To give some sense of the talk, Luke was challenging research and
theory-building in literacy study to consider the State and political
economies, to think about classrooms, for instance, in relation to
corporate capitalism (rather than "fetishizing" them), to problematize
the term "community" as applied to classrooms and other places, and to
think about school culture as a site of power and struggle, in terms of
the types of capital that are being exchanged. These issues will sound
familiar to many--Luke was drawing upon Bourdieu, Foucault and others
in addition to the critical literacy work that he and Freebody and
others have been developing in Australia.
Part of what I found so engaging in the talk, and what I think of as a
point of departure for more conversation, are the actual and potential
points of contact between critical and sociocultural theories.
Luke had an interesting double-stance in this regard in his talk: on
the one hand he positioned himself in contrast to "you who work on
zo-peds and other things," yet on the other, he suggested conceiving of
policy development as a kind of zo-ped. On the one hand, he posited
that a sociology of literacy is *not interested in how students learn
speaking (writing, etc.) but on the other, he is engaged in curriculum
development work that indexes a specific set of critical practices
(e.g., students thinking about texts with the question, "What is this
text trying to do to me?") as well as particular theor(ies) about
learning, including the value of studying Hallidayan linguistics.
Luke's talk suggests that "you who work on zo-peds and other things"
are always also (intentionally or not) working from/on critical theory,
just as critical theorists have more or less embedded ideas about
mind/learning/participation. Yet what are the points of convergence or
contact--through re-cognizing early and present work, and the future
development of theory and curricula?
A few thoughts:
Luke's critique of theory that views discourses as inherently coherent,
rather than exploring the multiple contraditions within them, is a
nicely suggestive connection between activity systems as theorized by
Engestrom and others and critical discourse work.
Another connection is between concerns with the sustainability of
educational innovations (as expressed in Mike Cole's talk) with careful
analyses of current political economies as historically developed and
affording particular reforms and practices.
Another general move is to not make big categories like "political
economy" too big, but to understand/trace their situatedness and
development, just as we're developing understandings of situated
practices in classrooms and other settings.
Kevin
</fontfamily>
Kevin Leander
Doctoral Student, Curriculum & Instruction
(217) 333-6604
http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/k-leand/homepage/index.html