[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: FW: FW: Re: poverty/class
Peter...that was the argument of the 1960s called the linguistic deficit hypothesis introduced by Bernstein and applied to both african americans and working class poor whites.
Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Peter Smagorinsky <firstname.lastname@example.org> </div><div>Date:03/26/2014 2:14 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: FW: Re: poverty/class </div><div>
</div>I don't quite have the luxury of time to address all of Huw's points, but on the Matthew Effect: It is absolutely employed to reinforce deficit views. In the US it's often employed to characterize what are believed to be the "poor" vocabularies of impoverished urban youth, especially those who are African American--the argument goes, These kids start out disadvantaged with poor vocabularies, and this deficit leads them to fall further and further behind in school. The overlooked phenomenon concerns the way in which vocabulary is determined, often through vocabulary studies based on acquaintance with the kinds of vocabulary words used in school assessment. They learn plenty of words very useful to them in home and community, but not recognized as "the right" sort of words in school and school assessment. Thus, vocabulary development does indeed diverge, but what measurement finds is that this divergence represents an absence, because they only measure one cultural vocabulary.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 1:35 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: FW: Re: poverty/class
On 26 March 2014 11:47, Peter Smagorinsky <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I wrote Mike the following note offlist, and he suggested I send it to
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <email@example.com<mailto:
> firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> Hi Mike, I'm responding off-list to the article you sent. I make the
> following observation with the awareness that I have to police my own
> discursive representations of people of difference because it can be
> hard to break away from so much social and discursive conditioning.
> On p. 89, after working hard to challenge deficit perspectives on
> difference, you refer to "the issue of neurodevelopmental disorder
> such as ASD," a term you repeat just before the subhead. To me, the term "disorder"
> indicates deficit, rather than what I think of as a different order. I
> also think you're locating the problems that follow from being
> different in the individual, rather than in the society that makes a
> deficit judgment of difference (LSV on defectology being channeled here).
> Just wanted to alert you to what I see as an inconsistency in your
> phrasing and thus perhaps thinking. Best,Peter
Peter and all,
I doubt anyone on this list will fail to appreciate the potential harm in the label "disorder". This may be doubly true if the syndrome has its own order! Where we might draw our lines of inquiry, however, is whether we should iron out such lexical defects or whether we should leave them in to remind us of the relativity and context of their use. That is, should we treat our (lexical) "defects" as defects or differences?
For example, is it not the case that the advantage of the "mathew effect"
is also a dis-advantage? As an example of the dis-advantage Mathew is also cited as saying that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" . Now, personally, I perceive "defects" in this quotation. However, to me, they are "useful defects" because I have some knowledge of why I think they are defects.