Chapter 3 Shaping influence of discourses
3.8 Orientations to the teaching of literacy
3.8.4 The socio-political discourse/critical literacy
engineer. Naturally, the academic literacies approach is related to theories of situated learning, in particular Lave and Wenger‘s (1991) CoP. The implication of an academic literacies approach is that academics should allow students to learn these practices by participation in authentic disciplinary activities. Simply put, there is no room for generic essay writing in an academic literacies approach.
around us. Those who can read, but cannot read the world, that is, cannot critique the social order, are not critically literate for ―[to] be literate is to undertake a dialogue with others who speak from different histories, locations and experiences‖ (Giroux, 1993 p. 367-368). For Freire, ―literacy makes sense only in these terms‖ (Freire, in Roberts 2005 p. 35).
Unsurprisingly therefore, a major contribution that this approach has made has been its emphasis on the notion of voice and identity in writing. Texts are not neutral. They are human creations, which are constructed for certain purposes. They are a representation of the one who constructs them, and ―are defined by the existence of socio-historically shaped, asymmetrical power relations‖ (Starfield, 2002 p. 121).
Proper literacy therefore is that which enables a person to question the attitudes or values that people draw on when they construct texts. As a consequence of this focus on voice and identity, the socio-political approach evaluates the social construction of a text and questions the factors that may have influenced the author to create the text in a specific manner (Ivanic, 2004; Starfield, 2002). Hyland (2002b) suggests that authorial identity can be expressed through self-reference. In this case the use of personal pronouns such as I/We/Our becomes an index of authorial identity. He further argues that the stages at which writers choose to self-reference reveal their rhetorical choices. Ivanic and Camps (2001) use the term ‗voice‘ to refer to the way in which writers represent themselves, their authorial identity in their writing. Drawing on Halliday‘s macro functions of language they came up with taxonomy for analysing voice types as ideational positioning, interpersonal positioning and textual positioning. Fairclough (1992) also adapted Halliday‘s theory by leaving out the third function and splitting up the second. He saw language as both socially shaped and socially shaping. Language use is always simultaneously constitutive of i) social identities, ii) social relations and iii) systems of knowledge (Fairclough 1995 p. 134).
The idea that texts constitute social identities compels readers to explore whose identities are being constructed, substantiated and how this is being done linguistically (Hulsse, 1999). Social relations would focus on the relationships between participants, in the case of academic literacy it would be the students and the tutors or lecturers. These two functions constitute Fairclough‘s interpretation of
Halliday‘s interpersonal function of language. The constitution of knowledge and belief systems corresponds with Halliday‘s ideational function. What people know and believe about the world is constructed through Discourses. Ivanic and Camps (2001) use the term ‗voice‘ to refer to the way in which writers represent themselves, their authorial identity in their writing. Drawing on Halliday‘s macro functions of language wherein every instance of language usage has an ideational, interpersonal and textual function they came up with taxonomy for analysing voice types as ideational positioning, interpersonal positioning and textual positioning. Fairclough (1992) also adapted Halliday‘s theory by leaving out the third function and splitting up the second.
Luke (1994 p. 8) notes that
critical literacy entails not only a rudimentary control of the linguistic and semiotic codes of written text, but also understanding of the ways in which the texts of everyday life influence one‘s own identity and authority.
Taking this position suggests that literacy pedagogy should enable students to engage with issues that expose might marginalise or perpetuate stereotypes. As follows, literacy enables students to develop a voice and the agency that will allow them to be active participants in their own learning. Taking this position therefore, critical literacy scholars suggest that all texts should be subjected to questions about positionalities, agendas, and purposes. They are, after all, ―cultural tools for establishing belongingness, identity, personhood, and ways of knowing‖ (Moje, Dillon and O‘Brien, 2000: 167).
Critical literacy work in South Africa has strong links to the apartheid era, though it seems to have taken new direction in the post-apartheid period (Janks, 2000). The question that has been seemingly raised is what it means to be critical in both these time periods? In the apartheid era, being critically literate meant to ‗read‘ in the Freiran sense, the way in which language was manipulated by the apartheid government to perpetuate subjectivities through media and education. Thus critical literacy work was ―both a moral and political project‖ where the role of the educator/researcher was to deconstruct the language of the oppressor and being critically literate meant to understand the relationship between language and power (Janks, 2000 p. 175). Hence, in the apartheid era, critical literacy was a resistance to
the dominant undemocratic government (McKinney and Norton, 2008). In the post- apartheid era, critical literacy work has had to take on new meanings where the focus of critique is not on the state per se, given the new government promotes social justice and equity both in education and society (McKinney and Norton, 2008).
The focus is now more on critical language awareness, with a focus towards re- inventing a new South Africa (Janks, 2000). This new focus understanding has invoked Discourses such as domination, access, diversity and design to talk about the South African literacy context. Some languages remain more dominant than others, which does not cater for the diversity of students, thereby limiting access to resources. A critical language awareness programme, therefore, is focussed on the design of a curriculum that allows students‘ voices to be heard and identities to be recognised.