Chapter 5. Conclusions and Implications
2.1.4 Critiques of Genre-Based Approaches
Luke's critical social literacy and Cope and Kalanzis's five principles link to a general criticism leveled at genre-based approaches, namely that it takes for granted the critical aspect in a belief
that access to powerful genres will ofnecessity develop a critical distance and reflexivity. Critics (Kress 1993; Barrs 1994; Pennycook 1996) see three interrelated problems that stem from this, namely that genre-based approaches: encourage authoritarian modes of transmission; are assimilationist; and marginalise discourses of non-mainstream communities. They are seen as assimilationist in that they seem to accept dominant discourses uncritically and to focus on transmitting the 'rules' of these discourses uncritically to learners. Related to this issue is a second criticism that a genre approach, focusing on mainstream genres, would tend to ignore and devalue the discourses ofmarginalised communities in the classroom, resulting in a patronising missionary approach of bringing the 'superior' genres of social power to these groups. This is seen by Barrs (1994) as an example of 'how apparently democratic arguments about access can be used to justify authoritarian practices in teaching' (252). Critics such as Barrs interpret genre approaches' focus on powerful genres as a naive belief that power resides in the genres and not in the possibilities of their use, and question whether writers are actually in a position to reach audiences and be noticed and read (252). Cope and Kalantzis (1993b) respond to these criticisms by agreeing that the worst tendencies of the genre approach lean toward transmission modes and assimilationist models of education, but make the point that a 'curriculum which makes the discourse of social power and influence one of its authoritative know ledges need not erase diversity' (p. 79). While they see schooled literacy as centrally important, they see it as one of many knowledges that students learn. In their proposal for an 'explicit pedagogy ofinclusion and access', Cope and Kalantzis (1993b) argue that such a pedagogy should not imply an erasure of difference and non-mainstream discourses but rather that the' difference' ofthe communities that make up classrooms be seen as a resource. They see students who are outside socially dominant discourses as potentially advantaged in that they have the cultural and linguistic distance to more easily adopt a critical stance towards these discourses that are strange to their experience. This would allow students from the dominant groups to see their ways of communicating 'denaturalised', and this process could open the way for a more multigeneric, multi cultural view of the discourses of the classroom and their value and functions. In this way a pedagogy of inclusion and access would potentially make difference a resource for access. Itwould develop awareness of ways of meaning across cultural and linguistic boundaries.At the same time it would give students access to new ways of communicating in new social settings without denying their own ways of communicating.
Kress (1993) raises the third problem around the tendency for authoritarianism in genre approaches. Be offers a more diverse and critical version of genre, arguing that genre should be seen as a social process and as one of diverse 'register types' (dialect, mode, discourse, plot, character etc).Itis 'one term which, together with others, forms the complex which constitutes significantly different types of text' (35). Be sees the Martin/Rotheryversion of genre as more rigid and is concerned that with this tendency in the teaching of writing 'goes a corresponding tendency pedagogically towards an emphasis on form, and a tendency towards authoritarian modes of transmission' (35).
Hasan (1996) responds forcibly to concerns about the reproductive nature ofgenre-based literacy.
She questions whether otherpedagogies such as the 'self-expression, creative writing movement' is not reproductive by asking: 'What is 'self? Bow is it constituted? What steps do these teachers take to ensure that the 'self is not a reproductive projection?' (403). She feels that genre-based approaches are criticised for the reproductive tendencies precisely because they make their pedagogy so explicit that they permit that sort of discussion to take place. She feels that educational systems are inherently evaluative. As long as education systems of whatever kind continue to operate, they will operate within models and standards of what criteria, for example, learners' essays should meet.
Critical literacy may be right in saying that to teach educational genres is to reproduce existing knowledge structures, but as against this there remains the disturbing fact that to fail to master educational genres is to almost certainly collude in the reproduction of the inequalities of the social system at the cost of precisely those whose voice is absent from the educational curricula! (Hasan
1996:404).
She argues further that being innocent ofthe prevalent ways in which language is used to achieve social aims is not going to bring about change in society. Martin (1993b) argues in a similar fashion about the teaching of science literacy where he warns against what he sees as an overemphasis on doing science and a neglect of writing in scientific genres: 'The functionality of these genres and the technicality they contain cannot be avoided; it has to be dealt with. To deal with it teachers need an understanding of the structure of genres and the grammar of technicality' (202).Hasan acknowledges that learning communicative abilities via genre-based
pedagogic practices does not necessarily encourage the reflection to challenge accepted practices;
however, she notes that there are developments within the pedagogy that tackle these issues.
These developments will be analysed later in this chapter. The debates indicate that ultimately it is how practitioners interpret the theories and approaches that affects pedagogical outcomes.
Coe (1986), cited earlier, felt that many practitioners of the process approach misinterpreted it and overemphasised processes and expressive writing to the extent that they became the curriculum. He saw these as stepping stones to vocational competence and social effectiveness.
Similarly, genre approaches can be interpreted in a way that would favour reproductive processes. In a country like South Africa, where there is a history of rote learning and authoritarian methods,there is a danger that teachers will assimilate genre-based approaches into their established methodology.
Johnson (1994) raises similar concerns to those ofKress in an exploration ofthe value of genre- based approaches for access and inclusion in the South African context. He links the 'mission' of South African education to the genre approach's argument that access to,participation in,and control of social institutions is related to access to powerful genres, and that learners outside the discourses of power need explicit teaching to gain access to these discourses. He sees the social mission ofSouth African education as providing 'historically marginalised groups with equitable access to a broad range of social options' and forging a 'multilingual, multidialectical society which recognises and respects difference' (32). He argues that the achievement of this mission requires specific, explicit action and a theory which goes beyond mere'immersion ' and responds to the failures of traditional and progressivist approaches to education and language and learning (Ibid). While Johnson sees the genre theory and approach as relevant to this mission,he raises a number of concerns and questions. One concern was the need to develop a framework which would enable learners to gain control of genres through access to both 'top down' and 'bottom up' strategies for the production of effective written discourse. He sees a danger in teachers focusing on one or the other in a narrow reproductive way if they are not provided with a framework for the deployment of both strategies in the generation of texts. Like Kress, Johnson raises the question whether it is possible to use genres for teaching purposes in the South African context without reducing teaching to a narrow, formalistic prescriptivism and denying students the opportunity for reflecting critically on rhetorical or linguistic choices (1994: 52).
Interestingly, a newsletter of the South African Applied Linguistics Association (SAALA) commented on genre teaching in ESL.Itreported on issues raised about genre-based approaches at a workshop attended by adult basic education and academic development language practitioners in September 1992. The points raised at the workshop corresponded to some ofthe issues raised above. Amongst others the practitioners highlighted the following:
Genre-based approaches allowed a focus on whole texts rather than words or sentences because they link function and form of texts at all levels.
Many ESL learners have problems switching to academic writing, and a focus on genre could be useful in this regard.
• They felt that genres should flow from tasks which would expose learners to the impact of audience and context on genres.
Teaching should guard against genres being taught as THE culture. Learners should be encouraged to take a critical stance by being shown that genres have emerged as a result of certain values being held as important.
Genres should not be seen as fixed and immutable, as conventions around what is accepted and respected change over time.
The narrative/expository dichotomy was questioned as it was felt that narrative could be used for expository/factual purposes.
Lastly, a concern was expressed that, in the South African context, there were many teachers who were inadequately trained and were without access to training. A consequence would be that teachers would ignore unfamiliar modes of teaching or assimilate them to traditional authoritarian ways. (Ledochowska 1993: 2-3).
These points link closely to a list of 'understandings' that Kress felt teachers and students should acquire. These can act as a guide to effective literacy teaching and learning in the schools (1993:
28). These are that:
texts are produced to do some specific social and cultural thing and that all our communication is guided by conventions of generic form even when there is a conscious attempt to break generic convention;
•
generic form is the product of particular social relations betw een the interlocutors involved in the production of a text, and power relations and differences enter into the production and maintenance of generic form;
while generic conventions provide constraints about what can and cannot be done, generic form is always in a process ofchange and this creates possibilities for innovation and creati vity ;
the grammar, the functions, forms and structures of language play a crucial role in the production of texts and their meanings.
All theseissues haveimplications forpre- and in-service teacher training which willbe discussed in the implications of the findings of this investigation.