Dear everybody-
I want to share our discussion with Barbara Rogoff (with her permission)
that can be interesting for you. It consists of two attached message: the
first message is Barbara's response to my original message that I posted on
xmca some time ago and the second message is my reply to Barbara's reply.
What do you think?
Eugene
attached mail follows:
Hi Eugene,
Here is the message that I sent you originally, responding to your comments,
which you can post.
Barbara
_____
Hi Eugene,
Thanks for sending this on to me and to Kris.
Your ruminations are interesting, even though I think many of them are more
about what you think than about what we wrote (especially the part that was
written without reading what we wrote!).
I tried to read what you wrote while ignoring the attributions to us, which
in some parts are not based on our writing but just interesting reactions to
a few words that you have some strong feelings about.
The thing that I want to comment on is your characterization of culture. I
agree that cultural practices and cultural identities need to be understood
as OFTEN being created at the 'boundaries' between groups of people.
However, I question the acceptance of 'inside' and 'outside' and
'boundaries' that seem to be built into your definition of culture. In the
Bakhtin quote you give, "One must not, however, imagine the realm of culture
as some sort of spatial whole, having boundaries but also having internal
territory. " I question the spatial metaphor more deeply -- I question the
boundaries as well as the internal/external assumptions.
The spatial metaphor for culture seems to matter for SOME cultural questions
(e.g., issues of cultural identity or exclusion), but not for others. So I
disagree with your statement, "But only those [similarities and
differences] are cultural that produce recursive conflicts between and among
communities recognized as such. Culture is a social construction that is
born out of a conflict." I agree that attention to conflict is important,
but I disagree with the idea that it is definitional.
In other words, I disagree that conflict is what makes a practice cultural.
Suppose that everyone in the world used the arabic number system. For me,
it would still be a cultural practice. Or consider that almost everyone in
the world uses some form of language conventions to communicate -- I think
of the use of language conventions to be cultural practice. Insisting that
only conflictual stuff is cultural would throw away a huge part of human
cultural practices.
In addition, I do not think that cultural practices are limited to practices
that are recognized as cultural. Much of what people do is very tacit. In
my view, tacit practices of a community may be the most durable and deep
cultural practices, ones that we are not even aware we are doing or that
others are doing (or not doing).
It may be that your use of "culture" as a noun is part of the difference in
our meanings. I usually refer to 'cultural practices' or 'cultural
traditions' or 'cultural communities', using the concept of culture as a
modifier, not a noun. When I'm talking about groups of people I try to
avoid referring to them as "a culture" and instead as a 'cultural
community'. [And I explicitly question boundary-setting as the default
approach to understanding communities, in Chapter 3 of my new book.] And I
also don't use the term 'culture' to mean the collection of ideas/ways of a
group (e.g., "It is part of my 'culture' to value x,y,z").
So anyway, those are some reactions to what you wrote.
Barbara
Dear Steve and everybody-
I'm very-very sorry of not replying to you, Steve. We have some technical
emergency at UD and I try to help my colleagues to handle it. I thought that
I couldn't reply over xmca because I did not read Barbara's article yet. I
obviously couldn't discuss an article that I did not read. I was provoked by
a quote out of its context. It was "inappropriate" but I'm glad that I did
that because this "inappropriate act" threw me into interesting reading and
discussion :-)
I went on AERA website and read the article:
<http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/pdf/vol32_05/AERA320505.pdf> Cultural Ways of
Learning: Individual Traits or Repertoires of Practice
Kris D. Gutiérrez and Barbara Rogoff
I like the paper a lot! I agree that multicultural teacher education very
often promotes a view willingly or unwillingly that people are containers of
their cultures. I think it is very important to reveal practices beyond
cultural patterns. Kris and Barbara are right on targets about that. This is
not easy to do. Just consider well-documented cultural patterns of talking
and writing and think of what practices may be behind of these patterns. For
example, why is Russian writing is so contextual and "parenthetic" in
comparison with Anglo? What are communal practices behind that?
I also find the authors' call to move from categorical, factor-like,
membership to participatory descriptors in characterizing participants of
research or practice very helpful. This may help to address a problem of
elusiveness of such notions as "middle class" (or "French Canadian") -
everybody uses these notions but nobody can give their definition that can
generate a consensus.
Now, I'd like to take several issues with the article. I'm not sure that the
authors would disagree with my issues but let's them reply.
1. From reading the article, I got an impression that the authors define
"culture" as dynamic patterns of people's "doing things" rooted in communal
practices. If my impression is correct, I have a problem with this
definition because it is not sufficiently relational and dialogical for me.
Following Bakhtin, I see culture as a certain conflict (dramatic event). I
agree with Bakhtin that culture does not have internal territory. I his own
words,
"One must not, however, imagine the realm of culture as some sort of spatial
whole, having boundaries but also having internal territory. The realm of
culture has no internal territory: It is entirely distributed along the
boundaries, boundaries pass everywhere, through its every aspect, the
systematic unity of culture extends into the very atoms of cultural life, it
reflects like the sun in each drop of that life. Every cultural act lives
essentially on the boundaries: in this is its seriousness and its
significance; abstracted from boundaries, it loses its soil, it becomes
empty, arrogant, it disintegrates and dies" (Bakhtin & Emerson, 1999, p.
301).
According to this dialogic framework, culture is born out of boundary
conflicts and has to be described as such. Notice that all specific examples
that Kris and Barbara use in article are coming from such conflicts.
However, I did not find conceptualizing the conflicts in the article
(because of a lack of space?) that make the cultures born expect pointing
out that some people (educators?) view cultural differences as deficits and
thus make an epistemological mistake. It is not an epistemological mistake
but a certain manifestation of a conflict giving birth cultures.
2. Bateson defined information as "difference that makes a difference". One
difference, such as difference in patterns of doing things, is not enough.
There are zillions and zillions similarities and differences in ways how
people do things. But only those are cultural that produce recursive
conflicts between and among communities recognized as such. Culture is a
social construction that is born out of a conflict. For example, until
people in US started moving away from me when I was talking with them
causing our mutual discomfort and a certain degree of conflict and
hostility, the communicative distance that I participated back in the USSR
was not cultural. My colleague and I developed this culture-in-action
approach in the following article accessible via Internet:
Matusov, E., Pleasants, H., & Smith, M. (2003). Dialogic framework for
cultural psychology: Culture-in-action and culturally sensitive guidance.
Review Interdisciplinary Journal on Human Development, Culture and
Education, 4(1), Available online:
<http://cepaosreview.tripod.com/Matusov.html>
http://cepaosreview.tripod.com/Matusov.html
3. Overgeneralization is a birth mark of social construction nature of
culture. We can't avoid it by self-policing our language and thoughts
(although it can have some limited help) but we can manage it through a
dialogue with "culturally constructed" others involving in the
culture-generated conflict with us.
This comment is to response to Kris and Barbara's statement,
"To avoid making overly general statements based on research,
it helps to speak of the findings in the past tense-"The
children did such and such"-rather than the continuing
present-"Children do such and such" (Rogoff, 2003). Using
the past tense marks the findings as statements of what was
observed rather than too quickly assuming a timeless truth to
what is always a situated observation. Summary statements
that refer to activities or situations in which observations were
made are likely to help avoid generalizing too quickly about
populations. Only when there is a sufficient body of research
with different people under varying circumstances would
more general statements be justified." (p. 23)
I think that there is a limit of how much we can preemptively manage
overgeneralizations. We should trust in others to correct us. In this
regard, I like much more their 4th point with its emphasis on multiple
points of understanding,
"To avoid overgeneralizing, statements based on single observations
should be made very cautiously, limiting generalization
of simple observations of test performance or behavior
under restricted circumstances beyond the situations observed.
The aim is to ground observations across multiple settings
and communities and to assume various vantage points
to understand the complexity of human activity. The intent,
especially in regard to poor children and children of color,
would be to identify a course of action or assistance that
would help ensure student learning, rather than to define who
a child is or that child's future potential (Berlin, 2002)." (p.23)
4. The parties involved in culture-generating conflicts are often not equal
(this was not addressed much in the article). The surplus of power
translates into surplus of cultural discourse. Deficit approach is not an
innocent epistemological mistake but an act of power that can be go beyond
good intentions of involved individuals. For example, all our preservice
teachers want minority children to succeed in school. However, after heated
debates in our multicultural classes, many students become to participate in
and appreciate the discourse of cultural differences as rooted in communal
practices. They become recognize that, let's say, Ebonics is not "incorrect
form of English" as they thought before but rather another ways of talking
rooted in some other practices. They are interested in practices and history
of why Ebonics (and Standard Spanish and Standard Russian) evolved in a way
allowing double negation while "the Standard English" was not. However, as
teachers they more worry about the fact that if kids are not proficient in
"the Standard English", they would be handicapped in their future. My
students agree that African-American kids using Ebonics are not naturally or
culturally deficient but my students see clearly that these AA kids are
institutionally and politically deficient. It is OK for members of a
dominant community with dominant hegemonic practices not to study language
and practices of minority communities but it is NOT OK for members of a
disenfranchised community not to study language and practices of the
dominant community. Our students raise their voice about this injustice that
they started noticing for the first time. They asking, "How come school so
congruent with our home culture and not with home culture of minority
kids?!"
Our students become understanding the "double bind" that many minority
children are involved: success in school and other mainstream institutions
often means betrayal of their home communities, practices, and ways of
talking while loyalty to local communities often means institutional
failure. Through this understanding they also become engaged in their own
"professional double bind": by focusing on how to provide minority kids
access to mainstream institutes they perpetuate the existing unfairness and
inequality and facilitate disrespect and betrayal of non-dominant cultures.
They realize that unless mainstream institutes do not accept Ebonics as
"appropriate way of talking" (as, let's say, music industry recently did)
Ebonics is a deficit and handicap for the kids' access to many mainstream
institutes (but not music industry anymore). The white middle class
preservice teachers start feeling powerless and paralyzed (welcome to the
club!)
5. Finally, I want to comment our "famous" quote about dexterity and
appropriateness :-)
"By "linguistic and cultural-historical repertoires," we mean the
ways of engaging in activities stemming from observing and otherwise
participating in cultural practices. Individuals' background
experiences, together with their interests, may prepare them for
knowing how to engage in particular forms of language and literacy
activities, play their part in testing formats, resolve interpersonal
problems according to specific community-organized
approaches, and so forth.
An important feature of focusing on
repertoires is encouraging people to develop dexterity in determining
which approach from their repertoire is appropriate
under which circumstances (Rogoff, 2003)." (p. 22)
Again, for me cultural repertoires are cultural only when they are
conflictual and on boundaries. The same is true about dexterity and
appropriateness.
In gust, I like a lot Kris and Barbara's move from "individual traits" to
"repertoires of practices" but I think it is not far enough. I'd like to
see "practice repertoires in conflict and dialogue" or something like thatŠ
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Gabosch [mailto:bebop101@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:21 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: enculturation, ethnemes, pedagogy, research
> Hi Eugene,
> Oops, I replied to your recent xmca post to me but sent it to your
personal
> e-mail, not xmca. When time permits, I would like to understand better
> your critique of Kris and Barbara's notion of "appropriateness" in the
> context of cultural ways of meaning, repertoires, dexterity, etc. Here is
> what I wrote the other day to egg on this discussion ...
> ************************************
> Hi Eugene,
> Continuing on repertoires and appropriateness ...
> you say:
> >... being Barbara's students I'm a bit familiar with her use of the
> >term "appropriate" (and "appropriation"). And I have still a problem
with
> >that.
> This is very interesting to me, Eugene. I really appreciate you helping
me
> understand these issues.
> You continue about Kris and Barbara:
> >... in my view, they objectivize and finalize appropriateness
> >(and competence) as a state rather than a boundary and a struggle.
> This would imply a one-sided view on the part of these authors, who
perhaps
> sees the *static* (the conforming) dimensions as the norm, while
> incorrectly understating and diminishing the *dynamic* (the challenging)
> dimensions of appropriateness and competence.
> but then you say:
> >Ontologically, "appropriateness" (and competence) exists only as a
problem
> >of disrupting power relations of "we" recognized as such through
> >oppositional solidarity.
> Now, I would argue (hopefully, in an "appropriate" way! :-) ) that
*both*
> dimensions - the conformist and the oppositional - of appropriateness and
> competency are needed to get the entire dynamic picture. Don't you
> agree? We need to think in terms of both states and also struggles; of
> conformity and also challenge; of the static and also the dynamic. To be
> sure, everything is in constant conflict and change - this is an
> ontological truth I would certainly subscribe to - but not at the same
rate
> or in the same way. Sometimes the appropriate thing to do is
> conform. Other times, to be disruptive and
> oppositional. "Appropriateness" in this view is relative and situational,
> and based on the intents and interests of the individual at the time.
> My reading of Barbara and Kris is they are including this full range of
> conforming as well as oppositional behaviors as potential repertoires for
> people - they are being relativist, not absolutist, and being concrete and
> specific, not overgeneral and abstract, about what repertoires are
> "appropriate." I would see this as another aspect of their notion of
> dexterity. Or am I reading something into their writing that is not
there?
> And you say
> >Moreover, I think that it is at best an illusion or
> >at worse coercion to claim that appropriateness (and competence)
pre-exists
> >the conflict I refer to.
> If I am reading this idea right, I agree. Determining in advance what is
> appropriate would indeed be illusive and even coercive. Researcher's and
> teachers using such pre-conceived notions of what is appropriate would be
> using abstract criteria, not concrete analysis, to understand any given
> situation.
> I certainly agree that every situation must be taken concretely, and only
> in that way can we understand why and how individuals make their
particular
> moves. Acting disruptively, for example, may very well be in a person's
> self-perceived interests, and could be understood as appropriate and
competent.
> Eugene, your next point is especially thought-provoking:
> >Bruno Latour wrote about science-in-action (in my words, I do not have
the
> >book with me for the exact quote) "machine works when relevant people
are
> >convinced that it works". I would paraphrase him as "children
competently
> >employ a variety of repertoires in the numerous contexts they deal with
WHEN
> >relevant (and powerful) adults are convinced that they do so."
> However, I don't understand your point! Please explain ...
> You continue:
> >For me the
> >most interesting and thought provoking part of Barbara's statement is at
its
> >beginning "we would then be able to characterize a child's..." as an
> >opposition of powerful "we" to less powerful "child" who supposed to be
> >"characterized" ("finalized" in Bakhtin's term) for a certain, probably
> >institutional, reason.
> Well, yes, Barbara and Kris here are speaking of an important "we" -
> social science researchers, who generally are employed by institutions,
and
> who busy themselves making characterizations about everything, and
children
> are of course a major topic. But characterization is just one of the
> facets of social science, is it not?
> However, I definitely need to read the article to
> >move any further.
> I understand. Hopefully we will be able to continue this discussion. I
> find many of the themes in the Carol Lee series very valuable to think and
> talk about. I really appreciate your remarks.
> What do you think?
> - Steve
attached mail follows:
Hi Barbara and Kris-
Sorry for the delay. I was away and when I came back I found several hundred
messages in my mailbox - it took me time to clean it :-(
Thanks for your reply.
_____
From: Barbara Rogoff [mailto:brogoff@ucsc.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:31 PM
To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
Cc: krisgu@ucla.edu
Subject: RE: enculturation, ethnemes, pedagogy, research
Hi Eugene,
Thanks for sending this on to me and to Kris.
Your ruminations are interesting, even though I think many of them are more
about what you think than about what we wrote (especially the part that was
written without reading what we wrote!).
I tried to read what you wrote while ignoring the attributions to us, which
in some parts are not based on our writing but just interesting reactions to
a few words that you have some strong feelings about.
Yeah, the quote from your article reverberated with some local discussions.
The thing that I want to comment on is your characterization of culture. I
agree that cultural practices and cultural identities need to be understood
as OFTEN being created at the 'boundaries' between groups of people.
However, I question the acceptance of 'inside' and 'outside' and
'boundaries' that seem to be built into your definition of culture. In the
Bakhtin quote you give, "One must not, however, imagine the realm of culture
as some sort of spatial whole, having boundaries but also having internal
territory. " I question the spatial metaphor more deeply -- I question the
boundaries as well as the internal/external assumptions.
The spatial metaphor for culture seems to matter for SOME cultural questions
(e.g., issues of cultural identity or exclusion), but not for others. So I
disagree with your statement, "But only those [similarities and
differences] are cultural that produce recursive conflicts between and among
communities recognized as such. Culture is a social construction that is
born out of a conflict." I agree that attention to conflict is important,
but I disagree with the idea that it is definitional.
Interesting. Let's explore it. Can you give an example of non-conflictual
event defining culture? In my article I cited, I try to borrow Latour's
two-faced Janus to talk about culture-in-action and ready-made culture.
In other words, I disagree that conflict is what makes a practice cultural.
That is not my point. You seem to talk here about culture as "ready-made
culture" ("culture" that is already known).
Suppose that everyone in the world used the arabic number system. For me,
it would still be a cultural practice.
You can talk about "Arabic number system" only on the boundary and in a
conflict with "non-Arabic number system". It is these processes of active
discord and translation between the systems that create "the Arabic number
system" as a cultural practice. The problem for me is that we often speak
about oppositional and dialogical relations by essentalizing one side making
the other(s) invisible. There cannot be not such a thing as "the Arabic
number system" without other number systems.,,
Or consider that almost everyone in the world uses some form of language
conventions to communicate -- I think of the use of language conventions to
be cultural practice. Insisting that only conflictual stuff is cultural
would throw away a huge part of human cultural practices.
Ditto.
In addition, I do not think that cultural practices are limited to practices
that are recognized as cultural. Much of what people do is very tacit. In
my view, tacit practices of a community may be the most durable and deep
cultural practices, ones that we are not even aware we are doing or that
others are doing (or not doing).
I think there are tacit conflicts pregnant to be recognized as cultural
afterwards.
It may be that your use of "culture" as a noun is part of the difference in
our meanings. I usually refer to 'cultural practices' or 'cultural
traditions' or 'cultural communities', using the concept of culture as a
modifier, not a noun. When I'm talking about groups of people I try to
avoid referring to them as "a culture" and instead as a 'cultural
community'. [And I explicitly question boundary-setting as the default
approach to understanding communities, in Chapter 3 of my new book.] And I
also don't use the term 'culture' to mean the collection of ideas/ways of a
group (e.g., "It is part of my 'culture' to value x,y,z").
I do not think that this is a problem of noun. I think we agree about
viewing culture as a process but probably disagree about viewing culture as
a dialogic relation and a social construction.
So anyway, those are some reactions to what you wrote.
Thanks a lot!
What do you think about my reaction to your reaction :-)?
Take care,
Eugene
PS Congratulation with Cathy's defense!
PSS Barbara, do you feel comfortable for me to share your reply with xmca
community or should we keep our discussion private? I think many xmca-ers
would be interested.
Barbara
Dear Steve and everybody-
I'm very-very sorry of not replying to you, Steve. We have some technical
emergency at UD and I try to help my colleagues to handle it. I thought that
I couldn't reply over xmca because I did not read Barbara's article yet. I
obviously couldn't discuss an article that I did not read. I was provoked by
a quote out of its context. It was "inappropriate" but I'm glad that I did
that because this "inappropriate act" threw me into interesting reading and
discussion :-)
I went on AERA website and read the article:
<http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/pdf/vol32_05/AERA320505.pdf> Cultural Ways of
Learning: Individual Traits or Repertoires of Practice
Kris D. Gutiérrez and Barbara Rogoff
I like the paper a lot! I agree that multicultural teacher education very
often promotes a view willingly or unwillingly that people are containers of
their cultures. I think it is very important to reveal practices beyond
cultural patterns. Kris and Barbara are right on targets about that. This is
not easy to do. Just consider well-documented cultural patterns of talking
and writing and think of what practices may be behind of these patterns. For
example, why is Russian writing is so contextual and "parenthetic" in
comparison with Anglo? What are communal practices behind that?
I also find the authors' call to move from categorical, factor-like,
membership to participatory descriptors in characterizing participants of
research or practice very helpful. This may help to address a problem of
elusiveness of such notions as "middle class" (or "French Canadian") -
everybody uses these notions but nobody can give their definition that can
generate a consensus.
Now, I'd like to take several issues with the article. I'm not sure that the
authors would disagree with my issues but let's them reply.
1. From reading the article, I got an impression that the authors define
"culture" as dynamic patterns of people's "doing things" rooted in communal
practices. If my impression is correct, I have a problem with this
definition because it is not sufficiently relational and dialogical for me.
Following Bakhtin, I see culture as a certain conflict (dramatic event). I
agree with Bakhtin that culture does not have internal territory. I his own
words,
"One must not, however, imagine the realm of culture as some sort of spatial
whole, having boundaries but also having internal territory. The realm of
culture has no internal territory: It is entirely distributed along the
boundaries, boundaries pass everywhere, through its every aspect, the
systematic unity of culture extends into the very atoms of cultural life, it
reflects like the sun in each drop of that life. Every cultural act lives
essentially on the boundaries: in this is its seriousness and its
significance; abstracted from boundaries, it loses its soil, it becomes
empty, arrogant, it disintegrates and dies" (Bakhtin & Emerson, 1999, p.
301).
According to this dialogic framework, culture is born out of boundary
conflicts and has to be described as such. Notice that all specific examples
that Kris and Barbara use in article are coming from such conflicts.
However, I did not find conceptualizing the conflicts in the article
(because of a lack of space?) that make the cultures born expect pointing
out that some people (educators?) view cultural differences as deficits and
thus make an epistemological mistake. It is not an epistemological mistake
but a certain manifestation of a conflict giving birth cultures.
2. Bateson defined information as "difference that makes a difference". One
difference, such as difference in patterns of doing things, is not enough.
There are zillions and zillions similarities and differences in ways how
people do things. But only those are cultural that produce recursive
conflicts between and among communities recognized as such. Culture is a
social construction that is born out of a conflict. For example, until
people in US started moving away from me when I was talking with them
causing our mutual discomfort and a certain degree of conflict and
hostility, the communicative distance that I participated back in the USSR
was not cultural. My colleague and I developed this culture-in-action
approach in the following article accessible via Internet:
Matusov, E., Pleasants, H., & Smith, M. (2003). Dialogic framework for
cultural psychology: Culture-in-action and culturally sensitive guidance.
Review Interdisciplinary Journal on Human Development, Culture and
Education, 4(1), Available online:
http://cepaosreview.tripod.com/Matusov.html
3. Overgeneralization is a birth mark of social construction nature of
culture. We can't avoid it by self-policing our language and thoughts
(although it can have some limited help) but we can manage it through a
dialogue with "culturally constructed" others involving in the
culture-generated conflict with us.
This comment is to response to Kris and Barbara's statement,
"To avoid making overly general statements based on research,
it helps to speak of the findings in the past tense-"The
children did such and such"-rather than the continuing
present-"Children do such and such" (Rogoff, 2003). Using
the past tense marks the findings as statements of what was
observed rather than too quickly assuming a timeless truth to
what is always a situated observation. Summary statements
that refer to activities or situations in which observations were
made are likely to help avoid generalizing too quickly about
populations. Only when there is a sufficient body of research
with different people under varying circumstances would
more general statements be justified." (p. 23)
I think that there is a limit of how much we can preemptively manage
overgeneralizations. We should trust in others to correct us. In this
regard, I like much more their 4th point with its emphasis on multiple
points of understanding,
"To avoid overgeneralizing, statements based on single observations
should be made very cautiously, limiting generalization
of simple observations of test performance or behavior
under restricted circumstances beyond the situations observed.
The aim is to ground observations across multiple settings
and communities and to assume various vantage points
to understand the complexity of human activity. The intent,
especially in regard to poor children and children of color,
would be to identify a course of action or assistance that
would help ensure student learning, rather than to define who
a child is or that child's future potential (Berlin, 2002)." (p.23)
4. The parties involved in culture-generating conflicts are often not equal
(this was not addressed much in the article). The surplus of power
translates into surplus of cultural discourse. Deficit approach is not an
innocent epistemological mistake but an act of power that can be go beyond
good intentions of involved individuals. For example, all our preservice
teachers want minority children to succeed in school. However, after heated
debates in our multicultural classes, many students become to participate in
and appreciate the discourse of cultural differences as rooted in communal
practices. They become recognize that, let's say, Ebonics is not "incorrect
form of English" as they thought before but rather another ways of talking
rooted in some other practices. They are interested in practices and history
of why Ebonics (and Standard Spanish and Standard Russian) evolved in a way
allowing double negation while "the Standard English" was not. However, as
teachers they more worry about the fact that if kids are not proficient in
"the Standard English", they would be handicapped in their future. My
students agree that African-American kids using Ebonics are not naturally or
culturally deficient but my students see clearly that these AA kids are
institutionally and politically deficient. It is OK for members of a
dominant community with dominant hegemonic practices not to study language
and practices of minority communities but it is NOT OK for members of a
disenfranchised community not to study language and practices of the
dominant community. Our students raise their voice about this injustice that
they started noticing for the first time. They asking, "How come school so
congruent with our home culture and not with home culture of minority
kids?!"
Our students become understanding the "double bind" that many minority
children are involved: success in school and other mainstream institutions
often means betrayal of their home communities, practices, and ways of
talking while loyalty to local communities often means institutional
failure. Through this understanding they also become engaged in their own
"professional double bind": by focusing on how to provide minority kids
access to mainstream institutes they perpetuate the existing unfairness and
inequality and facilitate disrespect and betrayal of non-dominant cultures.
They realize that unless mainstream institutes do not accept Ebonics as
"appropriate way of talking" (as, let's say, music industry recently did)
Ebonics is a deficit and handicap for the kids' access to many mainstream
institutes (but not music industry anymore). The white middle class
preservice teachers start feeling powerless and paralyzed (welcome to the
club!)
5. Finally, I want to comment our "famous" quote about dexterity and
appropriateness :-)
"By "linguistic and cultural-historical repertoires," we mean the
ways of engaging in activities stemming from observing and otherwise
participating in cultural practices. Individuals' background
experiences, together with their interests, may prepare them for
knowing how to engage in particular forms of language and literacy
activities, play their part in testing formats, resolve interpersonal
problems according to specific community-organized
approaches, and so forth.
An important feature of focusing on
repertoires is encouraging people to develop dexterity in determining
which approach from their repertoire is appropriate
under which circumstances (Rogoff, 2003)." (p. 22)
Again, for me cultural repertoires are cultural only when they are
conflictual and on boundaries. The same is true about dexterity and
appropriateness.
In gust, I like a lot Kris and Barbara's move from "individual traits" to
"repertoires of practices" but I think it is not far enough. I'd like to
see "practice repertoires in conflict and dialogue" or something like that©
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Gabosch [mailto:bebop101@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:21 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: enculturation, ethnemes, pedagogy, research
>
> Hi Eugene,
>
> Oops, I replied to your recent xmca post to me but sent it to your
personal
> e-mail, not xmca. When time permits, I would like to understand better
> your critique of Kris and Barbara's notion of "appropriateness" in the
> context of cultural ways of meaning, repertoires, dexterity, etc. Here is
> what I wrote the other day to egg on this discussion ...
>
> ************************************
>
>
> Hi Eugene,
>
> Continuing on repertoires and appropriateness ...
>
> you say:
> >... being Barbara's students I'm a bit familiar with her use of the
> >term "appropriate" (and "appropriation"). And I have still a problem
with
> >that.
>
> This is very interesting to me, Eugene. I really appreciate you helping
me
> understand these issues.
>
> You continue about Kris and Barbara:
> >... in my view, they objectivize and finalize appropriateness
> >(and competence) as a state rather than a boundary and a struggle.
>
> This would imply a one-sided view on the part of these authors, who
perhaps
> sees the *static* (the conforming) dimensions as the norm, while
> incorrectly understating and diminishing the *dynamic* (the challenging)
> dimensions of appropriateness and competence.
>
>
> but then you say:
> >Ontologically, "appropriateness" (and competence) exists only as a
problem
> >of disrupting power relations of "we" recognized as such through
> >oppositional solidarity.
>
> Now, I would argue (hopefully, in an "appropriate" way! :-) ) that
*both*
> dimensions - the conformist and the oppositional - of appropriateness and
> competency are needed to get the entire dynamic picture. Don't you
> agree? We need to think in terms of both states and also struggles; of
> conformity and also challenge; of the static and also the dynamic. To be
> sure, everything is in constant conflict and change - this is an
> ontological truth I would certainly subscribe to - but not at the same
rate
> or in the same way. Sometimes the appropriate thing to do is
> conform. Other times, to be disruptive and
> oppositional. "Appropriateness" in this view is relative and situational,
> and based on the intents and interests of the individual at the time.
>
> My reading of Barbara and Kris is they are including this full range of
> conforming as well as oppositional behaviors as potential repertoires for
> people - they are being relativist, not absolutist, and being concrete and
> specific, not overgeneral and abstract, about what repertoires are
> "appropriate." I would see this as another aspect of their notion of
> dexterity. Or am I reading something into their writing that is not
there?
>
> And you say
> >Moreover, I think that it is at best an illusion or
> >at worse coercion to claim that appropriateness (and competence)
pre-exists
> >the conflict I refer to.
>
> If I am reading this idea right, I agree. Determining in advance what is
> appropriate would indeed be illusive and even coercive. Researcher's and
> teachers using such pre-conceived notions of what is appropriate would be
> using abstract criteria, not concrete analysis, to understand any given
> situation.
>
> I certainly agree that every situation must be taken concretely, and only
> in that way can we understand why and how individuals make their
particular
> moves. Acting disruptively, for example, may very well be in a person's
> self-perceived interests, and could be understood as appropriate and
competent.
>
>
> Eugene, your next point is especially thought-provoking:
> >
> >Bruno Latour wrote about science-in-action (in my words, I do not have
the
> >book with me for the exact quote) "machine works when relevant people
are
> >convinced that it works". I would paraphrase him as "children
competently
> >employ a variety of repertoires in the numerous contexts they deal with
WHEN
> >relevant (and powerful) adults are convinced that they do so."
>
> However, I don't understand your point! Please explain ...
>
> You continue:
> >For me the
> >most interesting and thought provoking part of Barbara's statement is at
its
> >beginning "we would then be able to characterize a child's..." as an
> >opposition of powerful "we" to less powerful "child" who supposed to be
> >"characterized" ("finalized" in Bakhtin's term) for a certain, probably
> >institutional, reason.
>
> Well, yes, Barbara and Kris here are speaking of an important "we" -
> social science researchers, who generally are employed by institutions,
and
> who busy themselves making characterizations about everything, and
children
> are of course a major topic. But characterization is just one of the
> facets of social science, is it not?
>
>
> However, I definitely need to read the article to
> >move any further.
>
> I understand. Hopefully we will be able to continue this discussion. I
> find many of the themes in the Carol Lee series very valuable to think and
> talk about. I really appreciate your remarks.
>
> What do you think?
>
> - Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:11 PST