall outside the ‘norm’. There is such a deficit discourse about children who do not come from middle class two parent homes and define literacy in the same ways as the teacher.

            I want to read Luna’s work about students with learning disabilities…

            I used to do writing workshop in my class and we had a “share” chair, where students read their writing to the class.  I taught the “inclusion” class, so there were several students who were identified as learning disabled who were part of the class and shared their work too.  The Mariage (2000) study would be an interesting one to read.

            I would also like to read the study by Thonus (1999) – about tutoring discourse.  This is very relevant to Reading Recovery.

            I am meeting tomorrow with a research librarian to hunt for articles around discourse analysis and professional development in literacy!  Hoping it goes well!.