[Xmca-l] Re: 'funds' of knowledge and identity

[MOISES ESTEBAN-GUITART]

Some thoughts about some of the interesting ideas suggested thanks to Adam
Poole’s paper and participants in this virtual discussion:

-	Regarding “funds” and “capital”, I would not agree if “capital” means
that rich people have cultural, linguistic and social capital and poor
people have not.  All families have lived experiences and sociocultural
practices regardless their linguistic, ethnic, economic condition. 
Indeed, the funds of knowledge approach was aimed at countering what was
described as deficit thinking in education; i.e. the idea that low school
performance among underrepresented students was caused by underlying
linguistic, economic and cultural limitations instead of political reasons
such as power relationships and so on. Hence, in order to challenge the
deficit thinking prevalent in education and the racist policies that
misunderstand the inherent complexities of migrant people, it was argued
that the households of students of Mexican origin living in Tucson did, in
fact, have at their disposal a wide variety of skills, knowledge and
competencies forged in their working lives and community history (Moll,
Amanti, Neff, & González, 1992). However, these intellectual and
educational resources were essentially invisible in school practice and
curricular structure due to asymmetric power relationships (Rodriguez,
2013). Therefore, school performance could be improved by having teachers
visit the families of some of their students, identify their skills and
knowledge and incorporate them into educational practice. The idea
involves an educational policy and concept which, by recognizing and
legitimizing the lifestyles involved in the cultural practices of the
students’ families, is expected to create relationships of ‘confianza’
(mutual trust) between teachers and families in order to: (a) build
bridges of cooperation that can diminish the prejudices and stereotypes
between the two contexts of activity (Gonzalez & Moll, 2002) and (b) link
school curricula and educational practice to the lifestyles of students
(McIntyre, Rosebery, & González, 2001). However, it seems to me is
fruitfully examine how these theoretical frameworks (funds and capital)
can complement each other when attempting to understand educational
opportunity for under-represented students. A challenge done by
Rios-Aguilar, Kiyama, Gravitt & Moll (2011). Funds of knowledge for the
poor and forms of capital for the rich? A capital approach to examining
funds of knowledge. Theory and Research in Education.

-	I agree that “identification” would be a best choice than “identity”
because identity reinforces a static and too homogeny view on person.
Rather, people identities are culturally sensitive phenomena, distributed
and situated. In that sense, to me the identity artefacts such as Avatars
have epistemic values. To me “identity” is in people as well as things.
This implies that identity is tangible and embedded. In that sense,
identity is both product and process. The funds of identity are
(re)constructed through the identity artefact used such as Avatar in a
particular cultural practice. In other words, Avatar, as a medium and
mediator, facilities acts of identification, but it also changes it:
distorts it, arguments it, transforms it depending the audience, the
purpose-intentionality, the practice, the context. It can be connected
with the discussion on catharsis and transformation.

-	On “digital funds of identity”. I definitely think we need a
reconceptualization on funds of knowledge and identity 2.0. I’m not sure
if we should talk about “digital funds of” or “funds of digital identity”?
In any case, Adam Poole wrote interesting papers on it. For example Poole
(2017). Funds of Knowledge 2.0: Towards digital Funds of Identity.
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. In an educational and practical
way, I think we should take into account some developments such as
connected learning approach (Mimi Ito, Bill Penuel, and so on) and
participatory culture (Jenkins) as a cultural practices and consequences
of our devices and digital artefacts. Indeed, as Ratner likes to say, “We
are the product of the products we produce”.

m

> A few things that may be worth distinguishing:
>
> i) The paper/topic is not about identity but rather identification.
>
> ii) An overcoming entails a reorganisation. In such circumstances it isn't
> a bank of riches, it a more richly organised psyche.
>
> iii) Experience without intention is not a meaningful unity. This is
> absent
> in at least one of Bozhovich's (translated) papers on SSD and I suspect
> this is carried over into work on Perezhivanie.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Huw.
>
> On 21 June 2018 at 22:57, Julian Williams
> <julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Alfredo/all
>>
>>
>>
>> Indeed – whose funds, and whose banks? The key term here is capital
>> (economic or cultural) .. that is the potential by its possessors to
>> oppress those who lack it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we should be critical of ‘funds’ of knowledge and identity
>> and
>> point out that funds might be ‘capital’ and not just resources for
>> oppressed peoples to challenge their oppressors.
>>
>>
>>
>> In my critique, I point to the way such funds can actually provide
>> resources for schooling to serve their function as reproducing and
>> alienating learners…
>>
>>
>>
>> What I liked about the paper (I think we are discussing on the dark side
>> of funds of identity?) was that it seemed (see our MCA editorial) to
>> offer
>> an alternative view of ‘funds’… , that oppressed people might have
>> developed ‘experiential’ resources (not capital) that schools would
>> not
>> necessarily normally recognise but that might actually challenge schools
>> in
>> their class reproductive functions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Julian
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Alfredo Gil <
>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>> *Reply-To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> *Date: *Thursday, 21 June 2018 at 22:43
>> *To: *Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Annotations and XMCA
>>
>>
>>
>> ​Interesting connection with the article through the digital side.
>> Digital
>> Funds of Identity! (if the term has not in fact been used yet). I am
>> going to ​do a bit of re-tweet and of "like" gesture copying one of
>> your
>> statements, which I found quite revealing:
>>
>>
>>
>> "What is the point of being able to draw on funds of identity if
>> somebody
>> else owns the bank?"
>>
>>
>>
>> You just made me realise that xmca may be one such little carved place
>> in
>> the web as the ones you are hoping children will learn to create. Thanks
>> for contributing to it, and thanks for the online annotation links.
>>
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* 21 June 2018 16:43
>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> *Subject:* Re: Annotations and XMCA
>>
>>
>>
>> And I mix up my article and plural forms at the intersection of growing
>> knowledge and the mistake of cutting and pasting as a synthesis tool to
>> avoid the cognitive load of Russian spelling....hmmmmm
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:21 AM Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Alfredo,
>>
>>
>>
>> I moved the discussion off of the other thread (though I am perpelexed
>> by
>> the Perezhivaniyaha and influence of power in  being told by educators
>> to
>> reflect on one's funds of identity*) *to think about annotations.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wanted you to know they are automatically given a Public Domain
>> License.
>> If there was interest and people do want to maintain rights to their
>> content we could do a private XMCA group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet you are right. Hypothes.is it is still a place I must create an
>> account. It  would be really cool to annotate, or at least syndicate
>> annotations back to my blog. I try to include a feed to all my
>> annotations
>> as an iframe but as soon as I make a public annotation I no longer own
>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am okay with this. Many on the listserv may not be. I am cool with
>> that
>> too. Your data. Your destiny.
>>
>>
>>
>> In terms of my annotations I figure I am paid by taxpayers thus my
>> mental
>> work on the state dime belongs in the open. I also believe in the team
>> behind the project as creating what Anil Dash calls "ethical tech
>> <https://medium.com/humane-tech/12-things-everyone-should-understand-about-tech-d158f5a26411>"
>> that would pass Stommel's test for Ethical online learning
>> <https://www.slideshare.net/jessestommel/ethical-online-learning>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet now what happens when learning and reading itself become
>> performative?
>> Or the act of note taking used as a measure of learning?
>>
>>
>>
>> When I annotate with students I never force them to give up rights to
>> their work or publish openly. In fact I still allow print and paper
>> annotation because I feel like I do not have a right to dictate what
>> kind
>> of external storage device to use.
>>
>>
>>
>> I firmly believe students should own their data. Too often the
>> perezhivanie surrounding online learning strips students of power.
>> Rights
>> to the content gone and often materials inaccessible as soon as class
>> finishes. It can get worse and soon universities are drawing
>> correlations
>> between meal points spent and student performance.
>>
>>
>>
>> The funds of knowledge and funds of identity outside of formal learning
>> environments
>>
>>
>>
>> This is what scares me more than anything in child development right
>> now.
>> "personality and knowledge are now actively constructed" (Blunden, p. 2)
>> in environments that are simultaneously designed to take advantage of
>> brain
>> chemistry while controlling the flow of social peer interactions.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Funds of Identity children draw upon are algorithmically determined
>> by
>> corporate interest, mob mentality and millions of dollars into never
>> published brain, computer, and human interaction research.
>>
>>
>>
>> Who you talk to? Facebook feed. Chasing likes and clicks? Instagram
>> envy.
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe we need frank conversations about our avatars as they are just
>> networked funds in the centralized bank of facebook (as in Facebook,
>> What's
>> App, Instagram, Occulus).
>>
>>
>>
>> This is why I believe we need to teach our children early on about
>> carving
>> out their own corner of the web. What is the point of being able to draw
>> on
>> funds of identity if somebody else owns the bank?
>>
>>
>>
>> We need to discuss with children that all the research shows
>> notifications
>> and social media often make more people sad than happy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Most importantly, and a lesson I too often ignore, we need to model good
>> digital hygiene. Remove most if not all notifications from your phone.
>> Be
>> picky about social media apps.Get your own website. Syndicate from your
>> place out on to the web.
>>
>>
>>
>> To circle back to the article that is the tough part of perezhivaniyaha
>> in
>> school is it is a place where funds of identity are developed yet the
>> processing of social experiences occurs through rapid APIs and machine
>> learning.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus I believe as educators we have a responsibility to our students and
>> their avatars.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Moisès Esteban Guitart
Dpt de psicologia
Institut de Recerca Educativa
Facultat d'Educació i Psicologia
Universitat de Girona

http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca/
http://psicologia.udg.edu/PTCEDH/presentation.asp
https://scholar.google.es/citations?user=cpA9UZEAAAAJ&hl=en